OK, now the real comparisons are starting to roll in.
This one from Imaging-Resource.
There is a quick note and image on the link above, plus they have some detailed shots at their test shot area. But first story contains a link to the "Compareter", where you can choose two cameras to compare.
Here is pixel peeped two images from the Canon 7D and 7DMkII. There is a quite noticeable difference, though not blowing me out of the water. That happens when you compare to the 5DMkIII. This is the 3200 ISO shot:
Here is another screenshot, this time at ISO 6400, comparing 7D with 7DMkII. Now this is a good comparison as the 7DMkII shot is quite useable, the 7D is not really a keeper:
And now, for comparison, same pixel peep view, ISO 6400, this time vs 5DMkIII:
There is a 7DMkIII - really?? Last image, lower right?? I am assuming they meant 7DMkII
I do know that ISO 3200 was very marginally useful on my own 7D, but it DOES look useful on the 7DMkII images here, even with the higher acceptance noticed in these images as well. ( Why are the 7D images blurry anyway. They should be sharp but.... )
I would not expect the noise of the 7DMKII files to be lesser than those of the 5DMkIII, that would be quite unlikely due to basic physics, but with a bit of Noiseware the ISO 3200 images from the 7DMkII look quite useable for all but pixel peepers. Even the ISO 6400 images might be serviceable. Two stops more speed is quite significant with an increase in image quality at the same time, to me.
The AF system described on the 7DMKII sounds fantastic, and will make me a buyer, for wildlife shooting at the very least. The inclusion of in-camera GPS is just icing, but very nice icing indeed!
I could pixel peep all day. I am really surprised how well the 7DMkII does vs a few Nikon cameras including the D800, D610 at ISO 6400. The only cameras that crush it so far are the Canon 6D, 5MKIII and 1Dx.
Here are some more shots, slightly different area on photo. I am comparing the 7DMK2 vs Nikon 610, Nikon 800, Canon 6D and Canon 5DMk3. The 7DMk2 is exceptionally respectable here, comparing well and showing a very useful ISO 6400 image. In fact, the Nikons do not do that well here IMHO. What is shocking is that the 6D is simply amazing in this area of the image. So much so that I have to really think hard about whether the 6D might be more appropriate for what I want to do:
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited September 19, 2014
So yeah, it's not as good as the 6D, which was expected, but it's almost on par with the 5D mk3 up to 3200 probably, and maybe even matching / beating the Nikon D610 and D800 at 3200 / 6400.
THAT, my friends, is impressive. I wish people would shut up about full frame VS crop sensors now, WRT high ISO performance. It was a valid concern up until about ISO 1600 / 3200, but at this point we need to all shut up, get off our couches, and go shoot. Dang!!!
I'm not blown away by any of the 7DmkII vs. anything else samples, frankly. Does look like the FF bodies still hold a lead above the new cropped competition, and I am thankful for that. There will be a day when smaller sensors do as good, I presume. Dang close now.
I suspect those looking at a mkII 7 series will make decisions that aren't entirely based on image tests like those. Wildlife and sports shooters want the reach with lighter weight glass, and focus acquisition speed, as well as great ergonomics and logical design for quick settings in the field. 5DmkIII shooters wanting a cropped body will enjoy the almost identical design for familiarity. Add to that a completely solid build. The 5-yr.-old 7D's aren't dead yet, as aren't the 5D and the 5DmkII's. People will enjoy shooting with those bodies for a while to come.
All in all, they've come up with a solid update, even if it doesn't have the oft-rumored magical sensor. I'd love to move out my 20 and 40D's to make room for one, but the bills need to be paid. Anybody moving up to the new cam will be happy, I presume.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Does look like the FF bodies still hold a lead above the new cropped competition, and I am thankful for that. There will be a day when smaller sensors do as good, I presume. Dang close now.
FF will always have an advantage in that they demand 60% less enlargement from lenses. (or is it 37.5% less? 1.6 is 60% more than 1, but 1 is 37.5% less than 1.6. I never know which is the right one to use)
The only APS-C camera I've seen that performs as well as FF for resolution/sharpness has a Foveon sensor - Sigma DP2 Merrill. There's lots of issues there, but in it's sweet spot, wow. Therefore I think it's going to take something revolutionary for APS-C to reach FF levels of IQ.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The cure if FF. If you don't need the AF or the FPS, the 6D is waiting for you. If you do, there is the 5D3, but you must pay.
