My concern is diffraction limiting. The 7D will be diffraction limited to around f6.8 or so, meaning that smaller apertures than f6.8 will reduce available detail. This means that many lenses will have a very narrow aperture range for maximum definition. The 5D MKII is diffraction limited to f10, allowing more frequent use of smaller apertures, which I prefer. The larger photosites of the 5D MKII also require less lens resolution for the same image detail. (But the crop cameras use the lens' "sweet spot" of central high-resolution, so it's sometimes a wash to avoid corner softness.)
While it's true that the crop 1.6x imager yields more DOF for the same FOV and aperture, the range of available apertures and the control over DOF for the larger format is compelling.
Not to scare anyone from using smaller apertures on the 7D, because by f10 you will have effectively around 8 MPix of resolution, still enough for many/most applications. (Remember when that was a "ton" of resolution?)
With all the customizations, there is no way to customize (or at least disable) raw/jpeg aka direct print button :-( Considering there is no visual indication in the VF this can be a bit dangerous..
Oh yeah, and the BEST NEWS EVER? Current version of ACR does work with it's CR2 format!
Not to dampen the festivities too much but it's worth noting that the 7D support is preliminary. Engineer Eric Chan posted this on the Adobe forum...
...the 7D support is very preliminary. We are often able to provide preliminary support for raw files from new camera models. Camera Raw and Lightroom will open and edit these files, but profiling and testing is not complete. It is likely that some processing aspects will change somewhat when we provide final, official support.
I'm getting ahold of rather advanced/sophisticated AF management of 7D.
What a treat! Being able to swith from a pin-point precision to a full area, visually in the VF, with the help of the new MF button... Awesome!!!
And finally I can ditch ST-E2 and just bring th 580EXII in case I need some extra power. Definitely can see what I have been missing al these years compared to Nikon guys...
And finally I can ditch ST-E2 and just bring th 580EXII in case I need some extra power. Definitely can see what I have been missing al these years compared to Nikon guys...
Yes, that has to be a nice feature. The viewfinder and its overlay are another welcome feature. The ability to set different AF points/regions for portrait and landscape would be important for many event photographers. The list just goes on and on ...
OK, after playing a little more today (without shooting anything worhty to share) here's the scoop:
A new On/Off switch location: takes a bit of time to get used to it, but I think a positive thing
A new meaning for the infamous Direct Print button: now if you're shooting RAW only or JPEG only, pressing this button can temporarily (for one shot/sequence) add some Jpeg or some RAW. As I never "direct print" and I really don't want to add a complimentary copy by accident, I put a nice little patch of gaffer tape over it and hopyfully will forget about it - unless Canon comes with a firmware update tht would allow to customize it.
New Start/Stop button for LiveView/Video and switch for still/video. I like it. Hard to press by mistake, and no need to think which of the other dozen buttons actually triggers it.
New, highly improved AF mechanism and the way to control it (extra button next to the shutter). Not for a weak minded, but once you get a hold of it, you gonna love it!
Don't forget to customize the new MF button to also trigger the in-VF level. Very cool!
You have way more control over how AF Servo works. Sports shooters, rejoice!
Wireless control of speedlight! Yay!
In many ways, the layout and menus are closer to 5D2 than to 50D. Since I consider 5D2 and 7D and ideal combo, I'm very happy about that. And I already mentioned battery compatibility earlier...
You have a better selection of video modes over 5D2. Again, if it's your thing - you should be happy!
I'm sure will see numerous samples soon, and everybody will be able to count the number of noise points over the image of a pin tip. As for me - I'm very happy with my new toy and I'm going to put it to a good use.
My concern is diffraction limiting. The 7D will be diffraction limited to around f6.8 or so, meaning that smaller apertures than f6.8 will reduce available detail. This means that many lenses will have a very narrow aperture range for maximum definition. The 5D MKII is diffraction limited to f10, allowing more frequent use of smaller apertures, which I prefer. The larger photosites of the 5D MKII also require less lens resolution for the same image detail. (But the crop cameras use the lens' "sweet spot" of central high-resolution, so it's sometimes a wash to avoid corner softness.)
While it's true that the crop 1.6x imager yields more DOF for the same FOV and aperture, the range of available apertures and the control over DOF for the larger format is compelling.
Not to scare anyone from using smaller apertures on the 7D, because by f10 you will have effectively around 8 MPix of resolution, still enough for many/most applications. (Remember when that was a "ton" of resolution?)
This seems to always come up when sensor resolution is discussed. I am going to have to agree and disagree with your statements here. Diffraction is a function of light passing through the lens and has essentially nothing to do with the sensor AS LONG AS the sensors are the same physical size. So, I do agree that a FF sensor captures the diffraction effects differently than a crop sensor, but I do not agree that the 40D vs 7D (or any other 1.6 crop comparison) exhibit any differences.
