# If Canon wants to kill off Nikon/Sony/Pentax drop APS-C and Go APS-H



## Bosman (Jul 16, 2012)

The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 17, 2012)

Dropping users with the 10's of millions of EF-S lenses would more likely kill Canon. 
The APS-C / EF-s market makes up most of Canon's DSLR sales, and they are eating Nikon and Sony's lunch.
I love APS-H, but I do not see Canon killing off themselves purposely. If low cost FF cameras are actually coming out, our APS-H bodies may be the last of a 20 year run. (My Kodak DCS 460 from 1995).
APS-H was originally made due to lithography limitations, it was te largest senso size that could be made with one pass. The restriction is lifted now, and 12 inch wafers are used instead of 8 in wafers to give better yield.
There really are no compelling reasons to keep churning them out.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 17, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.



Amen Brother! [puts on robe and dances around with hands in air]


----------



## Bosman (Jul 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dropping users with the 10's of millions of EF-S lenses would more likely kill Canon.
> The APS-C / EF-s market makes up most of Canon's DSLR sales, and they are eating Nikon and Sony's lunch.
> I love APS-H, but I do not see Canon killing off themselves purposely. If low cost FF cameras are actually coming out, our APS-H bodies may be the last of a 20 year run. (My Kodak DCS 460 from 1995).
> APS-H was originally made due to lithography limitations, it was te largest senso size that could be made with one pass. The restriction is lifted now, and 12 inch wafers are used instead of 8 in wafers to give better yield.
> There really are no compelling reasons to keep churning them out.


I thought i offered compelling reasons. Lol


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 17, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Dropping users with the 10's of millions of EF-S lenses would more likely kill Canon.
> ...


Maybe for you and me, but if you have a 10-22mm , 17-85mm ef-s, or 15-85mm ef-s, you might see it differently, In fact, now that I think about it, I do have a 15-85mm ef-s for my 7D. i'm not worried though, their will be a adapter for the new Canon mirrorless. (Now, there was a chance to use APS-H, but likely missed)


----------



## Bosman (Jul 17, 2012)

I think it comes down to production costs. The Aps-h gets far fewer sensors per sensor wafer made than the aps-c, I wonder how that plays out in the 12in size sensor wafers. And yes they could have done a service by throwing that in a mirrorless or the G1X.
I guess when Canon went to FF those same concerns about lenses applied but then theres always the double digit cameras to use with those just as it was before the 7d.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 17, 2012)

agreed mirrorless was the perfect platform to bring APS-H back and it completely dominate

BALL= DROPPED


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Dropping users with the 10's of millions of EF-S lenses would more likely kill Canon.
> ...



You were wrong. You didn't.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.



Agreed. It would rape aps-c. Now if canon could retro-fit EF-S to aps-h... :


----------



## Bosman (Jul 17, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


Thanks for your input.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2012)

Bosman said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



You are welcome. Sorry if I offended you, but this topic has been beaten to death and nothing new has been added by this thread. Mt. Spokane's response said it all.

You are a wedding photographer. If you feel strongly about APS-H, then explain how it would be superior for your profession to the 5DIII which Canon targeted specifically to wedding photographers (among others). If you can build a compelling case as to why APS-H would give you something you can't get and need with the 5DIII, then that would add to the conversation.


----------



## poias (Jul 18, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.



With Canon's archaic sensor tech, I really doubt they would want to fiddle with sensor sizes. They even had to get rid of the APS-H sensor. Canon can compete by offering other value added features such as frame rates, JPG engines, touch screens, 4K video, 60 to 120p, rate buttons, print buttons, email buttons, and even Facebook browsing.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 18, 2012)

Bosman said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



insightfull as ever too i see


----------



## distant.star (Jul 18, 2012)

.

Careful you don't fall off the barstool there, Sparky.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 18, 2012)

unfocused said:


> You are a wedding photographer. If you feel strongly about APS-H, then explain how it would be superior for your profession to the 5DIII which Canon targeted specifically to wedding photographers (among others). If you can build a compelling case as to why APS-H would give you something you can't get and need with the 5DIII, then that would add to the conversation.



An APS-H body is a great complementary body to shoot with full frame
I would much rather shoot a 16-35 f2.8L II on an APS-H body (20mm to 46mm) than the current 24-70 on full frame coupled with a full frame body and 85 f1.4 you can shoot pretty much everything
I cant wait to see the new 24-70 to see if it can make this reason for using APS-H at weddings redundant
even though sometimes i find the 24mm wide end a little tight however now I have the 20mm voigtlander pancake this can be quite easily solved for those select shots where I want to go to 20mm

IMO I would not pay someone to shoot my wedding with an APS-C camera


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > You are a wedding photographer. If you feel strongly about APS-H, then explain how it would be superior for your profession to the 5DIII which Canon targeted specifically to wedding photographers (among others). If you can build a compelling case as to why APS-H would give you something you can't get and need with the 5DIII, then that would add to the conversation.
> ...



My 1D Mark IV is fantastic at outdoor track and field. I can take a 300mm lens and put it on and get 390mm. Too far? Unscrew the camera and slap on a 5D Mark III. It's great.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 18, 2012)

If Canon can build a "Entry level FF" for $2000. Canon can build a "APS-H entry level" cheaper than $2000 and smaller. Building APS-H does not mean to abandon the EF_S lenses, as long as APS-H co-exists with APS-C. Just like the FF co-exist with APS-C now. Did any body complain about FF is abandoning EF-S lenses???


----------



## Bosman (Jul 31, 2012)

I apologize if i don't feel the need to pander to Mr Unfocussed's requests for more specific detailed reasons why i feel this is a logical move. However, i will say this. I have been shooting aps-h and FF since 2007. My 24 lives on the 1dm3 and the 50L lives on the 5dm3. I will switch them back and forth at times. I posted and many agree with me and some disagree, However a dissertation for a person who slaps me at every pass is not of interest to me. 
Put an APS-h on a 7dm2 and many will buy the increased resolution as well as newest sensor tech, myself included. No need for a 1dx with that setup.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 31, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I apologize if i don't feel the need to pander to Mr Unfocussed's requests for more specific detailed reasons why i feel this is a logical move. However, i will say this. I have been shooting aps-h and FF since 2007. My 24 lives on the 1dm3 and the 50L lives on the 5dm3. I will switch them back and forth at times. I posted and many agree with me and some disagree, However a dissertation for a person who slaps me at every pass is not of interest to me.
> Put an APS-h on a 7dm2 and many will buy the increased resolution as well as newest sensor tech, myself included. No need for a 1dx with that setup.