FF will always have an advantage in that they demand 60% less enlargement from lenses. (or is it 37.5% less? 1.6 is 60% more than 1, but 1 is 37.5% less than 1.6. I never know which is the right one to use)
The only APS-C camera I've seen that performs as well as FF for resolution/sharpness has a Foveon sensor - Sigma DP2 Merrill. There's lots of issues there, but in it's sweet spot, wow. Therefore I think it's going to take something revolutionary for APS-C to reach FF levels of IQ.
What if you have a cropped camera and the only photons you capture are 60% smaller than regular photons, compared to the FF shooter's normal photons?
:hide
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I'm not blown away by any of the 7DmkII vs. anything else samples, frankly. Does look like the FF bodies still hold a lead above the new cropped competition, and I am thankful for that. There will be a day when smaller sensors do as good, I presume. Dang close now.
Note that the 5D3 is over 2 years old at this point -- likely a FF sensor coming out today would show a significant improvement over it.
The physics of the sensor dictate that a physically larger pixel is going to produce less noise at the same gain, this isn't going to change. The FF sensor is always going to be less noisy than a same-tech-level crop sensor, although it's possible that someday we'll get to the point that the max ISO value you'd ever want to use (ISO 80,000?) is essentially noise-free. If so, then the only people who would care about larger sensors would be NASA astronomers.
I'm not blown away by any of the 7DmkII vs. anything else samples, frankly. Does look like the FF bodies still hold a lead above the new cropped competition, and I am thankful for that. There will be a day when smaller sensors do as good, I presume. Dang close now.
I suspect those looking at a mkII 7 series will make decisions that aren't entirely based on image tests like those. Wildlife and sports shooters want the reach with lighter weight glass, and focus acquisition speed, as well as great ergonomics and logical design for quick settings in the field. 5DmkIII shooters wanting a cropped body will enjoy the almost identical design for familiarity. Add to that a completely solid build. The 5-yr.-old 7D's aren't dead yet, as aren't the 5D and the 5DmkII's. People will enjoy shooting with those bodies for a while to come.
All in all, they've come up with a solid update, even if it doesn't have the oft-rumored magical sensor. I'd love to move out my 20 and 40D's to make room for one, but the bills need to be paid. Anybody moving up to the new cam will be happy, I presume.
There will NEVER be a day when two cameras of the same exact generation have the same exact image quality, when comparing DX versus FX. That simply will not be possible, due to the inherent physics of gathering photons in buckets.
What you MEANT to consider, I presume, is that there will come a day when the crop sensors can match the full-frame sensors of just 2-3 generations ago. And in THAT respect, the day has already come IMO. Compare the 7D mk2 against the 5D mk2 / 1Ds mk3, or compare the Nikon D5300 against the D3X.
They'll pretty much match.
But even that is beside the point. The real point is, how many times are you going to automatically consider each new stop of ISO performance to be "can't live without it"? ISO 1600 was incredible on the 5D mk1, and everybody raved about it. ISO 3200 on the 5D mk2, and then ISO 6400 on the 6D. (Not so much the mk3 though, IMO)
At this point though, crop sensors are delivering gorgeously clean ISO 1600 / 3200, and yet we're still completely disqualifying them as un-usable just because we're busy chasing a clean ISO 12800 or 25600 from the latest full-frames
Well, I'd love a "Nikon Df mk2" that can shoot at ISO 25600 as cleanly as my D5300 camera can do 3200, and I just might buy one someday, ...but that doesn't stop me from realizing that I can now use pretty much any camera on the market for professional work, at most ISO's, regardless of sensor size.
Most fellas ( or people if you prefer ) own a 1/4 inch drill, and lot of us own 3/8 inch drills, and some of use even own our own 1/2 inch portable drills.
But very few of us possess our own personal 1 inch drills, we just don't need to make that big a hole very often....
Likewise with cameras, ISO higher than 3200 or so just aren't going to be needed that often by most of us. If it is that dark, add a touch of flash, and voila, night becomes day. At ISO 1600+ just a touch of flash goes a very long way.
... // Likewise with cameras, ISO higher than 3200 or so just aren't going to be needed that often by most of us. If it is that dark, add a touch of flash, and voila, night becomes day. At ISO 1600+ just a touch of flash goes a very long way.
Well, yes ... and I have done / do ... with a home made 'better beamer' tacked onto the side of my 500 in murky (but interesting, imo) light / conditions (rain, snow etc) in winter.