Due to smaller photosites, 7D images viewed at 100% will allow you to see diffraction at a wider aperture than a 40D would, but that does not mean that the 40D is any less effected by diffraction. DLA (diffraction limited aperture) is relevant at 100% view, but all things said and done a 7D image downsampled to a 40D resolution would appear equivalent. EXCEPT that the 7D is actually capturing more detail than the 40D and therefor it's resulting image at print size will actually be more detailed and not softer.
I don't claim to have a 100% understanding of diffraction, but it often seems to be over generalized as "more pixels = worse diffraction". I don't see that as being true.
http://www.bitartifact.com/
Canon 7D & 350D
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II ~ 50mm f/1.8 II ~ 85mm f/1.8 ~ 100mm f/2.8 ~ 70-200mm f/4 IS L
This seems to always come up when sensor resolution is discussed. I am going to have to agree and disagree with your statements here. Diffraction is a function of light passing through the lens and has essentially nothing to do with the sensor AS LONG AS the sensors are the same physical size. So, I do agree that a FF sensor captures the diffraction effects differently than a crop sensor, but I do not agree that the 40D vs 7D (or any other 1.6 crop comparison) exhibit any differences.
Due to smaller photosites, 7D images viewed at 100% will allow you to see diffraction at a wider aperture than a 40D would, but that does not mean that the 40D is any less effected by diffraction. DLA (diffraction limited aperture) is relevant at 100% view, but all things said and done a 7D image downsampled to a 40D resolution would appear equivalent. EXCEPT that the 7D is actually capturing more detail than the 40D and therefor it's resulting image at print size will actually be more detailed and not softer.
I don't claim to have a 100% understanding of diffraction, but it often seems to be over generalized as "more pixels = worse diffraction". I don't see that as being true.
Unfortunately diffraction limiting is a valid affectation of a number of variables, and there comes a point when smaller apertures limit, and then reduce, available detail, limiting effective resolution. Beyond the DLA of a sensor size "and" photosite desity, the available detail is simply spread across more pixels. The only thing that the extra pixels offer is (potentially) better color rendition, assuming a Bayer type imager (which does not represent a complete color sample per photosite.)
The actual calculation of DLA is dependent upon output size as well as the "airy disk" principle and even the diaphragm shape, so any declared DLA should be qualified. I am quoting the DLA figures from "the-digital-picture.com" and so their qualifications should be considered.
Unfortunately diffraction limiting is a valid affectation of a number of variables, and there comes a point when smaller apertures limit, and then reduce, available detail, limiting effective resolution. Beyond the DLA of a sensor size "and" photosite desity, the available detail is simply spread across more pixels. The only thing that the extra pixels offer is (potentially) better color rendition, assuming a Bayer type imager (which does not represent a complete color sample per photosite.)
The actual calculation of DLA is dependent upon output size as well as the "airy disk" principle and even the diaphragm shape, so any declared DLA should be qualified. I am quoting the DLA figures from "the-digital-picture.com" and so their qualifications should be considered.
I think it's important to separate the terms. Diffraction is the bending and redirection of light as it passes through the lens. The diffraction limited aperture is the point that the aperture begins to affect pixel level sharpness.
I believe we both can agree that the sensor has nothing to do with the light passing through the lens and is simply the medium that the light is projected on to. Therefore the increase in pixel density afforded by the 7D serves to capture a more detailed representation of the light (diffraction limited or not). A 7D's more detailed representation when printed at an equal size to say a 40D's representation can only serve to provide a more accurate reproduction of the light that struck the sensor, even if it is distorted from before it passed through the lens.
This does fall apart at the point when sensor photosites become smaller than the wavelength of the light hitting the sensor, but we aren't there yet.
As you noted, the-digital-picture.com (as well as many other photo sites) comment on DLA regularly. I'll quote their typical disclaimer:
DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathmatical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.
DLA does not mean that narrower apertures cannot be used. And in fact, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA - until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached (a much narrower aperture).
It may be that you are actually thinking of the diffraction cutoff frequency, but as the-digital-picture.com points out that is a much smaller aperture than the DLA.
http://www.bitartifact.com/
Canon 7D & 350D
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II ~ 50mm f/1.8 II ~ 85mm f/1.8 ~ 100mm f/2.8 ~ 70-200mm f/4 IS L
I think it's important to separate the terms. Diffraction is the bending and redirection of light as it passes through the lens. The diffraction limited aperture is the point that the aperture begins to affect pixel level sharpness.
I believe we both can agree that the sensor has nothing to do with the light passing through the lens and is simply the medium that the light is projected on to. Therefore the increase in pixel density afforded by the 7D serves to capture a more detailed representation of the light (diffraction limited or not). A 7D's more detailed representation when printed at an equal size to say a 40D's representation can only serve to provide a more accurate reproduction of the light that struck the sensor, even if it is distorted from before it passed through the lens.
This does fall apart at the point when sensor photosites become smaller than the wavelength of the light hitting the sensor, but we aren't there yet.
As you noted, the-digital-picture.com (as well as many other photo sites) comment on DLA regularly. I'll quote their typical disclaimer:
It may be that you are actually thinking of the diffraction cutoff frequency, but as the-digital-picture.com points out that is a much smaller aperture than the DLA.
Yes, I was indeed confusing the 2 concepts. Thanks for the clarification.
So would it be proper to say that DLA is the approximate aperture value where diffraction "starts" to limit resolution and detail?
Yes, I was indeed confusing the 2 concepts. Thanks for the clarification.
So would it be proper to say that DLA is the approximate aperture value where diffraction "starts" to limit resolution and detail?
Sure, you are most welcome. I find the scientific discussions related to photography just as interesting as the photography itself.
While what you stated is true at the pixel level you still have to consider the creative contribution aperture choice makes on your exposure.
I would say that the DLA is the approximate aperture where diffraction becomes visible at the pixel level. Light is always passing through the lens irrespective of the aperture and is as a result always being diffracted. A higher resolution sensor can resolve the effects of diffraction at a larger aperture than a lower resolution sensor can when the diffraction effect is weaker.
It is important to remember that the DLA when comparing cameras of similar crop factor is relevant at the pixel level, not the image level. At the point where diffraction is visible at the normal viewing distances of a print, you almost certainly have surpassed the acceptable print size of a lower resolution sensor anyway.
If you need deep depth of field there is no reason to limit yourself in aperture choice based on a sensor's DLA. Of course there are always optimal apertures to create the sharpest image and you could focus stack as an alternative to using smaller apertures.
I think this may have been a more rambling response than my previous, but hopefully some valuable information shines through. BTW, i am by no means an expert in wave physics - I just spent a significant amount of time reading about diffraction when the 50D was announced and everyone went all crazy negative regarding the sensor resolution.
http://www.bitartifact.com/
Canon 7D & 350D
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II ~ 50mm f/1.8 II ~ 85mm f/1.8 ~ 100mm f/2.8 ~ 70-200mm f/4 IS L
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My concern is diffraction limiting. The 7D will be diffraction limited to around f6.8 or so, meaning that smaller apertures than f6.8 will reduce available detail. This means that many lenses will have a very narrow aperture range for maximum definition. The 5D MKII is diffraction limited to f10, allowing more frequent use of smaller apertures, which I prefer. The larger photosites of the 5D MKII also require less lens resolution for the same image detail. (But the crop cameras use the lens' "sweet spot" of central high-resolution, so it's sometimes a wash to avoid corner softness.)
While it's true that the crop 1.6x imager yields more DOF for the same FOV and aperture, the range of available apertures and the control over DOF for the larger format is compelling.
Not to scare anyone from using smaller apertures on the 7D, because by f10 you will have effectively around 8 MPix of resolution, still enough for many/most applications. (Remember when that was a "ton" of resolution?)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
when shooting plain full size RAW, 8fps holds much longer shan shooting meager small rough jpegs...
Not to dampen the festivities too much but it's worth noting that the 7D support is preliminary. Engineer Eric Chan posted this on the Adobe forum...
/barely hiding 7D envy
What a treat! Being able to swith from a pin-point precision to a full area, visually in the VF, with the help of the new MF button... Awesome!!!
Yes, that has to be a nice feature. The viewfinder and its overlay are another welcome feature. The ability to set different AF points/regions for portrait and landscape would be important for many event photographers. The list just goes on and on ...
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
- A new On/Off switch location: takes a bit of time to get used to it, but I think a positive thing
- A new meaning for the infamous Direct Print button: now if you're shooting RAW only or JPEG only, pressing this button can temporarily (for one shot/sequence) add some Jpeg or some RAW. As I never "direct print" and I really don't want to add a complimentary copy by accident, I put a nice little patch of gaffer tape over it and hopyfully will forget about it - unless Canon comes with a firmware update tht would allow to customize it.
- New Start/Stop button for LiveView/Video and switch for still/video. I like it. Hard to press by mistake, and no need to think which of the other dozen buttons actually triggers it.
- New, highly improved AF mechanism and the way to control it (extra button next to the shutter). Not for a weak minded, but once you get a hold of it, you gonna love it!
- You have way more control over how AF Servo works. Sports shooters, rejoice!
- Wireless control of speedlight! Yay!
- In many ways, the layout and menus are closer to 5D2 than to 50D. Since I consider 5D2 and 7D and ideal combo, I'm very happy about that. And I already mentioned battery compatibility earlier...
- You have a better selection of video modes over 5D2. Again, if it's your thing - you should be happy!
I'm sure will see numerous samples soon, and everybody will be able to count the number of noise points over the image of a pin tip. As for me - I'm very happy with my new toy and I'm going to put it to a good use.Don't forget to customize the new MF button to also trigger the in-VF level. Very cool!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
BTW - I'm noticing a trend: Canon releases a new body just before every Dgrin Shootout. Coincidence?
-Fleetwood Mac
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
This seems to always come up when sensor resolution is discussed. I am going to have to agree and disagree with your statements here. Diffraction is a function of light passing through the lens and has essentially nothing to do with the sensor AS LONG AS the sensors are the same physical size. So, I do agree that a FF sensor captures the diffraction effects differently than a crop sensor, but I do not agree that the 40D vs 7D (or any other 1.6 crop comparison) exhibit any differences.
Due to smaller photosites, 7D images viewed at 100% will allow you to see diffraction at a wider aperture than a 40D would, but that does not mean that the 40D is any less effected by diffraction. DLA (diffraction limited aperture) is relevant at 100% view, but all things said and done a 7D image downsampled to a 40D resolution would appear equivalent. EXCEPT that the 7D is actually capturing more detail than the 40D and therefor it's resulting image at print size will actually be more detailed and not softer.
I don't claim to have a 100% understanding of diffraction, but it often seems to be over generalized as "more pixels = worse diffraction". I don't see that as being true.
Canon 7D & 350D
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II ~ 50mm f/1.8 II ~ 85mm f/1.8 ~ 100mm f/2.8 ~ 70-200mm f/4 IS L
I have not had any issues with that so far. I think I will like it better than it being linked to the wheel lock.
I hope to get out and take some photos with it today.
Unfortunately diffraction limiting is a valid affectation of a number of variables, and there comes a point when smaller apertures limit, and then reduce, available detail, limiting effective resolution. Beyond the DLA of a sensor size "and" photosite desity, the available detail is simply spread across more pixels. The only thing that the extra pixels offer is (potentially) better color rendition, assuming a Bayer type imager (which does not represent a complete color sample per photosite.)
The actual calculation of DLA is dependent upon output size as well as the "airy disk" principle and even the diaphragm shape, so any declared DLA should be qualified. I am quoting the DLA figures from "the-digital-picture.com" and so their qualifications should be considered.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I believe we both can agree that the sensor has nothing to do with the light passing through the lens and is simply the medium that the light is projected on to. Therefore the increase in pixel density afforded by the 7D serves to capture a more detailed representation of the light (diffraction limited or not). A 7D's more detailed representation when printed at an equal size to say a 40D's representation can only serve to provide a more accurate reproduction of the light that struck the sensor, even if it is distorted from before it passed through the lens.
This does fall apart at the point when sensor photosites become smaller than the wavelength of the light hitting the sensor, but we aren't there yet.
As you noted, the-digital-picture.com (as well as many other photo sites) comment on DLA regularly. I'll quote their typical disclaimer:
It may be that you are actually thinking of the diffraction cutoff frequency, but as the-digital-picture.com points out that is a much smaller aperture than the DLA.
Canon 7D & 350D
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II ~ 50mm f/1.8 II ~ 85mm f/1.8 ~ 100mm f/2.8 ~ 70-200mm f/4 IS L
Yes, I was indeed confusing the 2 concepts. Thanks for the clarification.
So would it be proper to say that DLA is the approximate aperture value where diffraction "starts" to limit resolution and detail?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sure, you are most welcome. I find the scientific discussions related to photography just as interesting as the photography itself.
While what you stated is true at the pixel level you still have to consider the creative contribution aperture choice makes on your exposure.
I would say that the DLA is the approximate aperture where diffraction becomes visible at the pixel level. Light is always passing through the lens irrespective of the aperture and is as a result always being diffracted. A higher resolution sensor can resolve the effects of diffraction at a larger aperture than a lower resolution sensor can when the diffraction effect is weaker.
It is important to remember that the DLA when comparing cameras of similar crop factor is relevant at the pixel level, not the image level. At the point where diffraction is visible at the normal viewing distances of a print, you almost certainly have surpassed the acceptable print size of a lower resolution sensor anyway.
If you need deep depth of field there is no reason to limit yourself in aperture choice based on a sensor's DLA. Of course there are always optimal apertures to create the sharpest image and you could focus stack as an alternative to using smaller apertures.
I think this may have been a more rambling response than my previous, but hopefully some valuable information shines through. BTW, i am by no means an expert in wave physics - I just spent a significant amount of time reading about diffraction when the 50D was announced and everyone went all crazy negative regarding the sensor resolution.
Canon 7D & 350D
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ~ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II ~ 50mm f/1.8 II ~ 85mm f/1.8 ~ 100mm f/2.8 ~ 70-200mm f/4 IS L