I read the original post as suggesting APS-H to go alongside FF not dump APS-C

I think Bosman is correct, 1.3 crop + f/8 + high mps would knock the others for six.

After all the others are using either a 1.5 crop or ff - to get a 1.3 crop with ff IQ has to be a winner


----------



## jrista (Jul 31, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.
> ...



I've never understood this sentiment. There are distinct reasons to choose a given sensor form factor. In the case of APS-C and the 7D, I EXPLICITLY chose it because it was APS-C, which offers a 1.62x crop factor. That offers the benefit of additional reach, when comparing on a megapixel-normal basis (i.e. all 18mp sensors for any given format, the smaller the sensor the greater the reach.) I think FF, APS-H, and APS-C all have their place, and I do not believe Canon is "killing off" APS-H based on their own words. APS-H offers a nice balance between larger sensor area and therefor thinner DOF, without completely eliminating the crop factor and therefor reach benefit. 

I'd love to have an APS-H option again from Canon, however I do not believe that the next 7D will be it...that would affect too many owners who already have EF-S lenses...it would be a more stupid move on Canon's part to break the 7D line by introducing a new sensor type. I could see either a new type of 1D X that uses an APS-H, although given the effort Canon went through to merge the previous 1D/1Ds lines, I imagine a new line would come out...9D? 5Ds? I believe 3 and 4 have superstitious connotations in Japan, so maybe we'll get a 6D out of the mix. Either way...I highly doubt that the 7D's form factor will change, ever...APS-C has a lot of value for those of us who need additional reach...and I would be extremely dismayed if it was changed to APS-H with the next version.

If I had to pick one single thing that would make me buy a 7D II the day it came out was a sensor with better high-ISO DR and greater SNR. I'm not as concerned about low-ISO DR for this type of camera...its geared for action shooting, which generally necessitates higher ISO settings unless you have unbelievably fantastic light. The nasty thing about the 7D is its noise...in two respects. One, noise in background blur areas can be really atrocious...even in the high midtones and low highlights, you still get a lot of noise (which is curious and confusing...shouldn't be that way). Second, fixed pattern noise shows through on a fairly frequent basis, often right up through the midtones. I can take noise in general, but the quality of Canon's noise has gotten pretty bad recently...or perhaps not improved at all over previous sensor designs. Both Nikon-made and Sony-made sensors have offered a better quality of noise than Canon for some time, and I think that could be the single greatest area for improvement in the 7D that Canon can make. 

Reduce noise, and make what noise there is more pleasing, and keep the APS-C...do that, and I'm already a 7D II customer. Add f/8 AF in an APS-C body, and Canon will keep me as a customer for life.


----------



## aznable (Jul 31, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.



so the next 7d mk2 specs

10 fps dual digic 5
aps-h sensor 22 mpix
autofocus from 1dx/5dmk3 improved (focusing with f/8 lenses)
sealed body
price around 2000 usd/1700 eur

pratically a camera better than 1d mark 4 at a fraction of the price...bvery unlikely


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 31, 2012)

What is with the APS-H lust?

* It doesn't work with crop lenses but doesn't match FF lenses (i.e. limited WA options).

* In bright light it's "short" relative to crop bodies for sports.

* In dim light the sensor is noisy relative to FF bodies.

Know what I want to see? A Canon work around or license for the Sony patent that is killing them on noise/DR. Sony sensors convert the analog signal sooner which is why you can push shadow detail so hard. I would much rather see a 7D mkII that's APS-C but with early signal conversion than a 7D mkII that's APS-H.


----------



## Bosman (Jul 31, 2012)

Make it a 6d then.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 1, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> What is with the APS-H lust?
> 
> * It doesn't work with crop lenses but doesn't match FF lenses (i.e. limited WA options).
> 
> ...



I guess you just have to compare the pro sports usage of the 7D vs the 1D4 to understand what is being said here.

I have both the 7D and the 1D4 - the 7D just does not compete. 

For every improvement that is made to APS-C can be reflected in the APS-H and the APS-H will always be better.

The 1D4 is not designed as a low light camera - but is happy to iso6400 - well beyond APS-C. With the 1.3 crop more of the lens is in the sweet spot so the lens perform better than on a ff. 

The 1D4 is not designed as a landscape body - so to say that it doesn't do uwa is a red herring - it delivers the longest reach of all Canon bodies - so what you lose(duh!) at the uwa you more than gain at the long end.

I can only assume that the APS-C supporters have not had the pleasure of using a 1D3/4.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I guess you just have to compare the pro sports usage of the 7D vs the 1D4 to understand what is being said here.
> 
> I have both the 7D and the 1D4 - the 7D just does not compete.
> 
> ...



I don't know why I do this to myself. But, here we go again. 

Brian, as you know, I have never disputed the quality of the 1D4. My issue has always been with the economic viability of the format. Or perhaps more accurately, with what I perceive to be Canon's view of the continued economic viability of the camera. 

I cannot find any indication from Canon that they intend to retain the format in their stills DSLRs. They have, in contrast, taken actions and made statements that lead myself and many others to believe that they have dropped the format. 

My problem with this particular thread was that the OP titled the thread and wrote an initial post that made a very bold claim. A claim that lacked any supporting evidence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and there is certainly no law against starting new threads that rehash the same topic over and over again. This forum has plenty of them. 

But, this is a discussion forum and having made a bold statement, it seemed logical to me that the OP would expect others to challenge his claim. Why start a discussion thread if you don't want to discuss the topic?

Mt Spokane quickly and effectively responded. I seconded that opinion. And, yes I was a bit of a smart ass about it. Feeling a bit badly about that, I decided to expand upon my opinion and challenged the OP to defend his position using some real world examples from his own profession as a wedding photographer (and from his website, he appears to be quite good at his craft). 

The challenge was met with a snide post. Okay. Fair enough. 

Brian, you know I have great respect for the work you do. I have defended your work when others attacked it. I also appreciate Wicked's comments and sense of humor about this whole debate. He adds a nice perspective and does it without being offensive.

If quality alone were the criteria, the APS-H format might be around forever. Unfortunately, companies have to turn a profit and it appears Canon has determined that the APS-H format doesn't currently fit into its business plan. They know their business better than any of us. So, if we are going to dispute their analysis, shouldn't we do so on some basis other than just making unsubstantiated statements? 