Having better higher iso performance would, of course help ... but going FF would also be a backwards step in the world of long lenses / small subjects - especially for the financially challenged
Having seen 1Dx wildlife shots @ 16000 iso by the likes of Andy Rouse, I am slightly familiar with possible results - even if I'd never get 'em
pp
ps yes, I'll be watching how this new arrival copes in the real world, since - afaik - it's the first Canon 1.6 crop body with an AF point arrangement similar to the old 1D layout, rather than the diamond.
What you MEANT to consider, I presume, is that there will come a day when the crop sensors can match the full-frame sensors of just 2-3 generations ago. And in THAT respect, the day has already come IMO. Compare the 7D mk2 against the 5D mk2 / 1Ds mk3, or compare the Nikon D5300 against the D3X.
They'll pretty much match.
That notion seemed unbelievable to me so I went and did that comparison here:
And sure enough, the 7D2 and 5D2 are pretty much equivalent at ISO 3200. That's remarkable. The 5D2 has the edge in the red fabric on the left, but otherwise it's a wash.
The 5D3 still clearly wins across the whole picture though, which is to be expected.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
since - afaik - it's the first Canon 1.6 crop body with an AF point arrangement similar to the old 1D layout, rather than the diamond.
And the first I think with a built in Intervalometer and a built in GPS. Both of which will get a lot of use.
I think the new AF point arrangement will be a great asset, I never liked the diamond pattern of AF points in the 10D, 20D, 40D, 50D, 7D even though I used them all over the years.
Speaking of the AF pattern, I want to caution people not to expect miracles. It takes two to Tango, and the AF's dance partner is the lens. Remember that AF happens with the lens wide open. Lenses that are known to be soft away from center when wide open will not AF well with the outer AF points. Like my 50/1.4 and my previous 35L.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
There will NEVER be a day when two cameras of the same exact generation have the same exact image quality, when comparing DX versus FX. That simply will not be possible, due to the inherent physics of gathering photons in buckets.
Unless these two cameras had sensors with the same size photon buckets.
So a crop sensor of 20 mp and a FF sensor with 50 mp would be the same.
I'll use the Canon 30D at 8mp and the Canon 5DMKII for an example.
The fact that they were different generations with different processors I would guess would be the reason
for the difference in output noise.
Of course if a company came out with this FF sensor, the need for a crop camera would disappear.
You would have the same amount of pixels/mm with an ability to crop the image in post processing.
I'm trying to figure out why this isn't happing now.
If they put 20mp on a crop sensor, why isn't there a FF sensor out there with the same iso noise, but
with 50mp.
What you MEANT to consider, I presume, is that there will come a day when the crop sensors can match the full-frame sensors of just 2-3 generations ago. And in THAT respect, the day has already come IMO. Compare the 7D mk2 against the 5D mk2 / 1Ds mk3, or compare the Nikon D5300 against the D3X.
They'll pretty much match.
But even that is beside the point. The real point is, how many times are you going to automatically consider each new stop of ISO performance to be "can't live without it"? ISO 1600 was incredible on the 5D mk1, and everybody raved about it. ISO 3200 on the 5D mk2, and then ISO 6400 on the 6D. (Not so much the mk3 though, IMO)
At this point though, crop sensors are delivering gorgeously clean ISO 1600 / 3200, and yet we're still completely disqualifying them as un-usable just because we're busy chasing a clean ISO 12800 or 25600 from the latest full-frames
Well, I'd love a "Nikon Df mk2" that can shoot at ISO 25600 as cleanly as my D5300 camera can do 3200, and I just might buy one someday, ...but that doesn't stop me from realizing that I can now use pretty much any camera on the market for professional work, at most ISO's, regardless of sensor size.
=Matt=
I did this test a few years ago.
I set up a lens on a tripod in the living room.
Took a picture with my 30D, then removed the 30D from the lens and took one with my 5DMKII.
The size of the "buckets" are the same on the two sensors.
The white box is outlining the 30D shot that was placed on the 5DMKII shot.
So, if these two sensors were built at the same time, the noise should be the same.
So, if today, Canon can built a 20mp crop sensor, why can they not built a 50mp FF sensor and have the same output for both cameras?
... So, if today, Canon can built a 20mp crop sensor, why can they not built a 50mp FF sensor and have the same output for both cameras? ...[/IMG]
The primary determinant, as I understand it, is that the reject rate is too high for large silicon wafers capable of supporting 4.1µm photosites, like those used in the crop Canon 70D and 7D MKII. Plus the manufacturing difficulties and reject rate from the larger lithographic photomasks and Color Filter Array used for producing Bayer imaging chips at 4.1µm.
Canon demonstrated an APS-H/crop 1.3x sensor with 120 megapixels on August 24, 2010, so they have the technology. t's just a cost thing. http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html
Of course if a company came out with this FF sensor, the need for a crop camera would disappear.
You would have the same amount of pixels/mm with an ability to crop the image in post processing.
I'm trying to figure out why this isn't happing now.
It is happening now, it's called the Nikon D810 or Sony A7r. 36mp FF cropped to APS-C is 16mp, more than enough for most applications. The problem is that a D810 is too expensive for most DSLR buyers, and an A7r is also expensive and has other limitations.
Actually, crop a 6D image to APS-C and you still have 8mp, which could be argued is still enough for most applications. So I guess I don't see your point...?
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Bingo! Defect rates impact the cost of a silicon chip more than anything, and as they get bigger the defect rate goes up much faster.
The rate goes up faster tells me nothing.
How much faster? One time, two times, 10 times?
Get one good one, throw 10 away?
Seeing as Canon puts a 20mp chip in a crop camera, and one in a FF camera for about the same price,
it tells me that the cost of the chip probably isn't the largest cost of the camera.
Lets try it this way.
Canon had a couple 8mp crop cameras that I can remember. A 20D and a 30D.
About 3 years after that they came out with the 20mp FF 5DMKII with much better noise control at higher iso's at the same pixel size.
Five years ago they came out with an 18mp crop camera.
Where's the 44mp FF equivalent with that sized pixel with better noise control at higher iso's?
The rate goes up faster tells me nothing.
How much faster? One time, two times, 10 times?
1.6 times, duh.
Seeing as Canon puts a 20mp chip in a crop camera, and one in a FF camera for about the same price,
it tells me that the cost of the chip probably isn't the largest cost of the camera.
The 7D2 has a vastly superior AF system and shutter mechanism compared to the 6D, and the anti-flicker mode is ground breaking. I'd say their ability to sell 6Ds for $1899 is due in part to their tooling to create ~20mp FF CMOS sensors being paid for.
Lets try it this way.
Canon had a couple 8mp crop cameras that I can remember. A 20D and a 30D.
About 3 years after that they came out with the 20mp FF 5DMKII with much better noise control at higher iso's at the same pixel size.
Five years ago they came out with an 18mp crop camera.
Where's the 44mp FF equivalent with that sized pixel with better noise control at higher iso's?
A valid question. Maybe they're letting the 7D2 have all the Photokina limelight, and the big mp FF landscape beast will steal the next show.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I've no idea what the rate is ... but if it's related to (physical) chip size (as well as pixel count)... then surely it's more likely to be related to chip area rather than linear scale scaling factor?
Apart from higher failure rates because of greater complexity, you'll always be able to get more chips of a physically smaller size / area from a wafer of any given diameter?
It is happening now, it's called the Nikon D810 or Sony A7r. 36mp FF cropped to APS-C is 16mp, more than enough for most applications. The problem is that a D810 is too expensive for most DSLR buyers, and an A7r is also expensive and has other limitations.
Actually, crop a 6D image to APS-C and you still have 8mp, which could be argued is still enough for most applications. So I guess I don't see your point...?
Yep, the D810 etc. are delivering fantastic results at 36 MP, and in 1.5x crop mode they deliver a gorgeous ~16 MP.
This doesn't stop Canon from making the 7D mk2 however, for the previously mentioned reasons relating to the significantly higher cost of fabricating a full-frame sensor. In short, there will always be a market fo the more affordable cameras like the 7D mk2 and the Nikon D7100. (I don't even want to know what the FX version of the 24 megapixel D7100 would be!!!!)
So yeah, maybe we'll see a 5D mk4 or something that has that 50 MP sensor. But it will cost a boat-load more than the 7D mk2, and if it comes out relatively soon it won't have much better high ISO performance than the 7D mk2 which is a noticeable step down from the likes of the 6D and its full-frame generation. Word on the street is that the D750 is even better than them all, too!
Thus, fewer people want a 50 MP full-frame camera than you think...
Yep, the D810 etc. are delivering fantastic results at 36 MP, and in 1.5x crop mode they deliver a gorgeous ~16 MP.