The title of this thread is: "If Canon wants to kill off Nikon/Sony/Pentax drop APS-C and go APS-H"

All I am suggesting is that no one has offered the slightest defense of the original premise. 

Now, I realize this isn't your thread so you don't have to defend it. In fact, I give you and Wicked credit, the two of you have always pretty much argued the superiority of the quality of APS-H, without pretending to know the profitability or lack thereof for the format. 

So, I ask just this: somebody make a business case for APS-H, because I haven't heard a valid one yet.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 1, 2012)

Strangely enough I am a ff fan - I have 3 ff bodies with a 1DX on the way. I also have 4 APS-C bodies too.

However my comment is really about the way that APS-H is being dismissed in favour of APS-C. I have read the Canon comments and the way they have been written definitely dont write off APS-H - rather that the 1D4 line is now ff.

If they can move the well established range 1 series (which has been around longer than APS-C) from APS-H to ff at a drop of a hat then there is no reason why they couldn't re-intoduce it

The business case is easy to understand - the 5DIII is currently about £2800 in the UK whereas the 1D4 was about £3400 at the same time. Now by putting the APS-H in a 5DIII body then the price would be no more than the 5DIII (all the other costs would be the same except that the sensor would be cheaper). 

I wouldn't advocate the dumping of APS-C - however it is clear that the future of APS-C is in the smaller cameras, which means that there would be no requirement to develop APS-C to extreme levels. Even a move to APS-C+ (1.5 crop like Nikon) would give a big improvement in performance.

The 1D4 gives very good IQ plus the 1.3 crop and 10fps with good low light performance to iso6400- this is what makes it still a highly desirable body. There is still nothing on the market (including the 1DX) which can match the sports/wildlife all round package.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 1, 2012)

Sorry to rain on everyone's APS-H parade, but in all likelyhood Canon's fabs used to make these sensors have been repurposed to make Super35-sized sensors for the Cinema EOS line (they're very close to the same size). Put another way, future APS-H(ish) sized sensors will only be in cameras with a red "C" on the front.

As Neuro said, they can make FF sensors in one pass now & churn them out in sufficient volume to be competitive. Why would they mess with a smaller niche format viewed as inferior to full-frame by everyone except Canon fans? The 1DIV was inevitably compared to the D3S & D700...

I'm not trying to preach a preference one way or the other (there are technical merits for both, & personally I'd love a small APS-H body), but now that the 1DX & 5D have shown that the technical reasons for APS-H to exist have been surmounted, the realities of marketing & manufacturing dictate that Canon has decided that two DSLR sensor sizes is enough.

& if you think about it, they have four large sensor sizes in production at the moment:


FF
APS-C
Super35
the G1X sensor

That's already two more than any competitor...


----------



## kapanak (Aug 1, 2012)

funkboy said:


> if you think about it, they have four large sensor sizes in production at the moment:
> 
> 
> FF
> ...



Any other competitor (for large sensors), except Sony ... which makes Full Frame, 1.5X APS-C, Micro 4/3rd, 1 inch (RX100), and several different Super35 and Super16 sensors for video. Guess who is the leader in sensor production  ... Oh, and lets not forget the former Kodak digital sensor division (which is still active).


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 1, 2012)

kapanak said:


> Any other competitor (for large sensors), except Sony ... which makes Full Frame, 1.5X APS-C, Micro 4/3rd, 1 inch (RX100), and several different Super35 and Super16 sensors for video. Guess who is the leader in sensor production  ... Oh, and lets not forget the former Kodak digital sensor division (which is still active).



and that´s a part of sony that makes some money.
but not enough as it seems...


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I guess you just have to compare the pro sports usage of the 7D vs the 1D4 to understand what is being said here.



Looking at just the sensor, the 1D4 is a "short" 7D. Sorry, that's how I see it. (And even looking at everything the 7D is 90% of the capability for a fraction of the price.) The question everybody asked when comparing the 1D4 to Nikon's offerings was why isn't it full frame? Canon got the hint.

If you're going to crop the sensor from FF to gain reach, might as well go 1.6x.



> I have both the 7D and the 1D4 - the 7D just does not compete.



Yes it does. The 1D4 gets about one more stop in low light.



> The 1D4 is not designed as a landscape body - so to say that it doesn't do uwa is a red herring - it delivers the longest reach of all Canon bodies



Except for all the 1.6x bodies which have more reach.



> I can only assume that the APS-C supporters have not had the pleasure of using a 1D3/4.



I have, and I would actually pick up a 7D over a 1D3 for most tasks.

APS-H has no place in the market. The closest option will be cinema cameras with Super35. Canon's 1 series sports body will be FF to compete with the Nikon Dx series. If Canon continues the 7D line (I certainly hope they do, it has been a best seller) it will continue to be a pro level APS-C. And if Canon could just work around that stupid patent it would probably have better low light performance than a 1D4.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 1, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you just have to compare the pro sports usage of the 7D vs the 1D4 to understand what is being said here.
> ...



No APS-C has AF at f/8 which the 1D4 does

So 600 * 1.6 *1.4 for the 7D = 1344mm
Whereas 600 *1.3 * 2 for the 1D4 = 1560mm

So the 1D4 has the longest reach

From experience the 1D4 has 2 stops of usable iso - 1600 for the 7D, 6400 for the 1D4

The IQ of a cropped 7D picture soon gets ugly, whereas it doesn't on the 1D4

I could never consider the 7D as a pro camera, just a good hobbyists camera.


----------



## match14 (Aug 1, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.



Whats the point to buying a 7D Mark II with an APS-H sensor when you can already buy a 7D with a full frame sensor?

Thats right you can currently buy a 7D with a 22MP full frame sensor it's called the 5D Mark III.

A 7D Mark II with an APS-H sensor is not going to be much cheaper that the current 5D Mark III IMHO.


----------



## Meh (Aug 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> No APS-C has AF at f/8 which the 1D4 does
> 
> So 600 * 1.6 *1.4 for the 7D = 1344mm
> Whereas 600 *1.3 * 2 for the 1D4 = 1560mm
> ...



Do you not have to account for the 18MP vs. 16MP in your reach calculation? So multiplying 1344mm x 18/16 gives 1512mm which is still less but much closer. However, you're using a 2X TC vs. a 1.4X TC... any IQ difference there?


----------



## Meh (Aug 1, 2012)

match14 said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.
> ...