This doesn't stop Canon from making the 7D mk2 however, for the previously mentioned reasons relating to the significantly higher cost of fabricating a full-frame sensor. In short, there will always be a market fo the more affordable cameras like the 7D mk2 and the Nikon D7100. (I don't even want to know what the FX version of the 24 megapixel D7100 would be!!!!)
So yeah, maybe we'll see a 5D mk4 or something that has that 50 MP sensor. But it will cost a boat-load more than the 7D mk2, and if it comes out relatively soon it won't have much better high ISO performance than the 7D mk2 which is a noticeable step down from the likes of the 6D and its full-frame generation. Word on the street is that the D750 is even better than them all, too!
Thus, fewer people want a 50 MP full-frame camera than you think...
=Matt=
I'm guessing (as are you) that the cost of the sensor isn't all that significant.
They put 18mp sensors in $700 cameras. They put a full framed sensor in a camera that costs less than the 7DMKII.
I would guess that even if a large mega pixel sensor was 3 or 4 times the cost of a crop sensor. The cost of the camera
could be kept down. (if they wanted to do that)
It would be interesting to know what the breakdown is for the different parts of a camera.
What bring the cost up faster.
Sensor size?
Af speed, af points, and frame rate?
The build, plastic or mag., weather resistant?
What else is there?
IQ?
From what I've seen, (don't own one) the 6D may have the best IQ, yet it costs less than the 5DMKIII and the 7DMKII.
So IQ can't be the big factor.
AF speed, points and frame rate must be it.
But, the 7DMKII is half the price of a 5DMKIII, yet it has better specs. That can't be it.
I think you can see where I'm going with this.
It appears the determining factor for what a camera costs is how much can they make us believe that we "need" something.
For me, do I need 10 FPS over 7 FPS? (7DMKII vs 70D) No I do not.
The only thing this is going to do for me is fill up my hard drive faster. I probably won't have any more keepers
just because I can rattle off 3 more frames/second.
I'm sure the more and better AF points will help quite a few people, it will probably help me also.
Tougher body? I've yet to break a camera, and I routinely have a 300LF2.8is with a 2X tc hanging off the front of a camera
while walking through the woods with the camera grip in my hand. (rebels, XXD's and 5DMKII)
For me to get excited about the 7DMKII, the AF is going to have to give me an 80% dead on focus rate.
Without that, I think my 70D will do everything that I need it to do.
It's late, and I'm rambling, so I'll say goodnight.
dave.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I'm guessing (as are you) that the cost of the sensor isn't all that significant.
They put 18mp sensors in $700 cameras. They put a full framed sensor in a camera that costs less than the 7DMKII.
I would guess that even if a large mega pixel sensor was 3 or 4 times the cost of a crop sensor. The cost of the camera
could be kept down. (if they wanted to do that)
It would be interesting to know what the breakdown is for the different parts of a camera.
What bring the cost up faster.
Sensor size?
Af speed, af points, and frame rate?
The build, plastic or mag., weather resistant?
What else is there?
IQ?
From what I've seen, (don't own one) the 6D may have the best IQ, yet it costs less than the 5DMKIII and the 7DMKII.
So IQ can't be the big factor.
AF speed, points and frame rate must be it.
But, the 7DMKII is half the price of a 5DMKIII, yet it has better specs. That can't be it.
I think you can see where I'm going with this.
It appears the determining factor for what a camera costs is how much can they make us believe that we "need" something.
For me, do I need 10 FPS over 7 FPS? (7DMKII vs 70D) No I do not.
The only thing this is going to do for me is fill up my hard drive faster. I probably won't have any more keepers
just because I can rattle off 3 more frames/second.
I'm sure the more and better AF points will help quite a few people, it will probably help me also.
Tougher body? I've yet to break a camera, and I routinely have a 300LF2.8is with a 2X tc hanging off the front of a camera
while walking through the woods with the camera grip in my hand. (rebels, XXD's and 5DMKII)
For me to get excited about the 7DMKII, the AF is going to have to give me an 80% dead on focus rate.
Without that, I think my 70D will do everything that I need it to do.
It's late, and I'm rambling, so I'll say goodnight.
Yeah, I think all your rambling still just proves my point- A full-frame 7D mk2 wouldn't be possible for less than $3K.
Comments
This one from Imaging-Resource.
There is a quick note and image on the link above, plus they have some detailed shots at their test shot area. But first story contains a link to the "Compareter", where you can choose two cameras to compare.
Here is pixel peeped two images from the Canon 7D and 7DMkII. There is a quite noticeable difference, though not blowing me out of the water. That happens when you compare to the 5DMkIII. This is the 3200 ISO shot:
Here is another screenshot, this time at ISO 6400, comparing 7D with 7DMkII. Now this is a good comparison as the 7DMkII shot is quite useable, the 7D is not really a keeper:
And now, for comparison, same pixel peep view, ISO 6400, this time vs 5DMkIII:
You get what you pay for I suspect.
I do know that ISO 3200 was very marginally useful on my own 7D, but it DOES look useful on the 7DMkII images here, even with the higher acceptance noticed in these images as well. ( Why are the 7D images blurry anyway. They should be sharp but.... )
I would not expect the noise of the 7DMKII files to be lesser than those of the 5DMkIII, that would be quite unlikely due to basic physics, but with a bit of Noiseware the ISO 3200 images from the 7DMkII look quite useable for all but pixel peepers. Even the ISO 6400 images might be serviceable. Two stops more speed is quite significant with an increase in image quality at the same time, to me.
The AF system described on the 7DMKII sounds fantastic, and will make me a buyer, for wildlife shooting at the very least. The inclusion of in-camera GPS is just icing, but very nice icing indeed!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
'They' = me...I added the annotation, guess I got carried away with my "I"
Here are some more shots, slightly different area on photo. I am comparing the 7DMK2 vs Nikon 610, Nikon 800, Canon 6D and Canon 5DMk3. The 7DMk2 is exceptionally respectable here, comparing well and showing a very useful ISO 6400 image. In fact, the Nikons do not do that well here IMHO. What is shocking is that the 6D is simply amazing in this area of the image. So much so that I have to really think hard about whether the 6D might be more appropriate for what I want to do:
THAT, my friends, is impressive. I wish people would shut up about full frame VS crop sensors now, WRT high ISO performance. It was a valid concern up until about ISO 1600 / 3200, but at this point we need to all shut up, get off our couches, and go shoot. Dang!!!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yes my name is Sam and I am noise-phobic. I am not sure there is any cure, but I am facing this head on.
Sam
OK that is
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I suspect those looking at a mkII 7 series will make decisions that aren't entirely based on image tests like those. Wildlife and sports shooters want the reach with lighter weight glass, and focus acquisition speed, as well as great ergonomics and logical design for quick settings in the field. 5DmkIII shooters wanting a cropped body will enjoy the almost identical design for familiarity. Add to that a completely solid build. The 5-yr.-old 7D's aren't dead yet, as aren't the 5D and the 5DmkII's. People will enjoy shooting with those bodies for a while to come.
All in all, they've come up with a solid update, even if it doesn't have the oft-rumored magical sensor. I'd love to move out my 20 and 40D's to make room for one, but the bills need to be paid. Anybody moving up to the new cam will be happy, I presume.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
The cure if FF. If you don't need the AF or the FPS, the 6D is waiting for you. If you do, there is the 5D3, but you must pay.
FF will always have an advantage in that they demand 60% less enlargement from lenses. (or is it 37.5% less? 1.6 is 60% more than 1, but 1 is 37.5% less than 1.6. I never know which is the right one to use)
The only APS-C camera I've seen that performs as well as FF for resolution/sharpness has a Foveon sensor - Sigma DP2 Merrill. There's lots of issues there, but in it's sweet spot, wow. Therefore I think it's going to take something revolutionary for APS-C to reach FF levels of IQ.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
What if you have a cropped camera and the only photons you capture are 60% smaller than regular photons, compared to the FF shooter's normal photons?
:hide
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Note that the 5D3 is over 2 years old at this point -- likely a FF sensor coming out today would show a significant improvement over it.
The physics of the sensor dictate that a physically larger pixel is going to produce less noise at the same gain, this isn't going to change. The FF sensor is always going to be less noisy than a same-tech-level crop sensor, although it's possible that someday we'll get to the point that the max ISO value you'd ever want to use (ISO 80,000?) is essentially noise-free. If so, then the only people who would care about larger sensors would be NASA astronomers.
--Ian
There will NEVER be a day when two cameras of the same exact generation have the same exact image quality, when comparing DX versus FX. That simply will not be possible, due to the inherent physics of gathering photons in buckets.