Pixel density


----------



## match14 (Aug 1, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Put an APS-h on a 7dm2 and many will buy the increased resolution as well as newest sensor tech, myself included. No need for a 1dx with that setup.



Thats another reason why Canon won't put APS-H in 7D Mark II, they will not kill off the 1DX flagship from within their own product line up.


----------



## match14 (Aug 1, 2012)

Meh said:


> match14 said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



True but the point I was getting at is Bosman is saying replace APS-C with APS-H because a bigger sensor is better and he is right, therefore Fullframe is better than APS-H because it is bigger. I think the real problem here is that Canon should have put 36MP into the 5D Mark III then you would have the best of both, fullframe sensor with the ability to crop to APS-H or APS-C in post without the loss of pixel density.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 1, 2012)

match14 said:


> True but the point I was getting at is Bosman is saying replace APS-C with APS-H because a bigger sensor is better and he is right, therefore Fullframe is better than APS-H because it is bigger. I think the real problem here is that Canon should have put 36MP into the 5D Mark III then you would have the best of both, fullframe sensor with the ability to crop to APS-H or APS-C in post without the loss of pixel density.



A 7dII with a ff sensor would be a 5DIII


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> match14 said:
> 
> 
> > True but the point I was getting at is Bosman is saying replace APS-C with APS-H because a bigger sensor is better and he is right, therefore Fullframe is better than APS-H because it is bigger. I think the real problem here is that Canon should have put 36MP into the 5D Mark III then you would have the best of both, fullframe sensor with the ability to crop to APS-H or APS-C in post without the loss of pixel density.
> ...



Except your're missing a boatload of features and improvements. So, not really Brian. If you say that, then you're simply saying all else is equal between the 7D and 5D3 except the sensor. Nothing could be farther from the truth.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 1, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > match14 said:
> ...



Note I said 7DII not 7D ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 1, 2012)

How about a 1Ds3 with the ISO capabilities?


----------



## match14 (Aug 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> match14 said:
> 
> 
> > True but the point I was getting at is Bosman is saying replace APS-C with APS-H because a bigger sensor is better and he is right, therefore Fullframe is better than APS-H because it is bigger. I think the real problem here is that Canon should have put 36MP into the 5D Mark III then you would have the best of both, fullframe sensor with the ability to crop to APS-H or APS-C in post without the loss of pixel density.
> ...



Yeah I already said that further up in reply #31
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8057.msg152769#msg152769


----------



## felipey (Aug 1, 2012)

I have a simple solution for the OPs problem. Carry two 5D MKIII and tack on a 1.4X converter onto one for the extra reach. You'll get slightly more reach than the APS-H's 1.3X and a better sensor. As far as losing the one stop of light, you'd roughly lose that anyway with the slightly worse ISO performance of an APS-H. That way you'll have consistency between the two bodies and Canon won't have to develop a camera for such a niche market.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 1, 2012)

I shoot sports too. A sports body like the 7d with a better sensor than what you can squeak out of an aps-c, plus the frame rate is a perfect matchup for what i do. The 7d sensor is seriously lacking but the focus system is tops. Some people don't understand dreamers, dreamers come up with ideas that may not fit but when something is done with those ideas companies like Apple become successful. I am not here to give stats, show evidence or make a case. For the reasons i have stated these are my dreams. I really am ok with people having their differing views. I encourage the discussion, but no one is going to demand or make me prove my idea lol. Who does that? I just don't appreciate that because i throw an idea or a concept out there that i need to prove its a good idea, i mean really, that doesn't encourage great discussion...
I realize the aps-h is probably done but i will say if it were my decision i'd either upgrade the 7d with better sensor tech beyond the limits of aps-c, possibly even FF or create a new camera model. If people say its a 1dx killer then its probably the perfect idea because we all know thru history with Canon and Nikon that there is plenty of market for both to exist no matter what people are saying about one killing the other. Every d series body should have a smaller cousin that has a few less features and are built well but obviously not a d series level of build i mean my camera has fallen to the concrete a few times thanks to my R Strap malfunctioning (by the way i don't use the Rapid strap anymore its all about the spiderpro holster) and i pick it up and it just works. I have shot in in rain for hours with my 1dm3 and the only issue really was a foggy eye piece. The D series gets the heavy duty parts for extreme environments. Canon knows what people buy and why. A person won't buy a 1d series unless they want it or their jobs require it be able to handle extreme environments. Everyone on a budget or just wants to work with lighter gear will buy the smaller alternatives. Now that they merged the lines there has to be a viable alternative to the 1dx. The 5dm3 doesn't have the frame rate required for that in my opinion, the 7d does its just that it is lacking sensor capability.


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 1, 2012)

Hey if we are gonna dream, how about we make that sensor square too?! Then we are really cooking 

I'll buy that.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 1, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Hey if we are gonna dream, how about we make that sensor square too?! Then we are really cooking
> 
> I'll buy that.


I like that idea as well. I would want it to frame like a normal camera in camera but on the computer the area that wasn't in the view finder is greyed out like what you see in photoshop or LR when you are cropping. That way your composition is what you see in camera but the file is recording the whole square allowing for diff crops to be made if so desired. Or you could just choose in camera what crop shape you want and have a square viewfinder allowing you to see everything but the greyed out area that you didn't choose to be in the composition. 
I know i have taken photos where if only i could have gotten a little more in there you would see more of the story of the picture. I am curious how the lens situation would work. I would suppose you need to buy specialty lenses for that type sensor if you chose the whole image to be square format. Its fun to think about.
Back to 7d with larger sensor, make it a 7dx and have a 7dm2 with aps-c for those who don't want to give that up.


----------



## Meh (Aug 1, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I like that idea as well. I would want it to frame like a normal camera in camera but on the computer the area that wasn't in the view finder is greyed out like what you see in photoshop or LR when you are cropping.



The other side of that coin is that when you wanted to shoot the square frame you wouldn't be able to see what you're including in your composition.




Bosman said:


> I am curious how the lens situation would work. I would suppose you need to buy specialty lenses for that type sensor if you chose the whole image to be square format. Its fun to think about.



The lenses are not the issue as they produce an image circle that could have a square sensor inside. And a square circumscribed inside the circle maximizes image/sensor area. The main issue with changing to a square sensor is the mirror... there isn't enough clearance inside the body for a square mirror.


----------



## Meh (Aug 1, 2012)

felipey said:


> I have a simple solution for the OPs problem. Carry two 5D MKIII and tack on a 1.4X converter onto one for the extra reach. You'll get slightly more reach than the APS-H's 1.3X and a better sensor. As far as losing the one stop of light, you'd roughly lose that anyway with the slightly worse ISO performance of an APS-H. That way you'll have consistency between the two bodies and Canon won't have to develop a camera for such a niche market.



Yes and no... what your suggesting is more about convenience of switching lenses or adding a TC. The issue with reach is situations when you're focal length limited meaning you don't have a lens or lens/TC that allows you to fill your frame with the subject (i.e. wildlife photogs). In those situations, the higher pixel density of an APS-H (16MP in the 1D4) or APS-C (18MP in the 7D) gives you high resolution on your subject when your subject is not filling the frame of a FF sensor. And that is a key point to keep in mind in these discussions... the so-called "extra reach" of a crop sensor is a function of the higher pixel density NOT the fact that the sensor is smaller.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 1, 2012)

Isn't 7D-like pixel density sensor actually diffraction-limited at f/5.6+?


----------



## funkboy (Aug 1, 2012)

match14 said:


> I think the real problem here is that Canon should have put 36MP into the 5D Mark III then you would have the best of both, fullframe sensor with the ability to crop to APS-H or APS-C in post without the loss of pixel density.



It would be even better if they had used a high-MP sensor that could be set to pixel-bin 1x2 or 2x2 so that the folks that want 36mp can have it, and the folks like me that are fine with 9 very very clean megapickels out-of-camera (or maybe 18mp as well if they could do 1x2) could have that as well. I'm not talking about sraw/mraw here but true pixel-binning. Maybe even add Fuji-esque dynamic range enhancement as well.

But as it is the 22mp 5DIII is an excellent camera & selling faster than they can make them, so no worries there.

The square sensor concept makes a ton of sense as well, but unfortunately there are a lot of EF lenses (esp. wide-angles) that have a metal shade on the back that restricts the frame to 24x36 (presumably to lower reflections & control what gets to the metering system).


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> No APS-C has AF at f/8 which the 1D4 does



The statement was "longest reach of all Canon bodies", not "longest reach of all Canon bodies with AF at f/8." APS-C has longer reach than APS-H, period. If AF comes into play, then for 99.9% of applications (i.e. everyone not stacking two teleconverters on a 600mm lens) APS-C has greater reach than APS-H.

And the sensor size has nothing to do with AF at f/8, so AF at f/8 is not an argument for keeping APS-H around.



> From experience the 1D4 has 2 stops of usable iso - 1600 for the 7D, 6400 for the 1D4



The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.

In fact the 7D is fine at 3200, as is the 1D4 at 6400. The difference is 1 stop. Admirable, but nothing to keep APS-H in the market. FF does even better in low light, and sensor evolution will take APS-C beyond the 1D4, probably with the next generation.



> The IQ of a cropped 7D picture soon gets ugly, whereas it doesn't on the 1D4



I don't see that producing 20" prints from 9 MP crops of 7D files. They look fantastic.


----------



## canon816 (Aug 2, 2012)

Here's a quick response in support of H format:

It could be a great sensor to bridge the price gap between C sensors and FF sensors. You would get superior image quality to the C sensor coupled with prosumer features and nail down a price point of $2-2.5K. Jumping from the 7D at $1500 to the 5DIII at $3500 then 1DX at $6800 leaves a few price point holes to potentially be plugged.

The additional reach of the 1.3 is welcome over FF, and the larger sensor takes (presumably) higher quality images then the C sensor.

I have owned a Rebel 450D, 7D and currently own a 5DII and a 1DIV. While the 1DIV is a higher priced camera and the latest with the H sensor in the line.... with technology advances and trickle down the next H camera might not need to be at that same price point and could fall into the $2k range. (It doesnt need all the pro features of the 1DIV to be a successful selling body)

I love my 1DIV with it's H-sensor... and I'm not the only one. There is a huge difference in image quality from the C sensors and the 1.3x crop factor over full frame is very noticeable especially when pairing with long glass.

I would definitely not agree with the OP about dropping APS-C. It's a huge market and has a huge following.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.



As this is based on personal experience in the field then I will just have to agree to disagree - perhaps this experience is based on the quality of noise. 

However you wont catch me using iso3200 on my 7D - especially when cropped - as it is downright ugly


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > No APS-C has AF at f/8 which the 1D4 does
> ...



If you re-read my post you will realize that what I said was correct - the APS-H sensored 1 series bodies do have the longest reach of all Canon bodies. 

Also a 600 only needs a 2x to get to F/8 - I often use this with my 1DS3


----------



## nicku (Aug 2, 2012)

An APS-H senor on 7Dmk2 will certainly kill all the competition in the segment and a very good backup body for 1DX. Regarding the 10 million EF-S lenses .... move 70D up the line ( like all rumors suggest ). Is very simple 

I said before, a APS-H 7D2 will be something unique on the market, and in this days the most powerful marketing advertising solution is: something new unique or low prices (at canon lately the low price is not a strong point).

I understand perfectly why canon has used APS-H sensor in the past ( easily and cheaper to produce than FF) but today is all about marketing . Canon is more interested in maximising sales/profit, not really in providing the world perfect cameras/ lenses. This is the only reason i see for canon reintroducing the APS-H sensor.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 2, 2012)

APS-H was originally bought from Kodak in the days when Canon didn't make their own sensors

Leica also use the APS-H sensor


----------



## nicku (Aug 2, 2012)

Has anyone thought that Nikon could use a APS-H like sensor in the new D400??? IF they will do so certainly they will kill Canon in terms of camera bodies. Don,t mention the ability to use all their lenses on all the bodies regardless the sensor format


----------



## swrightgfx (Aug 2, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Hey if we are gonna dream, how about we make that sensor square too?! Then we are really cooking
> 
> I'll buy that.



While the EF mount can accommodate a much larger image circle than most EF lenses currently provide, using a square sensor would indeed only be possible with APS-H and not full-frame, without users having to invest in new glass. The image circle for "APS-H" 28x28 would equate to ~40mm, while square "full frame" 36x36 would require ~50mm (which would only allow for TS-E lenses to be used without severe vignette). 

The key point, though, is that both would most likely need to be mirrorless to provide enough lens clearance and maintain infinity.

What about a "Square APS-H" rangefinder targeted to plug the mirrorless gap for professionals?


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 2, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.



No.