What you MEANT to consider, I presume, is that there will come a day when the crop sensors can match the full-frame sensors of just 2-3 generations ago. And in THAT respect, the day has already come IMO. Compare the 7D mk2 against the 5D mk2 / 1Ds mk3, or compare the Nikon D5300 against the D3X.
They'll pretty much match.
But even that is beside the point. The real point is, how many times are you going to automatically consider each new stop of ISO performance to be "can't live without it"? ISO 1600 was incredible on the 5D mk1, and everybody raved about it. ISO 3200 on the 5D mk2, and then ISO 6400 on the 6D. (Not so much the mk3 though, IMO)
At this point though, crop sensors are delivering gorgeously clean ISO 1600 / 3200, and yet we're still completely disqualifying them as un-usable just because we're busy chasing a clean ISO 12800 or 25600 from the latest full-frames
Well, I'd love a "Nikon Df mk2" that can shoot at ISO 25600 as cleanly as my D5300 camera can do 3200, and I just might buy one someday, ...but that doesn't stop me from realizing that I can now use pretty much any camera on the market for professional work, at most ISO's, regardless of sensor size.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
But very few of us possess our own personal 1 inch drills, we just don't need to make that big a hole very often....
Likewise with cameras, ISO higher than 3200 or so just aren't going to be needed that often by most of us. If it is that dark, add a touch of flash, and voila, night becomes day. At ISO 1600+ just a touch of flash goes a very long way.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Well, yes ... and I have done / do ... with a home made 'better beamer' tacked onto the side of my 500 in murky (but interesting, imo) light / conditions (rain, snow etc) in winter.
Having better higher iso performance would, of course help ... but going FF would also be a backwards step in the world of long lenses / small subjects - especially for the financially challenged
Having seen 1Dx wildlife shots @ 16000 iso by the likes of Andy Rouse, I am slightly familiar with possible results - even if I'd never get 'em
pp
ps yes, I'll be watching how this new arrival copes in the real world, since - afaik - it's the first Canon 1.6 crop body with an AF point arrangement similar to the old 1D layout, rather than the diamond.
Flickr
That notion seemed unbelievable to me so I went and did that comparison here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM (using the "Still Life" test shot as cmason did)
And sure enough, the 7D2 and 5D2 are pretty much equivalent at ISO 3200. That's remarkable. The 5D2 has the edge in the red fabric on the left, but otherwise it's a wash.
The 5D3 still clearly wins across the whole picture though, which is to be expected.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
And the first I think with a built in Intervalometer and a built in GPS. Both of which will get a lot of use.
I think the new AF point arrangement will be a great asset, I never liked the diamond pattern of AF points in the 10D, 20D, 40D, 50D, 7D even though I used them all over the years.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Unless these two cameras had sensors with the same size photon buckets.
So a crop sensor of 20 mp and a FF sensor with 50 mp would be the same.
I'll use the Canon 30D at 8mp and the Canon 5DMKII for an example.
The fact that they were different generations with different processors I would guess would be the reason
for the difference in output noise.
Of course if a company came out with this FF sensor, the need for a crop camera would disappear.
You would have the same amount of pixels/mm with an ability to crop the image in post processing.
I'm trying to figure out why this isn't happing now.
If they put 20mp on a crop sensor, why isn't there a FF sensor out there with the same iso noise, but
with 50mp.
I did this test a few years ago.
I set up a lens on a tripod in the living room.
Took a picture with my 30D, then removed the 30D from the lens and took one with my 5DMKII.
The size of the "buckets" are the same on the two sensors.
The white box is outlining the 30D shot that was placed on the 5DMKII shot.
So, if these two sensors were built at the same time, the noise should be the same.
So, if today, Canon can built a 20mp crop sensor, why can they not built a 50mp FF sensor and have the same output for both cameras?
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
The primary determinant, as I understand it, is that the reject rate is too high for large silicon wafers capable of supporting 4.1µm photosites, like those used in the crop Canon 70D and 7D MKII. Plus the manufacturing difficulties and reject rate from the larger lithographic photomasks and Color Filter Array used for producing Bayer imaging chips at 4.1µm.
Canon demonstrated an APS-H/crop 1.3x sensor with 120 megapixels on August 24, 2010, so they have the technology. t's just a cost thing.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It is happening now, it's called the Nikon D810 or Sony A7r. 36mp FF cropped to APS-C is 16mp, more than enough for most applications. The problem is that a D810 is too expensive for most DSLR buyers, and an A7r is also expensive and has other limitations.