----------



## canon816 (Aug 2, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.
> 
> In fact the 7D is fine at 3200, as is the 1D4 at 6400. The difference is 1 stop. Admirable, but nothing to keep APS-H in the market. FF does even better in low light, and sensor evolution will take APS-C beyond the 1D4, probably with the next generation.



I would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. I owned the 7D and currently shoot with the 1DIV. They are not even close to only 1 stop apart with high ISO image quality when you actually get out and use them in the field. The 7D is great through ISO 400 and really starts to fall apart at ISO 800. From 800 and up there is lots of visible noise but more importantly detail starts to fall off and images begin to look soft. The 1DIV retains detail well up through ISO 3200 and I have even had acceptable shots at ISO 6400 and for smaller prints ISO 12,800.

In my opinion there is a full three stop advantage in IQ and Noise between the 7D and the 1DIV. It may not appear this way in "lab tested shots" seen on all the big reviews.... but with real hands on field experience the differences are monumental... (giving credibility to H sensor production over the C sensor)

Also, I would expect the difference to be dramatic between these two cameras. One is $1500 and one is $5000... Canon delivered on the 1DIV, and despite all the fanfare surrounding the 7D... Canon fell short on this one. IMO the 7D has a lousy sensor and delivers disappointing results.


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 2, 2012)

They can drop APS-C when they can deliver a Fullframe in the price Range of the rebels.


----------



## Meh (Aug 2, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.
> ...



Gotta love it. Someone disagrees with you and you bring out the classic response of "you must not actually be using your gear" blah blah blah which is essentially similar to the other classic "you need to learn how to use your gear" or "it works fine for me and I'm great so you must be a hack".


----------



## unfocused (Aug 2, 2012)

Meh said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



You forgot: "If you had any taste or talent at all you would clearly see that your camera is a piece of crap. While I am so talented and discerning that I can't be satisfied with anything less than the ..."


----------



## jrista (Aug 2, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.
> ...



Noise at ISO 100 and Noise at ISO 3200 are very different things. Canon's APS-C sensors suffer from high electronic noise at low ISO, where as Nikon and Sony sensors control electronic noise better there. Once you are beyond ISO 400, however, the physical nature of light begins to dominate, and noise characteristics normalize. There is actually not much that can really be done about high ISO noise, particularly from ISO 1600 and on. Larger pixel wells and higher quantum efficiency allow you to gather more photons, which improves SNR...but once your up to 3200 and 6400, its a matter of time and light volume...there is VERY LITTLE difference between any camera at these levels (from an electronic, hardware standpoint). The key thing that matters is photon conversion rates...how many of the photons reaching the sensor are actually converted into charge in each photodiode. The 7D has a 41% Q.E. while the 1D IV has a 44% Q.E...that gives an edge to the 1D IV, but the differences at high ISO are not going to be very large...possibly noticeable, but not large.

Additionally, ISO 12800 in the 7D is an "artificial" ISO, digitally amplified. ISO's above 12800 on the 1D IV are also "artificial" and digitally amplified...so they are not really higher ISO settings. They amplify noise, both color and lumi, along with everything else, and you have some serious IQ degradation at those settings. Your far better off under-exposing at the maximum native ISO setting and correcting in post where you have full control over that digital amplification. 

Before you go around calling people ignorant, make sure you aren't ignorant yourself.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 2, 2012)

canon816 said:


> Here's a quick response in support of H format:
> 
> It could be a great sensor to bridge the price gap between C sensors and FF sensors. You would get superior image quality to the C sensor coupled with prosumer features and nail down a price point of $2-2.5K. Jumping from the 7D at $1500 to the 5DIII at $3500 then 1DX at $6800 leaves a few price point holes to potentially be plugged.
> 
> ...


I hear ya, i would like to go on record that i wrote incorrectly, i did not mean to imply no more aps-c, it remains a good entry level format.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 2, 2012)

Bosman said:


> canon816 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a quick response in support of H format:
> ...


Aps-c will be around for a while in the EF-M mount


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 2, 2012)

APS-C 7D did exactly what it what supposed to do. Quit whining because you can't get a 1d MK IV for 1600.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 2, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> APS-C 7D did exactly what it what supposed to do. Quit whining because you can't get a 1d MK IV for 1600.


Its not the price for me I just want a 1d4 in a 5d mk3 body, not a fan of grips and don't need the bulk
$3500 for that and they will sell tons they won't even have to do any development althou they could probably udate the sensor to the latest gapless microlens tech. But if nothing comes out I'll pick up a 1d 4 as it is my 1d3 still handily kills the crappy aps-c noise monster even if it is only 10 mp


----------



## canon816 (Aug 3, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> APS-C 7D did exactly what it what supposed to do. Quit whining because you can't get a 1d MK IV for 1600.



I'm not sure who you believe is whining. Although I do appreciate your invaluable contribution to this discussion...


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > APS-C 7D did exactly what it what supposed to do. Quit whining because you can't get a 1d MK IV for 1600.
> ...



Given the 80% resolution advantage of the 7D, downscaling it to 10mp size would eliminate the majority of that extra noise...and a dash of post-process NR would take care of the rest...if it even mattered at that point. Yes, the 1D III is an excellent camera, but the 7D is really only a problem from a noise standpoint at ISO 100 and 200, and 6400 (at low ISO you have a fair bit of FPN, and at 6400 color noise really does get bad...) At higher ISO's, the 7D actually has both a Q.E. advantage as well as an electronic noise floor advantage, which helps mitigate the differences between it and the 1D III. 

I'm not saying you could completely eliminate all of the 7D's noise just with downscaling...there is still that 20% gap, so you would need some NR...but on a normalized bases it is not as bad as your making it sound. If you don't need the resolution advantage of the 7D (which would seem to be the case if you are happily willing to use the 1D III over the 7D any day any time), no matter how you slice it...more noise or not, scaled down to 10mp its going to offer sharper, clearer detail without any explicit sharpening, and the resolution advantage will show through regardless of the noise:


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 3, 2012)

I really wanted to replace my mk3 with a 7d mainly for the following reasons
-smaller form
-same battery as 5d2 
-still had a decent fps and AF
On paper it looked good

However when I compared the in real life I found that the reality was the 1dmk3 was still far superior in many ways and just decided to keep it the 18mp aps-c sensor has never really impressed me it was the aps-h and fullframe canon sensors that caused me to change from nikon. 

Anyway that's my opinion I was disappointed because on paper the 7d looks a lot better I just felt it didn't live up to that


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 3, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I really wanted to replace my mk3 with a 7d mainly for the following reasons
> -smaller form
> -same battery as 5d2
> -still had a decent fps and AF
> ...



I have found the best a 7D can do is at iso400 in good light when it is almost as good (with a full frame image) as the 1D4

It is cropping and iso1600+ where it all starts to fall to pieces. The iso100/200 pictures dont appeal - especially when compared to the 1DS3.


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I really wanted to replace my mk3 with a 7d mainly for the following reasons
> -smaller form
> -same battery as 5d2
> -still had a decent fps and AF
> ...



I started to feel a little bit the same way after I had my 7D for a short while. The thing I've learned, as I've continued to use it, is that the 7D, with a far higher pixel density than most other cameras (particularly full frame cameras), is very succeptible to softening by optical aberrations (in other words, its a hell of a lot more demanding on lenses). Where a 5D II/1D III might be fine with a lens wide open, the same lens used on the 7D at the same aperture would appear somewhat soft...and one thing the 7D does NOT do well is control noise in areas of smoother detail (particularly bokeh, but softness from optical aberrations heightens the effect of noise in detail areas as well.)

I recently learned that stopping down just about all of my lenses just a bit results in far sharper photos, and noise in the areas where it matters...the key subject(s) and the detail within them, appears far less noisy. I will grant that the 7D seems to drop the ball a bit on lower-luminance smooth detail...particularly out of focus backgrounds...bokeh tends to exhibit noise fairly badly when other cameras do not at higher ISO. Not really sure why...perhaps the smaller pixel pitch and surface area heighten the effects of photon shot noise...either way, its an area where improved Q.E. and better SNR in a 7D II could really improve things.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Aug 3, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> kapanak said:
> 
> 
> > Any other competitor (for large sensors), except Sony ... which makes Full Frame, 1.5X APS-C, Micro 4/3rd, 1 inch (RX100), and several different Super35 and Super16 sensors for video. Guess who is the leader in sensor production  ... Oh, and lets not forget the former Kodak digital sensor division (which is still active).
> ...




yep

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/12q1_sony.pdf

canon has to do nothing as it looks. 

thought... the camera biz at sony is making a profit.


----------



## DomHanzak (Aug 3, 2012)

How about a full frame 7D that is still EF-S compatible? When you stick an EF-S lens on it all pictures are cropped to 1.6x. And obviously it would shoot full frame when you use a EF lens, but maybe you could still have the option to shoot at 1.6x for the telephoto advantage?

Forgive me if something like this has already been suggested, I only scanned through the rest of the thread.


----------



## swrightgfx (Aug 3, 2012)

DomHanzak said:


> How about a full frame 7D that is still EF-S compatible? When you stick an EF-S lens on it all pictures are cropped to 1.6x. And obviously it would shoot full frame when you use a EF lens, but maybe you could still have the option to shoot at 1.6x for the telephoto advantage?
> 
> Forgive me if something like this has already been suggested, I only scanned through the rest of the thread.



The mirror would collide with the rear element of the majority of EF-S lenses, particularly the wides. Third-party lenses tend to have much larger image circles and also greater clearance and can be retro-fitted.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 3, 2012)

jrista, thanks for your insights into some of the science behind the sensor properties/issues!

Apologies if this is slightly off the original topic but I suppose it does relate to the advantages/disadvantages of APS-C and pixel density against the larger sensor formats.

Regarding comments made by jrista on the softness:


jrista said:


> I started to feel a little bit the same way after I had my 7D for a short while. The thing I've learned, as I've continued to use it, is that the 7D, with a far higher pixel density than most other cameras (particularly full frame cameras), is very succeptible to softening by optical aberrations (in other words, its a hell of a lot more demanding on lenses). Where a 5D II/1D III might be fine with a lens wide open, the same lens used on the 7D at the same aperture would appear somewhat soft...and one thing the 7D does NOT do well is control noise in areas of smoother detail (particularly bokeh, but softness from optical aberrations heightens the effect of noise in detail areas as well.)
> 
> I recently learned that stopping down just about all of my lenses just a bit results in far sharper photos, and noise in the areas where it matters...the key subject(s) and the detail within them, appears far less noisy. I will grant that the 7D seems to drop the ball a bit on lower-luminance smooth detail...particularly out of focus backgrounds...bokeh tends to exhibit noise fairly badly when other cameras do not at higher ISO. Not really sure why...perhaps the smaller pixel pitch and surface area heighten the effects of photon shot noise...either way, its an area where improved Q.E. and better SNR in a 7D II could really improve things.



It is interesting to hear your thoughts regarding the affect of optical aberrations on the detail and noise in an image. I have a 7D and use it for landscapes quite a bit and have noticed, particularly with the EF-S 10-22 lens that it does struggle with resolving detail towards the corners. Now I realise that the high pixel density sensor of the 7D will likely show up any failings of the lens, and that with an UWA lens some corner softness is to be expected, and coupled with CA and possibly field curvature as well...... I usually shoot af F/8 but still struggle to get corner to corner sharpness... at high magnification anyway. Fine detail certainly seems to become 'smeared' towards the corners though not consistently, particularly at infinity focus. Maybe that is partly down to focusing and the distance of subjects from the camera, and maybe even my technique. I have also noticed some noise at low ISO in blue/dark sky areas.

None of which takes away from the fact that I think the 7 is a great camera, and certainly not worthy of the 'piece of crap sensor' comments dished out. If I could afford a 5D I would probably go for it but not everybody has that kind of money to blow on a hobby.


----------



## insanitybeard (Aug 3, 2012)

I don't disagree that the 7D sensor could use some improvement and could the camera do with with an update?
Yes it probably could, but to be fair to it, the sensor technology is nigh on 3 years older compared to the 3200 sensor you mention.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 3, 2012)

Lets be frank here, the 7d is a sports camera intended for that. The 5d is landscape and journalism. The d series are more all encompassing however the 1ds series was intended to render finer details while the 1d series does it all it was more intended for sports. I am not saying this is all they can do i am saying the combinations of sensor, build, Frames per second, iso range, detail rendering are all playing together to make up the optimum use for each camera. Every camera can manage all things but every camera handles optimally in what Canon intended them to be. In my opinion the 1dx falls short, while it is incredible it lacks resolution for those who do magazine shoots and such. Canon is going to send them to Nikon or to Phase one and Hasselblad and the likes. I realize many of those prob never use an SLR format but many SLR users want to just get another SLR body to use with their lenses for the high end shoots. Then again starting off in that vein using the Leica S system would accomplish that! The sensor is 60% larger than FF. Incredible system not for everyone even if it fit into most peoples budget, which it doesn't lol!


----------



## jrista (Aug 3, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > kapanak said:
> ...



In all honesty, I would put a sad face after:

canon has to do nothing as it looks. :'(

Canon should HAVE to do SOMETHING...their sensor technology (both image and AF) is languishing and has become increasingly dated. There have been improvements, but minor evolutionary only. Canon needs a big hefty competitor to pressure them to get their ass in gear and design a better image sensor, and design an AF sensor that has solid f/8 performance.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 4, 2012)

i was hoping the 650D would be an indicator of fixing these issues however from looking on the internet it would appear not much has been done, i havent used one and more than likely wont bother unless someone i know buys one and i can have a quick look

maybe canon can just buy sony and integrate the sensor tech


----------



## canon816 (Aug 4, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Well I might get attacked calling 7D's sensor 'crap', but it is the fact comparing with other brand's crop sensors. 7D is a good camera EXCEPT the sensor



What! I can't believe you said this. *GASP* 

Oh wait.... I see, you said the 7D sensor is 'crap'.... I'll share a little of the 7D user's fury on this one.... as I agree with you. At least my 7D's sensor was crap and the only reason I sold it. Otherwise it was a great camera... just not at anything above ISO 400.


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2012)

insanitybeard said:


> jrista, thanks for your insights into some of the science behind the sensor properties/issues!
> 
> Apologies if this is slightly off the original topic but I suppose it does relate to the advantages/disadvantages of APS-C and pixel density against the larger sensor formats.
> 
> ...



The issues you are running into are probably more the lens design than anything. For one, regardless of the quality, a 10mm lens is REALLY WIDE. Thats the same as the 16-35mm L II on a FF...16mm is REALLY WIDE. Rectilinear lenses bend light more and more as you approach the corners in an effort to "fit a spherical world into a rectangular planar world." The wider you get, the more extreme that bending has to be, and the closer you get to the corners of the lens, the more pronounced "stretching" and "smearing" your going to experience. Not much you can really do about that, its more a matter of physics than anything. On top of the physical matters, the EF-s 10-22mm, while it is a great lens, is not an L-series lens. Its designed as a high quality consumer grade lens, but not a professional lens. The EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, while its essentially the same FoV on a FF camera, is a better designed lens. It certainly has its fair share of distortion, however that distortion is better managed and controlled, and the softening effects as you approach the corners are lesser than with the 10-22. The 7D is probably enhancing this undesirable aspect of these two lenses, however there is more going on than just pixel density.

In your case, I would shoot at a smaller aperture. People are very afraid of "diffraction", however diffraction is only actually a problem once the airy pattern is more than twice the size of a single pixel (or, the airy disc, the central bright spot, is larger than a single pixel.) The 7D is *diffraction limited* at f/6.9. You could stop down to f/14 before you really start to experience visible softening due to diffraction. I would say an f/11 aperture would be ideal for landscapes, assuming you were using a strong, stable tripod, and would help improve the softness in the corners. You could probably stop right down to f/16 if you really wanted to increase DOF, and you would only experience minor diffraction softening. The key thing is that the softening from diffraction is less than the softening from defocus. You might experience diffraction softening that was stronger than defocus issues at f/16, but its a tradeoff range. I have quite a few f/22 landscape shots taken with my Canon 450D, which has a larger pixel pitch allowing for about 1/2 stop tighter apertures. Even printed out quite large (I think the largest I've printed...on canvas...is 40x30), the effects of diffraction are more desirable than a soft ridgeline or OOF near-depth trees and flora. I think f/16 was the ideal landscape aperture on the 450D, and I would say f/11-f/14 is the ideal range on the 7D (if there is no wind, your using mirror lockup/liveview, and a cable release, you could probably get superbly short, deep DOF f/14 shots without issue.)


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Well I might get attacked calling 7D's sensor 'crap', but it is the fact comparing with other brand's crop sensors. 7D is a good camera EXCEPT the sensor, if you only have 7D you might not realize, but take a look at other sensors, it will be very obvious that the Canon's 18MP APS-C sensor is bad, very noisy, low DR, bad colors, you name it.
> 
> I think there is no need to go to any larger format for 7D, because:
> 1. There are some quality EF-s lenses, like 10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro, also as a back up body, 'you gain reach' sort of stuff.
> ...



In the grand scheme of current-generation, modern sensors, I would say the Canon 18mp APS-C is on the bottom rung, for sure. But we are incredibly spoiled these days as well. The IQ of the Canon 7D is still stellar compared to what we had less than a decade ago, and outside of a few specialty films with ungodly grain and color characteristics, the 7D is vastly superior to film as well. Once you hit ISO 3200, the 7D really kind of falls off a cliff, and its ISO 100 performance is lackluster due to that nasty pattern noise Canon just can't seem to get rid of. But in general, the 7D's 18mp APS-C is most assuredly a USABLE sensor for the kinds of things it was meant for...action.

I wouldn't call it a crap sensor...its just not the cream-of-the-crop sensor. The technological problems with Canon sensors are also not that unique. Most medium format sensors, the bulk of P&S and Mirrorless sensors, all experience color noise and a variety of forms of electronic noise. This was particularly evident in one of the MF vs. D800 videos I watched that was linked on this site a couple months ago...the D800 did well against the MF, although the MF still ultimately won out. But when they started pushing shadows, the MF (a Hassy 40mp, IIRC) quickly started exhibiting the same kind of unsightly, unwanted FPN, banding, and even a little color noise that Canon sensors do.

The 7D sensor, nor any other Canon sensor, is "crap". The fact of the matter is Sony and Nikon found a competitive edge, and right now they are slashing and burning their way to the top with it. Thats entirely to be expected in a competitive marketplace, and it doesn't mean the competition is crap...the competition is the same as it was before the SoNikon breakthrough. Its just that the upper bar has ratcheted up a few notches, and now the previous cream of the crop is no longer cream.


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 6, 2012)

If Canon nixes Flagship APS-C, Nikon, Sony, or even Pentax will gladly eat the empty market. Case closed.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 9, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> If Canon nixes Flagship APS-C, Nikon, Sony, or even Pentax will gladly eat the empty market. Case closed.


Post closed thanks to AprilForever


----------