Actually, crop a 6D image to APS-C and you still have 8mp, which could be argued is still enough for most applications. So I guess I don't see your point...?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Bingo! Defect rates impact the cost of a silicon chip more than anything, and as they get bigger the defect rate goes up much faster.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
The rate goes up faster tells me nothing.
How much faster? One time, two times, 10 times?
Get one good one, throw 10 away?
Seeing as Canon puts a 20mp chip in a crop camera, and one in a FF camera for about the same price,
it tells me that the cost of the chip probably isn't the largest cost of the camera.
Lets try it this way.
Canon had a couple 8mp crop cameras that I can remember. A 20D and a 30D.
About 3 years after that they came out with the 20mp FF 5DMKII with much better noise control at higher iso's at the same pixel size.
Five years ago they came out with an 18mp crop camera.
Where's the 44mp FF equivalent with that sized pixel with better noise control at higher iso's?
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
1.6 times, duh.
The 7D2 has a vastly superior AF system and shutter mechanism compared to the 6D, and the anti-flicker mode is ground breaking. I'd say their ability to sell 6Ds for $1899 is due in part to their tooling to create ~20mp FF CMOS sensors being paid for.
A valid question. Maybe they're letting the 7D2 have all the Photokina limelight, and the big mp FF landscape beast will steal the next show.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I've no idea what the rate is ... but if it's related to (physical) chip size (as well as pixel count)... then surely it's more likely to be related to chip area rather than linear scale scaling factor?
Apart from higher failure rates because of greater complexity, you'll always be able to get more chips of a physically smaller size / area from a wafer of any given diameter?
pp
Flickr
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yep, the D810 etc. are delivering fantastic results at 36 MP, and in 1.5x crop mode they deliver a gorgeous ~16 MP.
This doesn't stop Canon from making the 7D mk2 however, for the previously mentioned reasons relating to the significantly higher cost of fabricating a full-frame sensor. In short, there will always be a market fo the more affordable cameras like the 7D mk2 and the Nikon D7100. (I don't even want to know what the FX version of the 24 megapixel D7100 would be!!!!)
So yeah, maybe we'll see a 5D mk4 or something that has that 50 MP sensor. But it will cost a boat-load more than the 7D mk2, and if it comes out relatively soon it won't have much better high ISO performance than the 7D mk2 which is a noticeable step down from the likes of the 6D and its full-frame generation. Word on the street is that the D750 is even better than them all, too!
Thus, fewer people want a 50 MP full-frame camera than you think...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
24mp * 1.5 * 1.5 = 54mp :eek1
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
That is the number that Thom Hogan keeps predicting we'll see one day... perhaps the D900.
My site 365 Project
I'm guessing (as are you) that the cost of the sensor isn't all that significant.
They put 18mp sensors in $700 cameras. They put a full framed sensor in a camera that costs less than the 7DMKII.
I would guess that even if a large mega pixel sensor was 3 or 4 times the cost of a crop sensor. The cost of the camera
could be kept down. (if they wanted to do that)
It would be interesting to know what the breakdown is for the different parts of a camera.
What bring the cost up faster.
Sensor size?
Af speed, af points, and frame rate?
The build, plastic or mag., weather resistant?
What else is there?
IQ?
From what I've seen, (don't own one) the 6D may have the best IQ, yet it costs less than the 5DMKIII and the 7DMKII.
So IQ can't be the big factor.
AF speed, points and frame rate must be it.
But, the 7DMKII is half the price of a 5DMKIII, yet it has better specs. That can't be it.
I think you can see where I'm going with this.
It appears the determining factor for what a camera costs is how much can they make us believe that we "need" something.
For me, do I need 10 FPS over 7 FPS? (7DMKII vs 70D) No I do not.
The only thing this is going to do for me is fill up my hard drive faster. I probably won't have any more keepers
just because I can rattle off 3 more frames/second.
I'm sure the more and better AF points will help quite a few people, it will probably help me also.
Tougher body? I've yet to break a camera, and I routinely have a 300LF2.8is with a 2X tc hanging off the front of a camera
while walking through the woods with the camera grip in my hand. (rebels, XXD's and 5DMKII)
For me to get excited about the 7DMKII, the AF is going to have to give me an 80% dead on focus rate.
Without that, I think my 70D will do everything that I need it to do.
It's late, and I'm rambling, so I'll say goodnight.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Yeah, I think all your rambling still just proves my point- A full-frame 7D mk2 wouldn't be possible for less than $3K.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum