Post by: Canon Rumors on April 15, 2013, 07:41:34 PM
UPDATE
Two people have written in to tell me that the April 23, 2013 date is not for the EOS 70D. With it being a week away, I tend to agree.
The next EOS
The next DSLR Canon is going to announce is the EOS 70D, we’re trying to confirm if it will come on April 23, 2013 as previously reported. Below is a spec list put together from various sources that have written in. All of it seems plausible and almost expected.
What to expect from the EOS 70D.
- 18mp Sensor (Same as SL1)
- DIGIC V (no one has said it will get DIGIC 6)
- 6.5fps
- SD Card
- Wifi
- GPS
- 3.2″ Touchscreen LCD (No mention of swivel)
- Magnesium Alloy Construction
- Weathersealed
- Slightly larger than the EOS 60D
- $1199 USD Body Only
We’re told a lens will be announced with the EOS 70D, but we haven’t heen told what it will be.
cr
Post by: siegsAR on April 15, 2013, 07:49:35 PM
Post by: preppyak on April 15, 2013, 07:53:14 PM
Unless they did a body redesign, I assume the built-in flash is gone too?That's not a complete spec list, so, I imagine the flash is still there. Even the 7D had that; and for the 70D, at $1199 for the body, it's still a consumer/enthusiast model. If it doesn't have it, it would be a signal that no future Canon camera will have them
Post by: LOALTD on April 15, 2013, 07:53:33 PM
Canon, 18 megapixels for 18 years!
Seriously, what.the.hell Canon.
Post by: dstppy on April 15, 2013, 07:58:45 PM
Honestly, if they do THIS plus re-add MFA (better if it's dual like the current models), then it's perfect, we can wait for a 7Dmk2 for a step up.
Post by: bchernicoff on April 15, 2013, 08:04:01 PM
18 MP? Amazing!
Canon, 18 megapixels for 18 years!
Seriously, what.the.hell Canon.
Yeah, because the problem with APS-C Canon cameras has been the low-pixel count. Gimme a break.
If right, these specs would make a pretty decent crop backup body.
Post by: EvillEmperor on April 15, 2013, 08:11:18 PM
Post by: Jens on April 15, 2013, 08:22:28 PM
Post by: LOALTD on April 15, 2013, 08:31:45 PM
I hope I'm wrong and you guys are right, I seriously do. It sucks having too much Canon glass to affordably switch camps. #firstworldproblems
Post by: that1guyy on April 15, 2013, 08:32:11 PM
Post by: Zv on April 15, 2013, 08:41:20 PM
18 megapixels is plenty. Glad they didn't add more. Seems like Canon are putting an end to the megapixel race - until they bring out the big megapixel camera (but that's a high end product for specialists).
Weather sealed? Wonder how much it will get compared to a 7D?
6.5 fps is respectable. I could live with that.
I never liked the 60D to be honest. I picked one up at a camera store, it didn't agree with me and from that point on I ignored it. The 7D was love at first sight! It's like it was custom made for me. A perfect fit.
Post by: x-vision on April 15, 2013, 08:54:09 PM
This rumor looks like it's been put together from previous rumors.
Here's what I'm noticing:
The 700D is just going on sale for $899 (kit), while the current 7D price on Amazon has been lowered is $1150.
And the 6D has jumped in price to $1899 (up from $1800 last month).
To my untrained eye, Canon has just cleared a pricing gap between the 7D and the 6D.
At the same, it has narrowed the gap between the 700D and the 7D.
A 70D priced at $1199 will be more expensive than the 7D at this time.
Does this make sense? I think not.
It makes more sense if the rumored new camera is priced between the 7D and the 6D.
That would be the 7DII, though, not the 70D.
Post by: Don Haines on April 15, 2013, 09:13:26 PM
They announce the camera, nobody likes it and the forum is filled with complaints, yet somehow it sells well.
DXO tells us the sensor is useless, yet somehow people manage to take great pictures.
Post by: preppyak on April 15, 2013, 09:16:44 PM
A 70D priced at $1199 will be more expensive than the 7D at this time.Did it make sense that a T4i cost more than a 60D when it came out? Or the T5i vs 60D for that matter?
Does this make sense? I think not.
New technology comes out at retail prices, while 3.5yr old cameras drop in price. For the 50D, retail was $1399, the 60D was $1099. So, a camera that is a little higher spec'd than what the 60D was on release retailing for $1199 makes perfect sense. The 7D retailed at $1699, so, a camera that is better than the previous 7D likely couldn't go for anything less.
Post by: BrandonKing96 on April 15, 2013, 09:21:28 PM
Sounds pretty good, it's got everything you need in a mid range crop camera. Wonder how that SL1 sensor is doing so far?Exactly! To be honest, I wouldn't mind if my 5D III was 18 MP (without hearing it would be 22.3).
18 megapixels is plenty. Glad they didn't add more. Seems like Canon are putting an end to the megapixel race - until they bring out the big megapixel camera (but that's a high end product for specialists).
Weather sealed? Wonder how much it will get compared to a 7D?
6.5 fps is respectable. I could live with that.
I never liked the 60D to be honest. I picked one up at a camera store, it didn't agree with me and from that point on I ignored it. The 7D was love at first sight! It's like it was custom made for me. A perfect fit.
And 6.5 fps is a big improvement on the 60D's frame rate.
And to hear it has a magnesium alloy body? Wow, why is everyone being so ungrateful about it. If these are true, then these are good upgrades.
Post by: preppyak on April 15, 2013, 09:25:30 PM
Exactly! To be honest, I wouldn't mind if my 5D III was 18 MP (without hearing it would be 22.3).Yeah, though the AF will be telling. If they give it something similar to the 19pt system, then it's basically a single Digic V version of the 7D, which ain't too shabby. Of course, if they give it the usual 9pt AF sytem, it'd make me worried for what the 7dII will end up getting
And 6.5 fps is a big improvement on the 60D's frame rate.
And to hear it has a magnesium alloy body? Wow, why is everyone being so ungrateful about it. If these are true, then these are good upgrades.
Post by: dlleno on April 15, 2013, 09:26:25 PM
Hmm, I don't buy it.
This rumor looks like it's been put together from previous rumors.
you picked up on that? sorry I couldn't resist a friendly jab: As stated, "Below is a spec list put together from various sources that have written in." nice analysis, though, esp for not knowing it was a platypus rumor lol
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 15, 2013, 09:29:35 PM
And all y'all complaining about the megapickle count? You're just being silly.
Eighteen megapickles is a great sweet spot for APS-C. The only reason you need more is if you're going to print big -- big enough that your printer will take paper by the three-foot-wide roll and ink by the gallon. And if you're printing that big, there's no point in shooting with APS-C in the first place; you need at least 135 format, if not larger.
All more megapickles gets you with APS-C is slow post-processing.
Cheers,
b&
Post by: dlleno on April 15, 2013, 09:34:51 PM
Depending on what real-world autofocus performance is like, this could give the current 7D a run for its money the same way the 6D bests the 5DII.
And all y'all complaining about the megapickle count? You're just being silly.
I'm hoping the complaints are about how good the MP are, not how many of them there are. "18MP" sounds too much like they are four years old.
Post by: Canon.Rumors.Reader. on April 15, 2013, 09:40:52 PM
Post by: bereninga on April 15, 2013, 09:52:21 PM
Post by: vikta11 on April 15, 2013, 09:57:58 PM
Post by: tiger82 on April 15, 2013, 10:14:49 PM
Post by: ddashti on April 15, 2013, 10:28:34 PM
Post by: RGomezPhotos on April 15, 2013, 11:01:06 PM
Post by: richpjr on April 15, 2013, 11:34:06 PM
Post by: max on April 15, 2013, 11:36:00 PM
Post by: Chosenbydestiny on April 16, 2013, 12:00:13 AM
This sounds like a sweet upgrade from the 60D. I bought the 50D over the 60D because of the body-design and materials. Even though it was lower-spec in some ways. Add WiFi, GPS, weather-sealing, 6.5fps and Digic 5? I'd seriously consider it if I wanted a crop-camera..
Exactly.
It is full of the latest "bling" that consumers crave - who cares if it takes good pictures or not, just as long as they're better than my iPhone.
+1 and built better than an iPhone, because one day we'll all shoot photos in the middle of a blizzard, lol. One of my cameramen dropped his 60D from a 20 foot jib over a year ago because the plate was loose, still works today. That's just another story on top of many survived situations in a "normal" setting.
Post by: CanNotYet on April 16, 2013, 12:12:58 AM
Post by: viggen61 on April 16, 2013, 12:24:01 AM
Add the 19 pt AF system from the 7D to this and it would fly off the shelves. (I would like digic 6, better hi-ISO, and wide-tele AFMA also). If these things come through, the 70D will be many peoples choice instead of the 7D.
Perhaps. But if all that goes into the 70D, I can't wait for the announcement of the 7DII!
Post by: bardamu on April 16, 2013, 12:27:41 AM
The 7D mk ii is what I'm really waiting for. But even then I will be doing a careful comparison with the Nikon offerings. I could end up with a hybrid system (since I can't give up my workhorse MP-E 65mm).
Post by: LOALTD on April 16, 2013, 12:58:25 AM
That's like Apple sticking with the camera from the 3GS for the iPhone 5.
18MP is the sweet spot? So when camera comes out with a 24MP sensor with better DR and ISO than this 2009 relic, what will you do then? Stick with your 7D because "no one needs those megapixels"?
An 8MP cellphone sensor with tiny plastic optics can out-resolve a 5MP one. Do you know what a DSLR sensor would be like at that density? There is a ton of growing room, 18MP is just the beginning.
Post by: TheBadger on April 16, 2013, 01:06:01 AM
Post by: fman on April 16, 2013, 01:54:59 AM
DXO tells us the sensor is useless, yet somehow people manage to take great pictures.
I managed to take great pictures 15 years ago with my SLR and yet I use DSLR nowadays (beyond micro 4/3).
I managed without mobile phone 20 years ago but I use it continuously nowadays.
Technology moves on. Not so Canon's APS-C sensor tech. They are still living in 2009.
The 18 MP is perfectly fine for me and I think for the most (the last thing I'd wish for more MP with Canon's sensor tech from 2009) but hopefully they improve the per pixel quality.
Post by: jhanken on April 16, 2013, 02:19:36 AM
Quote
It sucks having too much Canon glass to affordably switch camps. #firstworldproblems
Funny! Recently upgraded the hard disc on my main computer, and when I got the "critically low" message today, i am feeling pretty good about 18 megapickles. Heading to the local computer establishment tomorrow to purchase a second hard disc.
The 60D is looking spiffy at current prices, the 70D seems to represent a significant refinement to an extremely fine family of cameras.
We must remember that the equipment isn't supposed to create art for us, it is here to enable us and take away as many distractions and tedious tasks as possible. It feels like the majors, Canon included, are ever converging on taking hardware-related tasks out of the creative process. Bully for Canon.
Post by: MythBusters on April 16, 2013, 03:07:57 AM
The problem is not the megapixel number, just that Canon is using technology from 2009 in a world of Moore's Law.
An 8MP cellphone sensor with tiny plastic optics can out-resolve a 5MP one. Do you know what a DSLR sensor would be like at that density? There is a ton of growing room, 18MP is just the beginning.
So I guess you would have expected a 15GHz processor in your laptop by now?!
Seriously, Moore's law doesn't hold for all parameters, read through the science books.
Of course, I don't disagree that MP might go up at some point, though overall sensor performance is the key indicator. If it goes up by keeping your MP and improving light sensitivity, off course you'd do that instead of blindly raising your MP because Moore's law tells you.
Post by: Diko on April 16, 2013, 03:33:27 AM
DIGIC V (no one has said it will get DIGIC 6)With the rise of the new SX280 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx280_hs?selectedName=Features&fileName=0901e024807efda6_feature3.html) CANON officially has stated that DIGIC 5 is a technology of the past.
When releasing a new product the vendor is supposed to equip with its "best/newest" (officially released for other products) technology. If 70D is missing DIGIC6 (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-sx280/canon-sx280A.HTM) then that would contribute to the bad image of CANON.
Things are even worser: the rumors are that the 7D2 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-spec-list-cr2/) would be with the 2 of the DIGIC 5s. Adding to that the modest DR that the current 1DX/5D3/6D CMOSs are capable of is very bad image for CANON.
Why do they continue with that low value for their customers in 2013? Year of versatile solutions from all competitors.
I don't want to be offered the same quality as someone buying lower class equipment targeted for the tourists:
18mp Sensor (Same as SL1).
I believe and HOPE that all that is only RUMORS. I am looking forward that both 70D & 7D2 will be with the newest and best CMOS and DIGIC technology.
P.S.: Sorry for the edit... Posted by accident before finishing it.
Post by: wjm on April 16, 2013, 03:35:18 AM
Has anyone tested out the SL1's sensor yet? How is it performing? My bet is that the image quality remains the same. Canon would probably want to announce the 70D before the SL1 is released to the public because once they realize the IQ is not better than the old 18MP sensor, nobody is going to buy it.
There is a preview of the camera on dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1/7 (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1/7)). There are also test pictures. The high ISO ones (=6400) look quite fine to me. Noise seems well controlles (although it is hard to judge with limited pictures).
I think Canon should have made the 'new' sensor 19mp or so. This way people stop (intentionally) mixing up the new and the old one ... :-\
Post by: Marsu42 on April 16, 2013, 03:38:56 AM
Unless they did a body redesign, I assume the built-in flash is gone too?
... but in the 6d, the gps/wifi antennas are where the flash could go, so they are probably mutually exclusive
Things are even worser: the rumors are that the 7DM2 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-spec-list-cr2/) would be with the 2 of the DIGIC 5s.
But you have no idea what has changed from 5 to 6, do you? Most likely it will be changes for some very specialized functions like better video af, the basic design of Canon cpus and the operating system have been the same for the last decade. The digic certainly doesn't fix the sensor.
Just because it's 18 doesn't mean it is the same sensor... This would seem like a worthy successor to the 60D
... on the other hand, if Canon would redesign the sensor except adding phase af pixels they'd surely up the mp count just for marketing purposes. My guess is also on 9 af points :->
Still, if it's got a better noise pattern, a little more dr like on the 6d and no banding this is a very decent camera and re-adds what was cut from the current 60d, probably just what Canon intended to do all along.
Post by: Ellen Schmidtee on April 16, 2013, 03:54:29 AM
Sure, there are some photographers out there who need enough pixels for an ad that covers the side of a building (a lot, even though printed at ~20DPI), or bird photographers who would rather crop on a regular basis than spend big cash on a longer super-tele, but my impression is those are a minority.
Most magazines are sub-A4, with a few larger fold outs, e.g. National Geographic fold size is equivalent to 13MP.
Post by: Diko on April 16, 2013, 04:03:12 AM
Canon have already stated that in DIGIC 6 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx280_hs?selectedName=Features&fileName=0901e024807efda6_feature3.html) we will witness:Things are even worser: the rumors are that the 7DM2 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-spec-list-cr2/) would be with the 2 of the DIGIC 5s.But you have no idea what has changed from 5 to 6, do you?
---
* - Dynamic IS now detects and compensates for tilt and parallel movement (shift blur) to create video that's exceptionally free of distortion.
My comment: I doubt that it would be implemented in the DSLRs. But who knows. Why NOT.
* - enables video recording in MP4 format. Highly compressed MP4 video not only preserves space on your memory card but also improves playback on mobile devices.
* - improved sensitivity that allows for higher resolution with less noise when shooting in dark conditions.
The above "improved sensitivity" to be read as:
* - Most probably improved ISO-NOISE-reducing-algorythm which again would be trade of for DR. I shoot in dark and these specs are important to me.
---
Most of that is NOT concerning me, because I do stills and avoid video. I am most interested in High ISO and wide DR.
the basic design of Canon cpus and the operating system have been the same for the last decade. The digic certainly doesn't fix the sensor.EXACTLY!
However having in mind that CANON have something new. They should IMPLEMENT it for everyone or at least to those that are willing to pay above $1k and most probably are amateurs or PROs with small budget options.
Post by: Marsu42 on April 16, 2013, 04:18:19 AM
* - improved sensitivity that allows for higher resolution with less noise when shooting in dark conditions.
The above "improved sensitivity" to be read as:
* - Most probably improved ISO-NOISE-reducing-algorythm which again would be trade of for DR. I shoot in dark and these specs are important to me.
Thanks for the information, I didn't know they already published it! But now I really know the digic6 isn't for me - it would delay Magic Lantern, I don't do video and the noise reduction of course only concerns jpeg files and I don't do these either :-p ... the good "film-like" nr advancement 5d2->5d3 was already done by digic5.
I don't get people's complaints about resolution.
I'm ok with 18mp, but more resolution would be nice for macro and esp. would provide more leverage for cropping different aspect ratios or cuts w/o taking multiple shots and do perspective correction in post w/o a hardware tilt/shift lens.
Post by: nicku on April 16, 2013, 04:25:20 AM
Seems like the XXD line is back on track.At $1199 i believe the XXD line will stay where is now. on those specs nothing about body construction and AF. I believe 70D will be slightly bigger but will have the same construction as the current 60D.
Post by: greger on April 16, 2013, 04:34:23 AM
to future buyers. If it's got any features that are better than the 60D new customers to digital will find it fills their requirements. The forum chatter will continue chatter till something comes along to make us want to upgrade. Canon wants us to upgrade to Full Frame. We will because we have all this lovely glass and need a camera to replace what we have almost worn out or have grown out of. Some of us will go to the 5Dlll, it's replacement, the 6D or the 6Dll. I'm going
to use my 7D till it burns out. I will keep reading Canon Rumors to keep up on the various cameras as they come out so as to be ready for my day to upgrade.
Post by: GMCPhotographics on April 16, 2013, 04:36:23 AM
The problem is not the megapixel number, just that Canon is using technology from 2009 in a world of Moore's Law.
That's like Apple sticking with the camera from the 3GS for the iPhone 5.
18MP is the sweet spot? So when camera comes out with a 24MP sensor with better DR and ISO than this 2009 relic, what will you do then? Stick with your 7D because "no one needs those megapixels"?
An 8MP cellphone sensor with tiny plastic optics can out-resolve a 5MP one. Do you know what a DSLR sensor would be like at that density? There is a ton of growing room, 18MP is just the beginning.
I think the question one should be asking is "what am I going to use this camera for?". Does 15% or 25% more resolution (which the lenses are unlikely to be able to capitalise on) make you a better photographer? The major dofference between a 60D and 70D is the GPS and wifi, not the sensor. If Nikon or Sony have a bigger megapixel camera available which has the same or better iso ability (which I seriously doubt), will it be able to get better pictures or print much bigger? Or is it about bragging rights and owning a camera with the highest MP rating?
I'm a professional photographer and I'm really happy with the resolution on my 5DIII and 5DII. My landscapes are sharp at 100% and I can enlarge upto A1+ using my big Epson printer. The prints are crisp and sharp close up. When I had a 7D, I was happy with it's resolution too...it's just that the iso ability of that camera was seriously lacking. Iso 400was as high as I'd push that particular camera. It was a great camera bit the IQ wasn't that great. I hope that the next gen of 1.6x crop sensors from Canon can match the last gen full frame sensors for ISO ability and general pixel quality. Then they will have another winner on their hands.
Post by: Albi86 on April 16, 2013, 07:39:53 AM
The problem is not the megapixel number, just that Canon is using technology from 2009 in a world of Moore's Law.
That's like Apple sticking with the camera from the 3GS for the iPhone 5.
18MP is the sweet spot? So when camera comes out with a 24MP sensor with better DR and ISO than this 2009 relic, what will you do then? Stick with your 7D because "no one needs those megapixels"?
An 8MP cellphone sensor with tiny plastic optics can out-resolve a 5MP one. Do you know what a DSLR sensor would be like at that density? There is a ton of growing room, 18MP is just the beginning.
I think the question one should be asking is "what am I going to use this camera for?". Does 15% or 25% more resolution (which the lenses are unlikely to be able to capitalise on) make you a better photographer? The major dofference between a 60D and 70D is the GPS and wifi, not the sensor. If Nikon or Sony have a bigger megapixel camera available which has the same or better iso ability (which I seriously doubt), will it be able to get better pictures or print much bigger? Or is it about bragging rights and owning a camera with the highest MP rating?
I'm a professional photographer and I'm really happy with the resolution on my 5DIII and 5DII. My landscapes are sharp at 100% and I can enlarge upto A1+ using my big Epson printer. The prints are crisp and sharp close up. When I had a 7D, I was happy with it's resolution too...it's just that the iso ability of that camera was seriously lacking. Iso 400was as high as I'd push that particular camera. It was a great camera bit the IQ wasn't that great. I hope that the next gen of 1.6x crop sensors from Canon can match the last gen full frame sensors for ISO ability and general pixel quality. Then they will have another winner on their hands.
That's what people are talking about - if that's the same sensor. MP count is secondary, but this 18 number sounds like the fingerprint of THAT sensor.
Post by: dswatson83 on April 16, 2013, 08:00:53 AM
Don't expect anything new on the 70D. The 18MP sensor from the SL1 will not be a vast improvement in image quality though it should do a bit better than the 7D above ISO 1600. The pull though features from the T5i will be wifi & gps, slightly higher frame rate, and a slightly bigger more robust body (but still not as good as a 7D). This will be a camera aimed at the consumer market for sure.
Post by: tiger82 on April 16, 2013, 08:09:12 AM
Post by: Hannes on April 16, 2013, 08:25:14 AM
This camera will be a 6D minus the FF sensor. It will not have dual SD card slots, it will have a 9pt af (1 cross type) and will not have weather sealing like the 7D and Nikon D7100 (though it will be partially metal like the 6D with some sealing).
I very much doubt they will stick a worse af system in the 70D than in the rebel line up. During the 40D and 50D eras they segmented by using the af system as one differentiator after all so to me it'd make most sense to put the 7D af system in there. Especially as the R&D cost will already have happened and production going well.
Post by: Diko on April 16, 2013, 08:27:56 AM
The 70D, T5i, and SL1 are terrific cameras for those whose needs they meet.Exactly! :'(
My needs require good performance in ISO and Dynamic Range.
For me the only option is the newest.
Post by: Diko on April 16, 2013, 08:33:46 AM
This camera will be a 6D minus the FF sensor. It will not have dual SD card slots, it will have a 9pt af (1 cross type) and will not have weather sealing like the 7D and Nikon D7100 (though it will be partially metal like the 6D with some sealing).
I very much doubt they will stick a worse af system in the 70D than in the rebel line up. During the 40D and 50D eras they segmented by using the af system as one differentiator after all so to me it'd make most sense to put the 7D af system in there. Especially as the R&D cost will already have happened and production going well.
Why not - if rumors are true - the "thing" would cost $1,2k. In order to separate it from 7D2 they would do so. Otherwise 70D would suffer cannibalization from its big brother.
I give it 11 or even 19 af points at most. But for sure 1 SD slot. For sure for this money no weather sealing
Post by: tiger82 on April 16, 2013, 08:45:27 AM
What's not new for you may be new (and now affordable) to someone else. Why rail on a camera not aimed at you? The 70D, T5i, and SL1 are terrific cameras for those whose needs they meet. What everyone here wants is a 1DX or a 1DXL. I'm willing to wait until the 1DX prices are where the 1D Mark IV is today.
What everyone is really waiting for is the successor to the 5D2 that actually improves on IQ.
Why wait, buy the 1DX.
Post by: TWI by Dustin Abbott on April 16, 2013, 08:58:01 AM
This camera will be a 6D minus the FF sensor. It will not have dual SD card slots, it will have a 9pt af (1 cross type) and will not have weather sealing like the 7D and Nikon D7100 (though it will be partially metal like the 6D with some sealing).
Don't expect anything new on the 70D. The 18MP sensor from the SL1 will not be a vast improvement in image quality though it should do a bit better than the 7D above ISO 1600. The pull though features from the T5i will be wifi & gps, slightly higher frame rate, and a slightly bigger more robust body (but still not as good as a 7D). This will be a camera aimed at the consumer market for sure.
You are speaking in pretty strong absolutes here. First, the 6D does not have 9pt AF - it has 11. Secondly, the 60D was in fact weather sealed. It was not a magnesium alloy body; but it was weather sealed. I never had one issue with that in the years that I used a 60D as my primary body. Beyond that, how could you know that the sensor in the SL1 will not provide a vast improvement in image quality? You seem very convinced - I am just curious as to what your source was/is.
For me, the single biggest question mark regarding this body is the AF system. It seems to me that they could give it an equivalent AF to the current 7D and then implement something more like the 5DIII's AF on the 7DII and still have plenty of market separation. If they want to pull some Rebel/Kiss/xxxD users upmarket they really need to up the AF.
Post by: overniven on April 16, 2013, 09:02:43 AM
I'm also wondering how much I'd miss the on camera flash. I only use the one I have once and a whole for fill.
The 70d could be a very nice upgrade to my old noisy T1i, but I wonder how much of an improvement it will be.
Post by: tiger82 on April 16, 2013, 09:03:30 AM
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 09:56:44 AM
Seems like the XXD line is back on track.I was thinking the same thing, perhaps the 70D will be the true replacement that all the 50D owners were originally looking for... ;)
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 09:58:37 AM
This sounds like a sweet upgrade from the 60D. I bought the 50D over the 60D because of the body-design and materials. Even though it was lower-spec in some ways. Add WiFi, GPS, weather-sealing, 6.5fps and Digic 5? I'd seriously consider it if I wanted a crop-camera..Might as well throw MFA back into the picture as well. I think the 50D had it but they dropped it for the 60d, no?
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 10:04:07 AM
Indeed! One would assume that Canon would want to win back so many 50D players that never made a jump, the 70D could be a great opportunity. I can't see it replacing a 7d, as the 7DMKII will be the opportunity for Canon to continue to evolve continued success with one of their best sellers ever!Add the 19 pt AF system from the 7D to this and it would fly off the shelves. (I would like digic 6, better hi-ISO, and wide-tele AFMA also). If these things come through, the 70D will be many peoples choice instead of the 7D.
Perhaps. But if all that goes into the 70D, I can't wait for the announcement of the 7DII!
I think Canon can fix a lot with marked improvements to both the xxd line and the xd line with these two offerings, depending whether or not they actually care about that or they just want to keep on the path they've been on with some new offerings like the T5i... Hopefully the former over the latter... We shall soon enough see...
Post by: jebrady03 on April 16, 2013, 10:04:56 AM
To sum it up, here's a quote from the article (with some extraneous info redacted for the sake of brevity) - emphasis is mine and is bolded:
Quote
Months ago I told you how the A-mount roadmap has been dramatically changed after the new Sony CEO started the company restructuring program. ... And now according to brand new rumors we got from trusted sources also the planed A77 successor (the A78) that should have been announced this summer has been take off the roadmap!
The reason for it is that the A78 had too little improvements over the current A77. And it is Sony’s new policy to release a camera only if it brings considerably major advancements in features and image quality. ... Sony is developing new A-mount cameras that can outperform the competition. The status quo between Nikon-Sony-Canon is over. Sony wants to become “serious” and start a real war in the camera market. The A78 simply was good but not really a game changer camera.
That's the kind of approach I wish all camera makers would adopt. Obviously, investors in Canon are happy with extreme utilization of technologies long ago paid for, but the USERS of that equipment who are currently invested and are looking for a substantial upgrade are left out in the cold.
If Sony can put out glass as good as Canon's and produce image quality on par as well - I see no reason not to go with the innovative company. Especially when in-body IS is baked right in to the experience and EVERY lens gets IS. And that's why I won't buy a refreshed 60D - no "game changing" features.
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 10:10:31 AM
The camera will likely be `good' in absolute terms, if this is any indication. It is really the strength of the competition at present that is the issue.I think you've said a lot in that first paragraph Bard. Almost all Canon cameras are "good", what everyone one wants is one that is "Great" for the price of one that is "Good".
The 7D mk ii is what I'm really waiting for. But even then I will be doing a careful comparison with the Nikon offerings. I could end up with a hybrid system (since I can't give up my workhorse MP-E 65mm).
Not that I blame anyone, who wouldn't want that! It goes along with the "song of the silly" that is sung everywhere, those are all wanting and expecting a FF offering for under $1000! It's just not real, not yet anyway. I'm sure in a couple of years folks that want a FF camera under $1000 will be able to pick up used 6D's and used 5d2's for $1000 and under, it's just a matter of time... ;)
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 10:18:43 AM
All those things are true for me as well but you're comparing 4 years ago technology as apples to apples with regard to sensor technology and you're other comparisons are comparing technologies 15 years and 20 years or more apart.. the technology will keep moving as you so aptly say, yet so many seem unsatisfied that it doesn't move on fast enough... I see the future sensors continuing to evolve in pixel density and pixel quality... let's see what we think in another 11 years! We'll probably be blown away!DXO tells us the sensor is useless, yet somehow people manage to take great pictures.
I managed to take great pictures 15 years ago with my SLR and yet I use DSLR nowadays (beyond micro 4/3).
I managed without mobile phone 20 years ago but I use it continuously nowadays.
Technology moves on. Not so Canon's APS-C sensor tech. They are still living in 2009.
The 18 MP is perfectly fine for me and I think for the most (the last thing I'd wish for more MP with Canon's sensor tech from 2009) but hopefully they improve the per pixel quality.
Post by: Albi86 on April 16, 2013, 10:22:52 AM
Why does someone assume that if the pixel count is the same then the sensor is the same one? The 1DX. 7D, 60D, T3i, T4i, T5i, EOS-M, and SL1 are all 18MP
The 1DX has a FF sensor. All the other cameras you listed have in fact pretty much the same sensor.
The camera will likely be `good' in absolute terms, if this is any indication. It is really the strength of the competition at present that is the issue.I think you've said a lot in that first paragraph Bard. Almost all Canon cameras are "good", what everyone one wants is one that is "Great" for the price of one that is "Good".
The 7D mk ii is what I'm really waiting for. But even then I will be doing a careful comparison with the Nikon offerings. I could end up with a hybrid system (since I can't give up my workhorse MP-E 65mm).
Not that I blame anyone, who wouldn't want that! It goes along with the "song of the silly" that is sung everywhere, those are all wanting and expecting a FF offering for under $1000! It's just not real, not yet anyway. I'm sure in a couple of years folks that want a FF camera under $1000 will be able to pick up used 6D's and used 5d2's for $1000 and under, it's just a matter of time... ;)
I don't think it's silly to expect a camera in the same price and market league as the D7100 to offer comparable performance.
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 10:26:07 AM
I'm glad I found this before it becomes 10 pages long. The new camera won't be aimed at any of us who own a Canon butSounds like a wise choice! I have a 5dMkIII but I still love my 7d as well!
to future buyers. If it's got any features that are better than the 60D new customers to digital will find it fills their requirements. The forum chatter will continue chatter till something comes along to make us want to upgrade. Canon wants us to upgrade to Full Frame. We will because we have all this lovely glass and need a camera to replace what we have almost worn out or have grown out of. Some of us will go to the 5Dlll, it's replacement, the 6D or the 6Dll. I'm going
to use my 7D till it burns out. I will keep reading Canon Rumors to keep up on the various cameras as they come out so as to be ready for my day to upgrade.
Post by: tiger82 on April 16, 2013, 10:33:42 AM
As long as people gobble up what they offer; Canon will continue on this path. How many 5D Mark II owners jumped at the 5D Mark III? How many people cast aside the 1D Mark IV for the 1DX? How many T3i owners upgraded to the T4i? If you accept small incremental technology improvements, expect more of the same.
Look at the T4i, the T5i should have been the one released to replace the T3i. I expect the T5i sensor to be a major leap over the T3i in IQ.
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 10:35:22 AM
I don't think it's silly so much as in one to expect it. I think it's silly for one to expect it from Canon... I just can't see them going there. Hopefully for the multitudes, I'll be proven wrong at some point in time! :)Why does someone assume that if the pixel count is the same then the sensor is the same one? The 1DX. 7D, 60D, T3i, T4i, T5i, EOS-M, and SL1 are all 18MP
The 1DX has a FF sensor. All the other cameras you listed have in fact pretty much the same sensor.The camera will likely be `good' in absolute terms, if this is any indication. It is really the strength of the competition at present that is the issue.I think you've said a lot in that first paragraph Bard. Almost all Canon cameras are "good", what everyone one wants is one that is "Great" for the price of one that is "Good".
The 7D mk ii is what I'm really waiting for. But even then I will be doing a careful comparison with the Nikon offerings. I could end up with a hybrid system (since I can't give up my workhorse MP-E 65mm).
Not that I blame anyone, who wouldn't want that! It goes along with the "song of the silly" that is sung everywhere, those are all wanting and expecting a FF offering for under $1000! It's just not real, not yet anyway. I'm sure in a couple of years folks that want a FF camera under $1000 will be able to pick up used 6D's and used 5d2's for $1000 and under, it's just a matter of time... ;)
I don't think it's silly to expect a camera in the same price and market league as the D7100 to offer comparable performance.
Post by: TeQuillaaaA on April 16, 2013, 10:49:42 AM
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 10:56:51 AM
So it means that there is no new camera like 70d? :-(Certainly there is. Just speculation as to how it will be outfitted... We'll find out soon! :D
Post by: TeQuillaaaA on April 16, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 11:04:41 AM
I will travel to iceland in the end of june ... so i want to take photos with a new camera :D it will be very close ...It will be really close since it hasn't been announced yet and it's almost May! Good luck! Do you have a contingency plan if it doesn't hit the market until later in the year like August or September?
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 11:07:23 AM
[T]he 5D Mark III does not present such a technological leap[....]
Erm, that's complete bollocks.
Best autofocus system of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best high ISO performance of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best video of any consumer DSLR....
There's a whole hell of a lot more to a camera than just its megapickle count.
Anybody who claims that the 5DIII isn't a big deal isn't a photographer or is just plain clueless.
It may well be the case that the advancements made in the 5DIII aren't relevant to your particular type of photography. And, if all you do is low ISO work of static subjects, you'd be exactly right.
But that's such a marginal part of photography that's already been so well served that it's ludicrous to suggest that that's all that matters.
Cheers,
b&
Post by: tiger82 on April 16, 2013, 11:21:02 AM
[T]he 5D Mark III does not present such a technological leap[....]
Erm, that's complete bollocks.
Best autofocus system of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best high ISO performance of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best video of any consumer DSLR....
There's a whole hell of a lot more to a camera than just its megapickle count.
Anybody who claims that the 5DIII isn't a big deal isn't a photographer or is just plain clueless.
It may well be the case that the advancements made in the 5DIII aren't relevant to your particular type of photography. And, if all you do is low ISO work of static subjects, you'd be exactly right.
But that's such a marginal part of photography that's already been so well served that it's ludicrous to suggest that that's all that matters.
Cheers,
b&
So you are saying the 5D Mark III's AF and ISO performance is better than the 1DX? My point is many people upgraded just to have the latest and greatest. I would bet you 95% of 5D Mark III upgraders never go above ISO 640
Post by: c.d.embrey on April 16, 2013, 11:26:39 AM
... It sucks having too much Canon glass to affordably switch camps. #firstworldproblems
Why do you have too much Canon glass ??? I'm always amazed at all the people who own lenses that they don't use very often.
Sell them!!. People always say that lenses are a good investment, so you may even make a little money :)
Post by: Random Orbits on April 16, 2013, 11:30:17 AM
[T]he 5D Mark III does not present such a technological leap[....]
Erm, that's complete bollocks.
Best autofocus system of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best high ISO performance of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best video of any consumer DSLR....
There's a whole hell of a lot more to a camera than just its megapickle count.
Anybody who claims that the 5DIII isn't a big deal isn't a photographer or is just plain clueless.
It may well be the case that the advancements made in the 5DIII aren't relevant to your particular type of photography. And, if all you do is low ISO work of static subjects, you'd be exactly right.
But that's such a marginal part of photography that's already been so well served that it's ludicrous to suggest that that's all that matters.
Cheers,
b&
So you are saying the 5D Mark III's AF and ISO performance is better than the 1DX? My point is many people upgraded just to have the latest and greatest. I would bet you 95% of 5D Mark III upgraders never go above ISO 640
The 5DIII should be compared to the 5DII, as your earlier post indicated. Why are you now comparing it to the 1DX?
That would make for an interesting poll to see how 5DIII users use the camera. Over 25% of the shots I keep are at ISO 3200 or above.
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 11:31:23 AM
So you are saying the 5D Mark III's AF and ISO performance is better than the 1DX?
Read what I wrote. I was shooting with a retail-bought 5DIII for a long time before you could even place a pre-order for the 1DX.
Plus, you've just acknowledged that the 5DIII's autofocus and low light performance is second only to Canon's most ultimate ever flagship camera. And yet it's still an insignificant marginal improvement over the 5DII? Please. At least have the decency to keep your trolling consistent.
Quote
My point is many people upgraded just to have the latest and greatest. I would bet you 95% of 5D Mark III upgraders never go above ISO 640
That's a bet I'd happily take. Indeed, I'd bet you that the overwhelming majority of 5DIII owners are event and wedding photographers and journalists, and a good number of them are going to be using ISO 800 on the 5DIII as their standard setting. Indeed, the set of circumstances where you need lower than ISO 800 on the 5DIII is very small -- basically, if you're printing at 24" x 36" or bigger and grain is intolerable, a rather small set of photographers indeed.
I mean, seriously. Have you ever even pressed the shutter button on a 5DIII? Or is your experience with one limited to scanning the official announcement for the megapickle count?
Cheers,
b&
Post by: xps on April 16, 2013, 11:38:45 AM
Maybe the 7D2 in 2014???? or 2015???
I´d like to know why Canon is announcing the cams so late.... Nikon is told to bring out the next model in the Summer.... then they have an actual successor of each camera older then 3 years....
Post by: c.d.embrey on April 16, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
Post by: TeQuillaaaA on April 16, 2013, 12:05:45 PM
I will travel to iceland in the end of june ... so i want to take photos with a new camera :D it will be very close ...It will be really close since it hasn't been announced yet and it's almost May! Good luck! Do you have a contingency plan if it doesn't hit the market until later in the year like August or September?
There are two ways:
First: I travel with my 1000D and buy a new camera possibly after the holiday
Second: i buy a other dslr (e.g. 60D or 7D) now ... i am unsure :(
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 12:33:39 PM
Why would I pay the same price as a Nikon D7100, for a camera with fewer features ??? Will the 70D have 51 point autofocus ??? Will the 70D shutter be tested 150,000 cycles ??? Will the 70D have a 2,016 pixel RGB 3D Matrix Metering System ??? Will the 70D have dual SDXC slots ???
Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant. Almost nobody ever wears out a shutter on any DSLR, let alone a consumer model, and those few who actually manage to wear one out only have to pay a few hundred bucks for a replacement. That works out to something on the order of dozens of exposures per penny, truly a rounding error.
Dual memory card slots are irrelevant to all but a very small minority of shooters, too...essentially, the only ones who care are those who need a redundant backup, and they're all shooting with two bodies anyway.
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless. What matters is the actual real-world autofocus and metering performance, not how they're implemented. If the 70D has autofocus that's fast and accurate, I don't think very many people will care if it has 51 AF points or 37 or 1046 or 5. Same thing with metering. If it nails the exposure, who cares if it does so with a seventeen gigapickle CMY 5D Hypercube Metering Method or with a single photodiode?
I really don't get the point of those who compare product specifications as opposed to actual measurements. It's like a bunch of gearheads bragging about how many horsepower their engines have but completely ignoring who's actually winning the races. So what if your hotrod has 2000 HP and that punk over there is driving an econobox with a measly 500 HP, if he crosses the finish line before you because your car is so unbalanced from the oversized engine that it can't corner worth a damn?
Cheers,
b&
Post by: Marsu42 on April 16, 2013, 12:40:26 PM
I´d like to know why Canon is announcing the cams so late....
Canon has been burnt by the 1dx & 24-70ii delays, now they'll release it if it's really ready for production.
Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant. Almost nobody ever wears out a shutter on any DSLR, let alone a consumer model,
Not so: Shooting brackets (3+ shutter cycles per shot), focus stacking (10-20+ cycles) and using live view with quick af (one cycle very af action) I'm now on 125k cycles on my 60d after about two years.
Dual memory card slots are irrelevant to all but a very small minority of shooters, too...essentially, the only ones who care are those who need a redundant backup, and they're all shooting with two bodies anyway.
That doesn't make sense: Another body doesn't protect you from card failure, i.e. coming home and the data isn't readable but the camera thought it was written just fine. For many, no dual cards disqualifies a 70d or 6d as a backup body for a "pro" first camera 7d2/5d3 - probably what Canon intends.
If they want to pull some Rebel/Kiss/xxxD users upmarket they really need to up the AF.
Canon might decide last minute based on market research what existing af system to chuck in - 60d or 7d. But I'm not very hopeful, there are plenty of other tech specs above the rebels and the whole usability, Canon might think that'd be enough or they'd risk 6d upselling.
Post by: c.d.embrey on April 16, 2013, 12:59:36 PM
Why would I pay the same price as a Nikon D7100, for a camera with fewer features ??? Will the 70D have 51 point autofocus ??? Will the 70D shutter be tested 150,000 cycles ??? Will the 70D have a 2,016 pixel RGB 3D Matrix Metering System ??? Will the 70D have dual SDXC slots ???
Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant ...
Dual memory card slots are irrelevant ...
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless. What matters is the actual real-world autofocus and metering performance, ...
So you think that 61 point autofocus is important on a 1Dx, but irrelavant on a 70D ??? The nice thing about Nikon is that they treat all their customers with respect. Nikon has no second class citizens when it come to autofocus and metering.
In a marketing driven world, having lesser specifications won't win the sales war.
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 01:07:27 PM
Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant. Almost nobody ever wears out a shutter on any DSLR, let alone a consumer model,
Not so: Shooting brackets (3+ shutter cycles per shot), focus stacking (10-20+ cycles) and using live view with quick af (one cycle very af action) I'm now on 125k cycles on my 60d after about two years.
I wrote, "almost nobody." Clearly, there are people who wear out a shutter. But very few.
And, I'll also note: it's taken you two years to reach the official shutter count, and you've probably got at least another year, quite reasonably two, left before your 60D will need a replacement shutter. You, one of the exceptional people who might actually wear out a shutter, are probably going to wind up spending an average cost of about $0.25 / day on the camera's shutter. Over the course of a month, it'll cost you less than many spend on a single drink at Starbucks. I hardly think that qualifies as something that should even be on anybody's radar.
Quote
QuoteDual memory card slots are irrelevant to all but a very small minority of shooters, too...essentially, the only ones who care are those who need a redundant backup, and they're all shooting with two bodies anyway.
That doesn't make sense: Another body doesn't protect you from card failure, i.e. coming home and the data isn't readable but the camera thought it was written just fine. For many, no dual cards disqualifies a 70d or 6d as a backup body for a "pro" first camera 7d2/5d3 - probably what Canon intends.
I'll agree that dual cards are useful for backups for professionals doing event photography. I just don't see the 70D positioned as such a camera.
Look at it this way: the difference in price between what's listed in this rumor and the 7D from reputable retailers is $50. What pro is even going to bother to pretend that the 70D is a reasonable alternative to a 7D? If you're making money at this and $50 is going to sway your decision, you're not going to be making money for long. The price difference between the 5DII and the 5DIII is $500, again not enough to be a factor in a business decision -- if you can't afford the extra $500, you're in the worng business. (Not that you should just blindly get the more expensive camera, just that price should be pretty far down on your list of decision-making criteria. If you don't need anything that the extra $500 gets you, don't spend the $500. But if anything that extra $500 gets you will be useful, you shouldn't be hesitating to get it just because it's an extra $500.)
Cheers,
b&
Post by: insanitybeard on April 16, 2013, 01:10:34 PM
So you think that 61 point autofocus is important on a 1Dx, but irrelavant on a 70D ??? The nice thing about Nikon is that they treat all their customers with respect. Nikon has no second class citizens when it come to autofocus and metering.
In a marketing driven world, having lesser specifications won't win the sales war.
So why not pay your money (or not) and take your choice, instead of constantly proclaiming Nikon's superiority and more consumer friendly business ethic to the rest of us? As for your comment about specifications and the sales war, are Canon losing market share? If you don't want to shoot Canon, no problem, I just wonder why you continue to hang around on a Canon forum and tell us all about it.
And, FYI, I won't be upgrading my 7D until Canon offers a genuine upgrade, so I'm not defending their strategy, I'm just tired of the same old commentators with nothing new to say that seem to surface every time Canon -RUMOURS- (not even announces) a product.
Post by: Sella174 on April 16, 2013, 01:18:18 PM
Anyway, whilst y'all going on about low-light and high-ISO performance, I want low-ISO performance ... ISO 50 ... or better yet, ISO 25.
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 01:18:43 PM
So you think that 61 point autofocus is important on a 1Dx, but irrelavant on a 70D ???
Troll harder.
You're the one obsessing over the number of points in the autofocus system.
All I've been writing about is the actual performance of the autofocus system.
So Canon used 61 points to create an autofocus system that's faster and more accurate than any other. So what? What matters is that the system is faster and more accurate, not how many points it has.
b&
Post by: c.d.embrey on April 16, 2013, 01:21:02 PM
So why not pay your money (or not) and take your choice, instead of constantly proclaiming Nikon's superiority and more consumer friendly business ethic to the rest of us?
My problem is with Canon's dis-respect of the vast majority of their customers. If it wasn't for xxxD an xxD sales there would be no R&D money to support xD development.
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 01:24:24 PM
Anyway, whilst y'all going on about low-light and high-ISO performance, I want low-ISO performance ... ISO 50 ... or better yet, ISO 25.
Um...why?
The 5DIII (I'm not personally familiar with crop cameras) is noise-free at ISO 400. It's just as noise-free at ISO 200 and ISO 100. There's no more noise to be cleaned up, so what's there to be gained by ISO 25?
About the only purpose would be for slower shutter speeds with wide apertures in bright light, but that's what neutral density filters are for -- not to mention, an uncommon and somewhat specialized area of photography where anybody serious about it is already going to know that you can't get good results with low ISO alone.
Cheers,
b&
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
So why not pay your money (or not) and take your choice, instead of constantly proclaiming Nikon's superiority and more consumer friendly business ethic to the rest of us?
My problem is with Canon's dis-respect of the vast majority of their customers. If it wasn't for xxxD an xxD sales there would be no R&D money to support xD development.
And, yet, that vast majority of Canon's customers is bigger than anybody else's vast majority, and happier too.
So you think Canon sucks. We get that. So stop whining about how much Canon sucks and get yourself a Nikon so you can be happy.
Or do you just get a kick out of being the guy who gets all the attention in the room by loudly demanding to know who farted and pointing fingers at your least-favorite people?
b&
Post by: c.d.embrey on April 16, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
You're the one obsessing over the number of points in the autofocus system.
All I've been writing about is the actual performance of the autofocus system.
b&
No, I've been obsessing about the better autofocus of lower-end Nikons vs the lack-luster performance of lower-end Canon models.
Have a nice day :) :) :)
Post by: x-vision on April 16, 2013, 01:58:40 PM
Why would I pay the same price as a Nikon D7100, for a camera with fewer features ??? Will the 70D have 51 point autofocus ??? Will the 70D shutter be tested 150,000 cycles ??? Will the 70D have a 2,016 pixel RGB 3D Matrix Metering System ??? Will the 70D have dual SDXC slots ???
+1000
Post by: x-vision on April 16, 2013, 02:09:11 PM
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless.
This is a typical fanboy response.
When a Canon has better specs, it wins hands down.
But if a Nikon has better specs, then this is irrelevant in the 'real world'.
FYI, this is not how things work with buyers.
Buyers look at the price and the specs and then ponder if the camera offers good value.
The D7100 offers exceptional value.
If Canon doesn't match that, then they'd better offer the 70D for cheap.
Post by: Sella174 on April 16, 2013, 02:09:38 PM
Um...why?
... so what's there to be gained by ISO 25?
About the only purpose would be for slower shutter speeds with wide apertures in bright light, but that's what neutral density filters are for -- not to mention, an uncommon and somewhat specialized area of photography where anybody serious about it is already going to know that you can't get good results with low ISO alone.
Over here in Africa we used to shoot with ASA 50 as standard, so I guess it's just something I'm used to from my film days. Using ISO 100 my shutter speeds go to 1/2000~4000 easily, but usually around 1/1000 most of the time. ND filters are a hassle.
My point was more that low-light and high-ISO performance isn't that important to everybody. Maybe I'm the only one, but at least that doesn't make it everyone.
On another point ... the 30D has a pretty crummy AF and I haven't really seen anything improve in the later models. Unfortunately for me the benchmark is the EOS 3 camera ... anything else since then has just been toy-grade.
Post by: stipotle on April 16, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
[T]he 5D Mark III does not present such a technological leap[....]
Erm, that's complete bollocks.
Best autofocus system of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best high ISO performance of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best video of any consumer DSLR....
There's a whole hell of a lot more to a camera than just its megapickle count.
Anybody who claims that the 5DIII isn't a big deal isn't a photographer or is just plain clueless.
It may well be the case that the advancements made in the 5DIII aren't relevant to your particular type of photography. And, if all you do is low ISO work of static subjects, you'd be exactly right.
But that's such a marginal part of photography that's already been so well served that it's ludicrous to suggest that that's all that matters.
Cheers,
b&
+1
To call the the MkII is a "superb" camera, and then in the same sentence say that the MkIII isn't good enough makes me think you haven't even held one, let alone put one through it's paces. Have fun with your DXO sensor scores, but on the whole, it's undeniably in a different league than the MkII.
Post by: c.d.embrey on April 16, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless.
This is a typical fanboy response.
When a Canon has better specs, it wins hands down.
But if a Nikon has better specs, then this is irrelevant in the 'real world'.
FYI, this is not how things work with buyers.
Buyers look at the price and the specs and then ponder if the camera offers good value.
The D7100 offers exceptional value.
If Canon doesn't match that, then they'd better offer the 70D for cheap.
Why do you hate Canon so much :) :) :)
Nice to see someone else who lives in the real world :) :) :)
Post by: stipotle on April 16, 2013, 02:28:41 PM
[T]he 5D Mark III does not present such a technological leap[....]
Erm, that's complete bollocks.
Best autofocus system of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best high ISO performance of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best video of any consumer DSLR....
There's a whole hell of a lot more to a camera than just its megapickle count.
Anybody who claims that the 5DIII isn't a big deal isn't a photographer or is just plain clueless.
It may well be the case that the advancements made in the 5DIII aren't relevant to your particular type of photography. And, if all you do is low ISO work of static subjects, you'd be exactly right.
But that's such a marginal part of photography that's already been so well served that it's ludicrous to suggest that that's all that matters.
Cheers,
b&
So you are saying the 5D Mark III's AF and ISO performance is better than the 1DX? My point is many people upgraded just to have the latest and greatest. I would bet you 95% of 5D Mark III upgraders never go above ISO 640
-1
I'll take that bet.
That's a joke right? Or at least exaggeration for the sake of creating a point?
Post by: stipotle on April 16, 2013, 02:37:22 PM
Why would I pay the same price as a Nikon D7100, for a camera with fewer features ??? Will the 70D have 51 point autofocus ??? Will the 70D shutter be tested 150,000 cycles ??? Will the 70D have a 2,016 pixel RGB 3D Matrix Metering System ??? Will the 70D have dual SDXC slots ???
Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant ...
Dual memory card slots are irrelevant ...
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless. What matters is the actual real-world autofocus and metering performance, ...
So you think that 61 point autofocus is important on a 1Dx, but irrelavant on a 70D ??? The nice thing about Nikon is that they treat all their customers with respect. Nikon has no second class citizens when it come to autofocus and metering.
In a marketing driven world, having lesser specifications won't win the sales war.
Nikon only has second class citizens when it comes to their customer service ;)
Better specs don't equal respect, they are trying to compete.
Post by: Sella174 on April 16, 2013, 02:54:17 PM
Post by: c.d.embrey on April 16, 2013, 03:12:54 PM
Nikon only has second class citizens when it comes to their customer service ;)
Better specs don't equal respect, they are trying to compete.
About the only thing stoping many people from switching is Nikons abysmal service recornd in the USA. At one time Nikon had a good reputation ... but NOT anymore.
BTW Nikon has had better focusing and metering for a long time, I've never understood Canon's lack of competitivness in this area. I guess focusing and metering aren't at the head of the list for Canon users ;)
Post by: bereninga on April 16, 2013, 03:30:06 PM
Personally I think Canon has painted themselves into a corner with their mid-range cameras. The xxxD range offers exceptional value in terms of what you get and what you pay for it. The 1D and 5D series are workhorses. Where does that leave the xxD, 7D and 6D cameras? Let's face it, on paper the 700D has a better AF system than the 6D - except for centre-point zero-light capability. What's going to differentiate the 70D from the 7DII and the xxxD line?
I think the 7DII will remain the flagship APS-C camera w/ all the bells and whistles, maybe like a 5DIII just w/ crop sensor. 70D will have to fit somewhere between the 7DII and t5i, much like the 60D fit between the 7D and T3i.
Both 70D and 7DII might share the same sensor (not 18MP) and DIGIC 5 processor, WiFi and GPS, but the 7DII would have dual DIGIC 5, faster fps, dual card slots, better weather-sealing, 100% VF coverage, and different controls. 7DII is the workhorse for sports and wildlife photographers. I imagine the 70D would get the 7D's current AF system and the 7DII would get an AF system like the 5DIII. The 70D will differentiate from the t5i w/ the features the 60D differentiated from the t3i: different controls, weather-sealing, more fps, bigger body, etc.
Post by: Sella174 on April 16, 2013, 03:45:00 PM
I've never understood Canon's lack of competitivness in this area. I guess focusing and metering aren't at the head of the list for Canon users ;)
When I switched from Pentax to Canon in the mid-1990's, I was pretty chuffed with their auto-focus system. The metering system was somewhat iffy, but coming from an S1a with no meter whatsoever the Av and Tv modes were kind of neat. Eventually I switched to digital - the EOS 30D - from an EOS 3 and an EOS 300v. Well, the 300v has a better AF system than the 30D ... faster and more accurate ... and it was an "entry-level" camera!
I think Canon figured a DSLR didn't need a good AF system, simply because it is digital - as opposed to a film camera. So it will sell because it is digital and not because it has a good AF system (or at least as good as the last film cameras). Well, now they're in a corner ... 9, 11, 19, 61 ... big jump that last one. A 70D with 11 points won't hack it against the 700D and is hardly an improvement on the 60D; and 19 points will just make it a tweaked 7D; but how many the 70D will actually have will depend on the 7DII.
I think Canon should rationalise their line-up and merge the 70D and 7DII, as that's the only sensible thing to do. But they won't.
Post by: Albi86 on April 16, 2013, 03:58:10 PM
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless.
This is a typical fanboy response.
When a Canon has better specs, it wins hands down.
But if a Nikon has better specs, then this is irrelevant in the 'real world'.
FYI, this is not how things work with buyers.
Buyers look at the price and the specs and then ponder if the camera offers good value.
The D7100 offers exceptional value.
If Canon doesn't match that, then they'd better offer the 70D for cheap.
+1
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 04:43:44 PM
Over here in Africa we used to shoot with ASA 50 as standard, so I guess it's just something I'm used to from my film days. Using ISO 100 my shutter speeds go to 1/2000~4000 easily, but usually around 1/1000 most of the time. ND filters are a hassle.
I guess I'm still not seeing the point.
If you're regularly at ISO 100 and 1/4000, then ISO 25 is only going to get you to 1/1000. If you're looking to slow the shutter, you're at least looking at 1/250 to sync with a flash and therefore, even with ISO 25, you're still needing at least a two-stop ND filter. And such a filter is nothing compared with the hassle of the types of flash that need to be synced at that speed.
Much more common when you're looking for a slow shutter is something in the half second range to smooth out flowing water. And, first, that generally looks ugly no matter what in direct sunlight (sunny f/16 is ISO 100 @ f/4 @ 1/4000). And, second, you're not going to get even within shouting distance of that during daytime hours no matter the ISO without some serious ND filters.
And then, after that, you're looking at several second long exposures to turn busy areas into ghost towns. No way in hell is that happening in bright daylight from ISO alone.
And if your'e a videographer, ND filters are part of your standard kit and, again, the least of your worries. Again, no ISO speed has ever been made that'll take you from 1/4000 to the 1/50 you need for a 180° shutter at 25 FPS.
So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?
For everything else, you're generally wanting the fastest shutter speed you can get. You mention Africa, parts of which can get bright, granted. But it's not ISO 100 @ f/11 @ 1/4000 bright, I'm pretty sure, and you were pretty specific about the 1/4000. Put me on the savannah shooting wildlife and the last thing on my mind would be wishing for a slower shutter speed. Put me in a village shooting kids at play and I'll be wanting as fast a shutter as I can get. Put me in that village shooting the architecture and my concerns will again be about the shutter getting too slow, not being too fast. Put me again on the savannah during the golden hour to shoot the landscapes and I'll really be watching that shutter speed and quickly boosting the ISO to stop the swaying of the vegetation in the evening breeze.
I really, truly, don't get this desire for even lower ISOs speeds. That ship sailed a loooooong time ago....
Cheers,
b&
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless.
This is a typical fanboy response.
When a Canon has better specs, it wins hands down.
But if a Nikon has better specs, then this is irrelevant in the 'real world'.
FYI, this is not how things work with buyers.
Buyers look at the price and the specs and then ponder if the camera offers good value.
The D7100 offers exceptional value.
If Canon doesn't match that, then they'd better offer the 70D for cheap.
Yet another measurebator who cares more about meaningless numbers on a spec list than actual real-world performance.
Here's a serious question for all y'all Nikon trolls: would you rather have a D800 with its manly 36 megapickles and 14 stops of DxO DR, or would you rather have a 1Dx with its girly half-as-many 18 megapickles and 12 stops of DxO DR? And let's not forget that the D800 scores a near-perfed 95 on the DxO scale, while the 1DX is barely above average at an unimpressive 82.
Cheers,
b&
Post by: Krob78 on April 16, 2013, 05:02:07 PM
Personally I think Canon has painted themselves into a corner with their mid-range cameras. The xxxD range offers exceptional value in terms of what you get and what you pay for it. The 1D and 5D series are workhorses. Where does that leave the xxD, 7D and 6D cameras? Let's face it, on paper the 700D has a better AF system than the 6D - except for centre-point zero-light capability. What's going to differentiate the 70D from the 7DII and the xxxD line?I've shot with a 7d since the end of 2009, I think it easily qualifies as a workhorse... ;)
Post by: Don Haines on April 16, 2013, 07:08:21 PM
Anyway, whilst y'all going on about low-light and high-ISO performance, I want low-ISO performance ... ISO 50 ... or better yet, ISO 25.
Um...why?
The 5DIII (I'm not personally familiar with crop cameras) is noise-free at ISO 400. It's just as noise-free at ISO 200 and ISO 100. There's no more noise to be cleaned up, so what's there to be gained by ISO 25?
Being able to use the camera with extremely bright light and not need a filter.
Being able to take longer exposure photographs in normal lighting without needing a filter.
ISO25 film produced some excellent shots.
There might be a very good reason for no ISO25...... If it is so bright that you need it, you have a lot of light pouring into the camera.... and light is energy, and energy causes heating. What happens to your sensor on a long exposure? will the heating damage the sensor or will it just create a whole lot of thermal noise? Would you get a cleaner picture at higher ISO with a ND filter keeping the heat away from the sensor?
I don't know..... just asking....
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 16, 2013, 07:40:47 PM
There might be a very good reason for no ISO25...... If it is so bright that you need it, you have a lot of light pouring into the camera.... and light is energy, and energy causes heating. What happens to your sensor on a long exposure? will the heating damage the sensor or will it just create a whole lot of thermal noise? Would you get a cleaner picture at higher ISO with a ND filter keeping the heat away from the sensor?
I don't know..... just asking....
You're not going to damage the sensor with any scenes even at EV 23, which is ISO 25 @ f/22 @ 1/4000, which you can also get with ISO 100 @ f/32 @ 1/8000 (which, depending on the lens, is the dimmest exposure you're going to get on a 5DIII).
What could very easily damage the sensor, at any level of brightness, with or without an ND filter, is prolonged direct exposure to the Sun. And the damage will be caused by the same method that causes blindness in humans who stare at the Sun. (Lasers can also fry a sensor as well as they can fry your eyes, but the damage is caused by a different mechanism.)
But there is a very good reason for no native ISOs below 100 (ish). The photosites have a maximum number of photons they can record to a single charge. Dump more than that many photons onto a photosite and it still records the same number for its full charge. The physics of it works in such a way that, if you shoot outside on a sunny day at 1/100s at f/16 with minimal / no analog amplification with a sensor that clips slightly above the brightest non-specular highlights in the scene, you'll have an optimal dynamic range for that imaging technology over most shooting conditions most people encounter.
Incidentally, no Canon camera actually shoots at ISO 50. When you set the camera to ISO 50, the meter changes, but the electronics still operates exactly the same way it does at ISO 100. If you shoot JPEGs, the onboard raw processor will divide every value coming off the sensor by two before converting it to a JPEG, thereby costing you a stop of exposure headroom. If you shoot RAW, the same RAW file gets created as if you shot at ISO 100 except that the metadata flag for ISO says "50" instead of "100." The RAW processor on your computer sees that, and it, too, divides every number in the RAW file by two before continuing with raw processing.
You might therefore wonder what the point is of ISO 50. The point is twofold. First, if you shoot JPEG, it's a wonderfully convenient in-camera way of doing ETTR when either your scene has no highlights or you don't care if they clip. And second, if you're planning on doing ETTR in the digital darkroom, you might as well shoot ISO 50 instead and get a much more useful preview image on the back of the camera, plus you'll save yourself a step in post-processing. Also, considering that most ETTR workflows I've encountered apply the exposure correction after all the tone curves and color adjustments have been made to the RAW file whilst ISO 50 does that stuff before, you're much more likely to get better results with ISO 50 than with ETTR.
Unless, of course, you actually know what you're doing with ETTR, in which case you probably already know that there's no point to ETTR. I'll once again again note that, unlike in the early days of DSLRs, there's no noise in modern DSLRs at ISO 100 so there's nothing to be gained any more from an image quality perspective in doing ETTR or, similarly, shooting ISO 50.
Cheers,
b&
P.S. Highlight Tone Priority is much like ISO 50 except in the opposite direction. It's baked-in ETTL, in other words. Considering the low noise levels of modern DSLRs, HTP is potentially much more useful in real-world shooting than ISO 50, especially in high dynamic range environments. b&
Post by: Sella174 on April 17, 2013, 03:03:16 AM
So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?
For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.
Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.
Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...
Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.
Post by: CanNotYet on April 17, 2013, 03:41:26 AM
But, although it is imbued with my wishful thinking, I really think it is time for Canon to get some ROI on the 19-pt system in 7D. Putting into 70D would seem like a no-brainer to me, ESPECIALLY if they go the cream-of-the-crop route with 7D2. That route more or less demands an even better AF system than the 7D has today. (Otherwise it would not be the upgrade people crave).
I really do not think 7D2 will keep the same AF-system as the current 7D. And if it does not, getting more ROI from that particular tech would involve putting the system into another body. 70D looks like a plausible candidate.
Besides, it gives the 70D a relation to 7D as the 6D has to 5D2, a modern version with tweaks. Not to mention it would sell like hotcakes. :)
Post by: Marsu42 on April 17, 2013, 04:09:10 AM
Regarding differentiation. I am not sure Canon can keep the 70D at 9-points, all cross-type (as 650D/700D). (Well of course they CAN, they are Canon...)
Probably they'll add 2 more af points just like 5d2->6d for all you nay-sayers to be happy :-p ? Personally and having looked at Canon's product policy during the last years, I cannot imagine they'll just chuck in the good 7d af system into a xxd system yet - even if they love re-using af arrays.
Post by: Sella174 on April 17, 2013, 05:09:42 AM
I cannot imagine they'll just chuck in the good 7d af system into a xxd system yet
I agree. Canon still has too many other "selling" points in their cameras with which to entice buyers ... "full-frame" sensors, high ISO sensors, more megapixel sensors, HD video sensors, and now integrated WiFi & GPS ...
Post by: Albi86 on April 17, 2013, 06:56:17 AM
Besides, it gives the 70D a relation to 7D as the 6D has to 5D2, a modern version with tweaks. Not to mention it would sell like hotcakes. :)
It could be a total crap and it would sell like hot cake anyway. It's Canon's offer at that price point, and people who want to buy Canon will buy that - it's their only choice, same with the 6D. This is why Canon can afford to protect the higher-end models without losing market share even when competing products are better specced. A brilliant policy for their stokeholders, much less so for their users.
Post by: Edwin Herdman on April 18, 2013, 02:30:56 AM
It'll be interesting to find out the weight and dimensions on this. It won't replace my 7D but it surely could be a great upgrade to people who want a smaller SLR.
Post by: Zv on April 18, 2013, 06:46:52 AM
So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?
For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.
Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.
Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...
Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.
Does a varying ND fader help?
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 18, 2013, 09:14:05 AM
So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?
For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.
Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.
Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...
Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.
Does a varying ND fader help?
They're already all complaining that they can't be bothered to use a filter.
I'm still trying to figure out who'd be wanting to shoot flying aircraft at f/1.4 in the noonday Sun. I mean, seriously? Because that's what it would take to go past the limits of the 30D.
If you're really shooting ultra-fast primes wide open in harsh light, you're doing it for some special effect and you should be prepared to go out of your way to achieve your vision. But I don't think I've ever seen a good shot of a flying aircraft taken with a wide-open 50 f/1.4 on a harsh sunny day by a photographer on the ground, and I really very much doubt I ever will. My heart, it bleeds for these poor souls...but not for their lack of ISO 50.....
Cheers,
b&
Post by: Zv on April 18, 2013, 01:22:46 PM
So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?
For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.
Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.
Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...
Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.
Does a varying ND fader help?
They're already all complaining that they can't be bothered to use a filter.
I'm still trying to figure out who'd be wanting to shoot flying aircraft at f/1.4 in the noonday Sun. I mean, seriously? Because that's what it would take to go past the limits of the 30D.
If you're really shooting ultra-fast primes wide open in harsh light, you're doing it for some special effect and you should be prepared to go out of your way to achieve your vision. But I don't think I've ever seen a good shot of a flying aircraft taken with a wide-open 50 f/1.4 on a harsh sunny day by a photographer on the ground, and I really very much doubt I ever will. My heart, it bleeds for these poor souls...but not for their lack of ISO 50.....
Cheers,
b&
Oh I see. I just read the latest comment and didn't see the prev ones about all that ISO 25 nonsense.
Like you said - ND filter is the only real option. I don't see why you would be taking it off an on if the conditions are bright then leave it on. You can always increase ISO for more light, no need to remove it.
Stopping down wont make much difference to the background. f/4 works just fine around 200mm if the subject to background ratio is right. No need to shoot wide open.
Post by: jrista on April 18, 2013, 02:43:47 PM
Sounds pretty good, it's got everything you need in a mid range crop camera. Wonder how that SL1 sensor is doing so far?Exactly! To be honest, I wouldn't mind if my 5D III was 18 MP (without hearing it would be 22.3).
18 megapixels is plenty. Glad they didn't add more. Seems like Canon are putting an end to the megapixel race - until they bring out the big megapixel camera (but that's a high end product for specialists).
Weather sealed? Wonder how much it will get compared to a 7D?
6.5 fps is respectable. I could live with that.
I never liked the 60D to be honest. I picked one up at a camera store, it didn't agree with me and from that point on I ignored it. The 7D was love at first sight! It's like it was custom made for me. A perfect fit.
And 6.5 fps is a big improvement on the 60D's frame rate.
This is kind of a flawed argument, as you are comparing the FF sensor of the 5D III to the APS-C sensor of the 70D. The 18 megapixels of the 70D are capable of resolving FAR more detail than the 5D III. The FF sensor has 6.25µm pixels, while the APS-C has 4.3µm pixels. The 70D has a 52% resolving power advantage over the 5D III!
Now, in some cases this doesn't matter. In some cases, the only thing that matters is total pixel count. These kinds of things would be landscapes, still life, portrait/wedding photography. Any time you can easily fill the frame with your subject and fully utilize ALL of the pixels a sensor has to offer, pixel size matters less, and if all you need is 18mp because all you do is print lower-resolution or upload downscaled versions to the web, then the 1D X sensor will serve you well.
On the other hand, any kind of photography where you need reach...sports, wildlife, birds, etc. Any kind of photography where the expectation is that you will be enlarging the results in print. Then the smallest pixels you can get away with, as well as having as many as you possibly can, DOES matter. At that point, 18mp, 22.3mp, hell even 36.3mp aren't really enough. You can always use more. In the case of needing reach, APS-C sensors with their higher pixel density have a lot to offer over a FF sensor.
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 18, 2013, 05:06:00 PM
Sounds pretty good, it's got everything you need in a mid range crop camera. Wonder how that SL1 sensor is doing so far?Exactly! To be honest, I wouldn't mind if my 5D III was 18 MP (without hearing it would be 22.3).
18 megapixels is plenty. Glad they didn't add more. Seems like Canon are putting an end to the megapixel race - until they bring out the big megapixel camera (but that's a high end product for specialists).
Weather sealed? Wonder how much it will get compared to a 7D?
6.5 fps is respectable. I could live with that.
I never liked the 60D to be honest. I picked one up at a camera store, it didn't agree with me and from that point on I ignored it. The 7D was love at first sight! It's like it was custom made for me. A perfect fit.
And 6.5 fps is a big improvement on the 60D's frame rate.
This is kind of a flawed argument, as you are comparing the FF sensor of the 5D III to the APS-C sensor of the 70D. The 18 megapixels of the 70D are capable of resolving FAR more detail than the 5D III. The FF sensor has 6.25µm pixels, while the APS-C has 4.3µm pixels. The 70D has a 52% resolving power advantage over the 5D III!
Now, in some cases this doesn't matter. In some cases, the only thing that matters is total pixel count. These kinds of things would be landscapes, still life, portrait/wedding photography. Any time you can easily fill the frame with your subject and fully utilize ALL of the pixels a sensor has to offer, pixel size matters less, and if all you need is 18mp because all you do is print lower-resolution or upload downscaled versions to the web, then the 1D X sensor will serve you well.
On the other hand, any kind of photography where you need reach...sports, wildlife, birds, etc. Any kind of photography where the expectation is that you will be enlarging the results in print. Then the smallest pixels you can get away with, as well as having as many as you possibly can, DOES matter. At that point, 18mp, 22.3mp, hell even 36.3mp aren't really enough. You can always use more. In the case of needing reach, APS-C sensors with their higher pixel density have a lot to offer over a FF sensor.
I'm sorry, but the notion that a high megapickle APS-C camer makes for a better sports camera than the 1DX is ludicrous. Image quality especially.
b&
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 18, 2013, 06:37:09 PM
obviously you get higher image quality with more resolution. An APS camera with 24Mp pixels will always be an advantage for a nature photographer or sports photographer to come closer (have better reach with the same lens) as long as the signal level and the light is sufficient high compared to 1dx 18 mp resolution and signal/noise level.
More resolution is always more resolution and Its a question about light/ signal/noise and what the lens can resolve.
God damn, but that's got to be the most idiotic thing I've read all week.
I mean, really? You seriously think that the Nikon D3200, a 24 megapickle APS-C camera, is "obviously" a better camera than the 1DX?
Seriously?
And for sports photographers?
Please tell me that this is a joke or that I've somehow otherwise managed to misinterpret what you wrote.
In case you weren't aware, the 1DX actually has marginally better image quality than even the 5DIII. And, yes, the D800 as well. It positively mops the floor with anything APS-C, chews it up, spits it out, and laughs over its corpse.
Find me a Sports Illustrated photographer who could manage to not bust out laughing at the notion that she should scrap her 1DX for a D3200 just because it's got more megapickles and therefore is "obviously" superior, and I'll go out and buy a hat just so I can eat it.
Cheers,
b&
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 18, 2013, 06:44:43 PM
have you problem to understand what Im writing?
I sure hope so, because it sure seemed to me that you wrote that a 24 megapickle APS-C camera is "obviously" a superior sports camera to the 1DX.
If that's not what you intended to write, then perhaps you should add a bit of clarification.
b&
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 18, 2013, 07:55:30 PM
no, read above. you are mixing up things and come to strange conclusions
You wrote -- and I quote:
Quote
An APS camera with 24Mp pixels will always be an advantage for a nature photographer or sports photographer to come closer (have better reach with the same lens) as long as the signal level and the light is sufficient high compared to 1dx 18 mp resolution and signal/noise level.
There is no APS-C camera on the market, period, which can match the image quality of the 1DX. Period, full stop, end of story -- and that you think there's even a theoretical possibility that such might be the case...well, it just goes to show the success of the marketing departments in selling megapickles, and your gullibility in falling for it.
Any blather to the contrary about resolution this and DXO that is bullshit, pure and simple -- and the type of bullshit that only comes from somebody so completely clueless about the matter as to never have actually touched a 1DX, let alone shot with one.
You can spout numbers all day long, but the fact of the matter remains that the images from the 1DX, even after cropping, are so far superior to those from any and all APS-C cameras that all you're doing is digging that hole for yourself even deeper.
...and, yes, that's a not-so-subtle hint that you might wish to refresh your knowledge about the First Rule of Holes (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/79229-the-first-rule-of-holes-when-you-re-in-one-stop) before continuing this discussion.
Cheers,
b&
Post by: Zv on April 18, 2013, 09:49:19 PM
Post by: Krob78 on April 18, 2013, 09:54:15 PM
It's simple physics. If you have 24 million pixels crammed on a aps-c sensor those pixel must be very small and therefore each pixel well will collect less light resulting in more noise. Sure it might be theoretically able to resolve more detail but in reality it wont as any detail will be smudged by noise as the processor is now making up values for the insufficient light. You can't add light that wasn't there to begin with. The 1DX will have the advantage as the pixels are larger, collect more light and the process produces a much more accurate image. In the real world this means better image quality and sharper images.Simple enough! :D
Post by: jrista on April 19, 2013, 01:11:54 AM
It's simple physics. If you have 24 million pixels crammed on a aps-c sensor those pixel must be very small and therefore each pixel well will collect less light resulting in more noise. Sure it might be theoretically able to resolve more detail but in reality it wont as any detail will be smudged by noise as the processor is now making up values for the insufficient light. You can't add light that wasn't there to begin with. The 1DX will have the advantage as the pixels are larger, collect more light and the process produces a much more accurate image. In the real world this means better image quality and sharper images.
That is only true if you assume the exact same manufacturing process is used for both APS-C and FF. Manufacturing processes continually improve, as do the peripheral technologies related to sensors, such as the quality of the IR Cut and Low pass filter stack, CFA design, etc. If Canon is really doing something revolutionary with the 7D II sensor, especially if they apply some kind of active cooling mechanism to reduce dark current noise (which can eat up a fair amount of photodiode charge capacity), there is nothing to say they could not actually achieve similar light sensitivity characteristics with a 20-25mp APS-C sensor as they can with a 25mp FF sensor. Probably wouldn't be exactly as good, photodiode area is definitely a critical factor, but it is not the sole factor. I am not sure if Canon will take things that far, but it is not out of the realm of possiblility, actually it is well within the realm of possibility.
I can't say I believe any small-pixel sensor could perform as well as the 1D X. It has very large pixels that support a FWC of over 90,000 electrons. The 5D III is around 60,000 electrons. A 25mp FF sensor would probably be around 40,000 electrons. I could foresee an APS-C reaching into the 35,000 electron range if dark current is controlled with very efficient active sensor cooling, a 180nm process, and a very forgiving CFA...and such a sensor produce CONSIDERABLY better IQ than the current 18mp APS-C sensor (which scrapes by with a 20,000 electron FWC).
There is also the fact that smaller pixels divide detail more finely. On a per-pixel basis the standard deviation of noise might be higher, but from a whole-image standpoint (assuming you utilize all the pixels the sensor has to offer for each camera you are comparing), having more pixels can only be a good thing, and the average appearance of noise will be lower, not higher.
Post by: jrista on April 19, 2013, 02:47:11 AM
I can't say I believe any small-pixel sensor could perform as well as the 1D X.
explain what do you mean with performe as well ?
Well, if you have a 21mp APS-C and an 18mp FF, not even downscaling the APS-C image will normalize noise enough to compare to the 1D X image at high ISO. It has a 91,000 electron full well capacity. Assuming a 21mp APS-C has similar Q.E., a similar CFA, and gets around 27,000 electrons at FWC (similar to the D5200), the 1D X is still going to have a 340% full well capacity advantage. It'll require considerably less gain at high ISO...so, even a fairly revolutionary APS-C sensor design on a 180nm process, even if you normalize the APS-C image to the 1D X image size, is not going to perform as well. The difference between 18mp and 21mp is just not enough for the basic post-process scaling algorithms most photographers have access to to overcome.
Now, if you printed both on an 8x10, the 7D II will have the resolution advantage, and would have sharper detail than the 1D X, and with that much downscaling, the noise and DR differences would be negligible. And, of course, you could print the 7D II image at a slightly larger native size, and if you upscale the 7D II image will retain more detail than the 1D X, even if it appears to be a bit noisier.
Post by: GMCPhotographics on April 19, 2013, 05:45:20 AM
You are right and you are wrong, the APS has a break point in low light and if you compare that with a 24x36mm area it is around 800iso
second, it is the surface size who are important, not the pixel size, if we not are discussing very low light. and the results should be seen / compared at the same size.
third, APS are earlier in the development stage , it means better QE, etc than the 24x36mm sensor who are last in the chain because of costs and machines
read more here http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html)
ps : smaller pixels results in less noise
From my limited understanding of pixel / sensor design is that the pixel etchines are all physically the same size on all of Canon DSLR cameras. Every pixel is pretty much the same. but the bucket or well which they sit in in varies in size. On top of this arrangement is a microlens which helps direct as much of the light from the bucket surface into the smaller pixel at the bottom of the hole. Which is why Canon and Nikon made such a fuss over their gapless microlenses. Canon haven't made
much advancement to their pixel design for a very long time because they were using the microlenses to mop up more or less light as required in their design brief. Nikon went a bit crazy and added gapless microlenses in their D700/D3. Keeping their mp low at 12mp, meant that they had a real advantage over the same generation of CAnon cameras. But it was a one off advantage and one which wouldn't be sustainable in future products as their MP increases. Canon's idea was far better and offered future scalability in MP. Then Nikon proved this point and released the most barmy camera ever...the D800, which created confusion in their product range. No one wanted an ultra high MP camera riddled with iso noise. The D700 was snapped up by pros who saw a big iso and AF advantage over Canon...but within one generation have been soarly let down by their new chosen brand. When I look through their camera portfolio, there's nothing there that inspires me. When I look at the Canon camera portfolio...it's looking very strong. The 6D is sweet, the 5DIII is amazing and the 1Dx is probably the best DSLR ever made.
Post by: Diko on April 19, 2013, 06:08:53 AM
Quote... Sony is developing new A-mount cameras that can outperform the competition. The status quo between Nikon-Sony-Canon is over. Sony wants to become “serious” and start a real war in the camera market. The A78 simply was good but not really a game changer camera.
That's the kind of approach I wish all camera makers would adopt. Obviously, investors in Canon are happy with extreme utilization of technologies long ago paid for, but the USERS of that equipment who are currently invested and are looking for a substantial upgrade are left out in the cold.
If Sony can put out glass as good as Canon's and produce image quality on par as well - I see no reason not to go with the innovative company. Especially when in-body IS is baked right in to the experience and EVERY lens gets IS. And that's why I won't buy a refreshed 60D - no "game changing" features.
Amin. That is what I am talking about. I am sick with that inertia from Canon. They were the best, but not anymore after 7D release. Now they are just milking those with Canon glasses. That's it.
Want to force Canon to innovate? Don't buy into everything they release.Don't buy?!? Are you sure I should stick to your advice with my 40D and needs for night and low-light scene shooting?
...
Read what I wrote. I was shooting with a retail-bought 5DIII for a long time before you could even place a pre-order for the 1DX.
Plus, you've just acknowledged that the 5DIII's autofocus and low light performance is second only to Canon's most ultimate ever flagship camera. And yet it's still an insignificant marginal improvement over the 5DII? Please. At least have the decency to keep your trolling consistent....
Are you sure? As far as I can recall 5D3 got out 6 months after 1DX....? Are you Canon regional manager or Photo Tester? Otherwise I could hardly believe you... Or the trolling person just cries out loud to get the trolling person...?
Why are you so sure. I have quite different opinion. According to my observations quite a few from the PROs, no matter if they use it as first or second body, need Shutter replacement.
Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant. Almost nobody ever wears out a shutter on any DSLR...?
Dual memory card slots are irrelevant to all but a very small minority of shooters.Again - where do you get your conclusions from? AFAIK almost every wedding Photographer is obsessed to have dual memory slots.
My problem is with Canon's dis-respect of the vast majority of their customers.
If it wasn't for xxxD an xxD sales there would be no R&D money to support xD development.
I wouldn't call 7D, 5D, 1D users "vast majority". Vast Majority are PowerShot users ;-)
But agree with the second part. I am also against the "milking" the users with Canon Glasses. :-(
Post by: GMCPhotographics on April 19, 2013, 06:53:56 AM
The 5DIII's AF capabilities are a vast improvement over the 5DII. It's the same basic system as the 1Dx but with out the face recognition and colour tracking abilities. But the AF array and circuitry is the same. I regularly use a 5DII and 5DIII alongside each other at weddings. The 5DII's centre spot is the only usable AF spot and it's pretty good. But as the light levels drop it starts to fail. The 5DIII's AF array is extensive and most of those spots are slightly better than the centre 5DII spot. The middle vertical 5 spots on the 5DIII are amazing and can lock on in REALLY low light levels, which the 5DII can only dream of. The 6D's AF array is new but low in AP points. Again the centre spot is the really usefull spot here and in low light it's better than the central 5 spots on the 5DIII and 1Dx.
The 1Dx's AF is slightly better that the 5DIII where AF Servo mode is employed, but not a huge improvement.
In One Shot mode, there is no difference between the 1Dx and 5DIII's AF abilities. The 1Dx's big ability is that crazy fast card eating fps and buffer size.
Post by: Zv on April 19, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)
Post by: jrista on April 19, 2013, 12:54:14 PM
I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.
(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)
The benefit of the 7D is when you are focal length limited. In your example, you filled the frame with your subject. When you have the option of doing that, then the only thing that really matters is total pixel count. The 5D II has more pixels than the 7D, its image dimensions are slightly higher, so it does have the resolution edge in non-focal length limited scenarios.
The 7D has smaller pixels (4.3µm vs. 6.5µm). When you need to photograph something distant, such as a deer, a bird, a baseball player running for home...then the smaller pixels of the 7D will resolve more detail than the 5D II when both cameras are used with the same lens at the same distance. You could simulate that in your example by using whatever lens you used, but keep the cameras at the same physical distance from your bookshelf. The 5D II will capture a wider field. If you crop the 5D II image to the same field as the 7D, the resolution advantage of the 7D will be quite clear.
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 19, 2013, 01:12:26 PM
In your example, you filled the frame with your subject. When you have the option of doing that, then the only thing that really matters is total pixel count.
Which is why, of course, the 20 megapickle CyberShot H200 produces images that are so much more awesome than the lowly 16 megapickle 1DsII.
Oh, wait...hmmm....
I mean, seriously, people. Do you even stop to pretend to think about what you're writing?
Cheers,
b&
Post by: Zv on April 19, 2013, 01:34:01 PM
I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.
(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)
The benefit of the 7D is when you are focal length limited. In your example, you filled the frame with your subject. When you have the option of doing that, then the only thing that really matters is total pixel count. The 5D II has more pixels than the 7D, its image dimensions are slightly higher, so it does have the resolution edge in non-focal length limited scenarios.
The 7D has smaller pixels (4.3µm vs. 6.5µm). When you need to photograph something distant, such as a deer, a bird, a baseball player running for home...then the smaller pixels of the 7D will resolve more detail than the 5D II when both cameras are used with the same lens at the same distance. You could simulate that in your example by using whatever lens you used, but keep the cameras at the same physical distance from your bookshelf. The 5D II will capture a wider field. If you crop the 5D II image to the same field as the 7D, the resolution advantage of the 7D will be quite clear.
I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?
Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?
Post by: TrumpetPower! on April 19, 2013, 01:50:06 PM
I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?
Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?
It does; they are; they haven't; and they don't.
Not only does the 1DX cropped beat the 7D, but the 5DIII cropped beats the 7D, and the 1DX beats the 5DIII.
Any time anybody starts mouthing megapickle measurebator myths, it's safe to assume they've never actually done any meaningful photography with the gear in question.
b&
Post by: jrista on April 19, 2013, 02:14:38 PM
I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.
(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)
The benefit of the 7D is when you are focal length limited. In your example, you filled the frame with your subject. When you have the option of doing that, then the only thing that really matters is total pixel count. The 5D II has more pixels than the 7D, its image dimensions are slightly higher, so it does have the resolution edge in non-focal length limited scenarios.
The 7D has smaller pixels (4.3µm vs. 6.5µm). When you need to photograph something distant, such as a deer, a bird, a baseball player running for home...then the smaller pixels of the 7D will resolve more detail than the 5D II when both cameras are used with the same lens at the same distance. You could simulate that in your example by using whatever lens you used, but keep the cameras at the same physical distance from your bookshelf. The 5D II will capture a wider field. If you crop the 5D II image to the same field as the 7D, the resolution advantage of the 7D will be quite clear.
I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?
Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?
It is just a matter of math and theory. There is a SUBJECTIVE quality factor, and an OBJECTIVE quality factor. A lot of people think the 1D X and 5D III look more than acceptable when cropped and enlarged. That is a SUBJECTIVE measure, not an objective one. It is a matter of perception and feeling, but not necessarily of fact. The results may look great, but that doesn't prevent the 7D from outresolving them in a focal-length limited scenario. Objectively, the 7D has smaller pixels more densely packed, which means it WILL resolve more detail when shooting the same subject at the same distance with the same lens and focal length as any sensor with larger pixels. This is a matter of fact and physics, it is not a myth.
I don't have a 5D III myself, so I annot prove the point with my own data. It appears you have both the 7D and 5D III, so if you want to see for yourself...just try the experiment I described. No scaling, no post processing. Just take two photos, one with each camera, from the same exact physical subject distance and the same exact lens at the same exact focal length. The only post-process edit you should make would be to CROP the 5D III image to the same Field of View as the 7D image. Then compare. The 7D image should have more detail...as in, more finely delineated detail. This is not a noise thing, not a scalability thing, not a processing latitude thing. The 7D just plain and simply has a greater ability to resolve fine detail for any given lens and subject distance.
Post by: meli on April 19, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
I think cropping the full frame would still look same or better. A 300 f/2.8 on a 1DX beats same lens on 7D. Are you stating that the crop would out resolve it in terms of actually visible image quality? Not just theoretical numbers?
Have you tested this using both cameras? Not being argumentative just wondering how you know this?
It does; they are; they haven't; and they don't.
Not only does the 1DX cropped beat the 7D, but the 5DIII cropped beats the 7D, and the 1DX beats the 5DIII.
Any time anybody starts mouthing megapickle measurebator myths, it's safe to assume they've never actually done any meaningful photography with the gear in question.
I just like how after the 1dx-d7100 comparison img by ankorwatt which -understandably- you failed to address, since facts doesnt quite match up your beliefs, you downscaled abit now, comparing 1dx with 7d's zombie sensor, oh well...
Post by: jrista on April 19, 2013, 02:21:10 PM
d4 has fwc 117000e, 1dx 90000e
do you mean that D4 therefore is better?
The total FWC and e for 1dx and d800 is the same.
When we are discussing picture quality we must have some criteria
signal/noise, resolution, CFA , SNR 18% Dynamic Range Tonal Range etc
as here http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/814 (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/814)|0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/753|0/(brand2)/Canon
Sorry bub, FWC of the D800 is HALF that of the 1D X. The D800 has a FWC of 45,000. The amount of apparent noise at higher ISO settings is directly related to gain, and you need less gain when you have a greater maximum charge per pixel. The advantage of the D800 is not its photon gathering capacity, but its low read noise. The 1D X has no advantage at low ISO because of high read noise, however it has a considerable advantage at high ISO because it converts twice as much light into usable charge than the D800 does on a per-pixel basis. Scaling the D800 down to 1D X size will normalize the differences to a degree, but it will not entirely eliminate the 1D X's advantage. And that assumes anyone actually buys a D800 for the purposes of scaling its images down the 18mp (which is a fact that seems highly unlikely to me as a basis for average-case comparisons.)
Post by: jrista on April 19, 2013, 07:53:24 PM
I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.
(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)
the 7d has a strong aa- filter, the 5dmk2 has a week aa-filter therefore 5dmk2 looks sharper, and there are a Mp difference between them and the lens to 7d needs to be 1,6 times better in resolution and contrast.
so it is among other things an optical question
I believe the notion that the 7D has a strong AA filter is a myth. I've used the 7D with all of Canon's top-end Mark II L-series super-telephoto lenses except the 400mm f/2.8. In every single case, the sharpness and resolving power of the 7D was considerably greater than any other sensor I've used, either my own cameras or rented cameras. The "softness" of the 7D, in my opinion, has nothing to do with a strong AA filter. It has to do with either poorer-quality glass (i.e. the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS is NOT a particularly sharp lens, but is most frequently paired with a 7D), or poor camera handling (camera shake is more likely to cause IQ-degrading softening with the small 7D pixels than the large 1D X pixels.)
I have searched high and low for some actual concrete evidence that the 7D has a strong AA filter. Like someone actually measuring the thickness of the low pass plates in the filter stack over the sensor. I have yet to actually find any REAL evidence that the 7D has a particularly strong AA filter. As such, I'm inclined to say that is just an internet myth, that has arisen from the kinds of lenses most commonly used on the 7D...things that fall into the same budget range such as the 100-400m 70-200, 70-300 L, etc. None of those lenses compare to the new Mark II Great Whites...and when you DO combine the 7D with truly top-end still photography glass, there isn't any softness to be seen anywhere.
Here is a shot with the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II with a 1.4x TC III (700mm) on the Canon 7D:
(http://i.imgur.com/9tzhPl4.jpg)
Here is the 100%, 1:1, pixel peeping crop:
(http://i.imgur.com/VC3kIDp.jpg)
^--- RAZOR-FRIKKIN SHARP!! --^
7D "Strong AA filter" == Total Myth!
Post by: Zv on April 20, 2013, 12:08:25 AM
Post by: jrista on April 20, 2013, 12:42:25 AM
I did a few more tests and what I found out is this - even when I cropped the 5D II image to match the 7D one the full frame image looked crisper, was 2/3 of a stop brighter, a bit colder in tone and showed less CA. Due to the effect of compression with a tele lens on the 7D the subject looked bigger in relation to background than the cropped version of the 5D II. Naturally. Though due to this its hard to determine if one is resolving more than the other. To my eye I could see tiny cracks and hairs on the books on both images. If anything I have now realized my 135L works better on my 5D II!
It would be helpful if you provided full size files with EXIF. Sorry, but your findings just don't fit the facts, the math, or the theory, otherwise I wouldn't ask. Did you configure AFMA for the same lens on both bodies (it is possible the lens was not calibrated properly for the 7D.) Anyway, images w/ EXIF would be nice, as I know my stuff in this area pretty well.
I really need to just bite the bullet and buy the 5D III. I've been waiting for the 7D II to be released, to see if it would fit my needs better, but I'm tired of renting gear all the time to prove my points...
If it helps any, Roger Clark, a well respected scientists with I believe multiple Ph.Ds, has an excellent page demonstrating how much more resolving power the 7D has in focal-length limited scenarios, and the 5D II is one of the cameras tested and compared:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/index.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/index.html)
The second image on the page shows the moon shot with the same lens (300mm f/2.8 L) on four different cameras. The differences in resolving power for each sensor are more than clear. The 7D moon is about four times larger than the 5D II moon, and the additional detail is very clear.
Here is another link, where Roger covers noise and high ISO:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html)
To quote his assessment:
Quote
Here is my assessment:
In all the images, the 5DII images fail to show the subtle color differences that the 7D and 1D4 show. The color in the 1D4 and 7D are very close (until noise hides it).
ISO 100: 7D noise is small and detail is well above other images. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4
ISO 800: 7D noise is showing, but the detail is still well above the other cameras. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4
ISO1600: 7D noise is becoming prominent, but image detail is still very good. 7D=top, 2nd=1D4, but the difference is narrowing.
ISO3200: 7D noise is becoming objectionable and color is getting lost, in particular in Mare Serenatatis (the large circular dark area in the upper center). top=1D4, 2nd 7D. A good down sampling algorithm (like 2x2 pixel average) could improve the the image.
ISO6400: Noise is too apparent in 7D, and 5DII (which is slightly older technology than the 7D or 1D4). Top=1D4, 2nd=5DII. In my numerous sensor evaluations, I consistently see the 1D series sensors have fewer hot/bad pixels and the images here show that too: the 7D and 5DII images have a lot of "spiky" noise not seen in the 1D4 image.
In all the images, if we boost the low level, we will see that all the 7D and 5DII images have a lot of fixed pattern noise, which decreases as ISO increases. The 1D4 has a little fixed pattern noise at low ISO which quickly decreases at intermediate ISOs. The noise is illustrated below.
It is only when he reaches ISO 6400 that the 5D II even really becomes a contender. At ISO 3200 the 1D IV finally edges out the 7D. At all other settings, the 7D has a considerable resolution advantage that definitely shows. These findings jive with my own experiences...the 7D is an excellent camera that far outresolves most other DSLR cameras (with the exception of only a couple new ones from Nikon only recently released (D3200 & D5200)).
No matter how you slice it...the 7D trounces the 5D II and the 5D III in terms of spatial resolution. Assuming you are not noise bound, in any focal-length limited situation, the 7D will produce better results.
Post by: Zv on April 20, 2013, 02:30:15 AM
Have a great weekend everyone and have fun shooting great pictures!
Post by: jrista on April 20, 2013, 09:47:20 AM
I was curious by all this discussion so I took two shots. One with the 7D and one with the 5DII to see how they compare in overall IQ. I tried to keep things constant including framing and settings. The 5D II file looked sharper and brighter. The 7D file was pretty close though. Pretty obvious test but hey, now I know for myself.
(I should add that the out of focus blur is more prominent in the 5D II image due to the lens being closer to subject and aperture being the same - f/3.5, as on the 7D.)
the 7d has a strong aa- filter, the 5dmk2 has a week aa-filter therefore 5dmk2 looks sharper, and there are a Mp difference between them and the lens to 7d needs to be 1,6 times better in resolution and contrast.
so it is among other things an optical question
I believe the notion that the 7D has a strong AA filter is a myth. I've used the 7D with all of Canon's top-end Mark II L-series super-telephoto lenses except the 400mm f/2.8. In every single case, the sharpness and resolving power of the 7D was considerably greater than any other sensor I've used, either my own cameras or rented cameras. The "softness" of the 7D, in my opinion, has nothing to do with a strong AA filter. It has to do with either poorer-quality glass (i.e. the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS is NOT a particularly sharp lens, but is most frequently paired with a 7D), or poor camera handling (camera shake is more likely to cause IQ-degrading softening with the small 7D pixels than the large 1D X pixels.)
I have searched high and low for some actual concrete evidence that the 7D has a strong AA filter. Like someone actually measuring the thickness of the low pass plates in the filter stack over the sensor. I have yet to actually find any REAL evidence that the 7D has a particularly strong AA filter. As such, I'm inclined to say that is just an internet myth, that has arisen from the kinds of lenses most commonly used on the 7D...things that fall into the same budget range such as the 100-400m 70-200, 70-300 L, etc. None of those lenses compare to the new Mark II Great Whites...and when you DO combine the 7D with truly top-end still photography glass, there isn't any softness to be seen anywhere.
Here is a shot with the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II with a 1.4x TC III (700mm) on the Canon 7D:
(http://i.imgur.com/9tzhPl4.jpg)
Here is the 100%, 1:1, pixel peeping crop:
(http://i.imgur.com/VC3kIDp.jpg)
^--- RAZOR-FRIKKIN SHARP!! --^
7D "Strong AA filter" == Total Myth!
tell that to John Sheehy who have shown that that is not the case
I see...and the full resolution visual evidence I've just provided you is...what, all an illusion? LOL, you guys are INCREDIBLE!!! What exactly does it take to prove a point to you guys? Even Zv! It is obvious he sees a difference between the cropped 5D II and 7D, but no images will be uploaded because it would support the only argument that actually fits the math and the theory! That the 7D image is sharper and clearer than the 5D II image.
Zv, the argument is not whether the 5D II is good enough. If it is good enough for your work, that's GREAT! The argument was just about the simple facts and realities of things. I was not trying to make this personal, just keep things honest and factual, and I had hoped since you had both cameras, you could supply a couple images to prove the point. I've never cared for Mikael/Ankorwatt, he's demonstrated a rather astonishing ability to ignore physical evidence dangled a few millimeteres right in front of his nose. I guess I had hoped that most people were more reasonable than that, and that physical evidence would be enough to demonstrate that all that worthless theory and math was not quite so worthless after all. Instead, I just get more backpeddling and obfuscation from you, too?
What in the world happened to a little honest objectivity, ppl? Is the entire world so wrapped up in themselves that they can no longer present or even participate in a reasoned debate, or acknowledge the facts and not take it personally when those facts reach up and smack them in the face? Wow. Just...wow.
Post by: Zv on April 20, 2013, 11:00:06 AM
Post by: jrista on April 20, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
And now lets zoom in and see. What conclusions can we draw from this?
I can only conclude the 5D II is not upscaled properly, as the books are smaller. There seems to be no doubt the 7D contains more information and detail, though...the books are quite a bit larger (which means every aspect of detail, such as the cracks, contain MORE pixels than the 5D II shot.) Anyway, I give up. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and that agenda doesn't include objective fact. Sorry I bothered you.
Post by: jrista on April 20, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
And now lets zoom in and see. What conclusions can we draw from this?
I can only conclude the 5D II is not upscaled properly, as the books are smaller. There seems to be no doubt the 7D contains more information and detail, though...the books are quite a bit larger (which means every aspect of detail, such as the cracks, contain MORE pixels than the 5D II shot.) Anyway, I give up. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and that agenda doesn't include objective fact. Sorry I bothered you.
All I did is click compare and then zoom, I dunno how LR handles its business but like I said earlier this is likely due to compression. No worries, I am not bothered in the slightest. :D
Pop both of those into Photoshop, and scale the 5D II shot so it is the same image dimensions as the 7D. Stick the 5D II upscaled image in a new layer in the 7D image, and toggle it on and off. I think the difference between the two, and what I mean by "resolving power", will become quite clear then.
Post by: Zv on April 20, 2013, 11:24:43 AM
And now lets zoom in and see. What conclusions can we draw from this?
I can only conclude the 5D II is not upscaled properly, as the books are smaller. There seems to be no doubt the 7D contains more information and detail, though...the books are quite a bit larger (which means every aspect of detail, such as the cracks, contain MORE pixels than the 5D II shot.) Anyway, I give up. Everyone seems to have an agenda, and that agenda doesn't include objective fact. Sorry I bothered you.
All I did is click compare and then zoom, I dunno how LR handles its business but like I said earlier this is likely due to compression. No worries, I am not bothered in the slightest. :D
Pop both of those into Photoshop, and scale the 5D II shot so it is the same image dimensions as the 7D. Stick the 5D II upscaled image in a new layer in the 7D image, and toggle it on and off. I think the difference between the two, and what I mean by "resolving power", will become quite clear then.
Wait a min I see what went wrong ... OK yeah you're right I only zoomed and it zoomed an already cropped image so it looks different. I will try the photoshop route.
Post by: Zv on April 20, 2013, 11:32:46 AM
Post by: jrista on April 20, 2013, 11:40:56 AM
OK here we go, upscaled on photoshop (which is destructive so .... anyway).
I wouldn't necessarily call upscaling "destructive". It is distributive, for sure, as it distributes existing information and fabricates new information...but I wouldn't necessarily call upscaling destructive. It is a better way to clearly demonstrate the difference, which I think is clear now with your latest screenshot. You could downscale the 7D image to the 5D II crop size. The differences won't be as apparent, as downscaling IS definitely destructive, however the 7D shot will pick up additional clarity and sharpness, as well as reduced noise relative to the 5D II shot.
Anyway, thanks for being honest! :)
Post by: Zv on April 20, 2013, 09:22:09 PM
OK here we go, upscaled on photoshop (which is destructive so .... anyway).
I wouldn't necessarily call upscaling "destructive". It is distributive, for sure, as it distributes existing information and fabricates new information...but I wouldn't necessarily call upscaling destructive. It is a better way to clearly demonstrate the difference, which I think is clear now with your latest screenshot. You could downscale the 7D image to the 5D II crop size. The differences won't be as apparent, as downscaling IS definitely destructive, however the 7D shot will pick up additional clarity and sharpness, as well as reduced noise relative to the 5D II shot.
Anyway, thanks for being honest! :)
You're welcome! Glad we sorted that out. ;D
Post by: jrista on April 21, 2013, 08:30:12 PM
Jrista
search : John Sheehy 7d aa-filter and you get answer
this is from dpreview, 3 aps and the 7d , 7d has a stronger aa-filter like Nikon often have before compared to for example Pentax APS who use the same sensor as Nikon but lighter filter, d7100 has no filter and the resolution is also higher
dpreview resolution test shows 2600 LPH for the rebel and 2500 LPH for the 7d
Lets qualify things here. The 7D has a "stronger" AA-filter than the 650D, 60D, and D7100. STRONGER THAN X. I need to be extremely clear here that having a "stronger" AA filter than any one of those cameras by no means indicates the 7D has a TOO STRONG AA filter. The sentiment that you were pushing was that the 7D is losing IQ because of it's AA filter, an AA filter that is "too strong".
I strongly dispute that notion. When it comes to digital photography, we want an AA filter to be ideally suited for the specific sensor you are using. You don't want it to be too strong, and neither do you want it to be too weak, ESPECIALLY if you shoot anything that might produce aliasing or moire. Aliasing and moire are BAD things...and in your example shot, the 7D image is the ONLY one that looks acceptable to me...it reproduces the information present in the subject being photographed better than all the others. It should also be noted that the softening caused by an OLPF is predictable softening, while it eliminates an unpredictable outcome...moire. Softening is global, and thus something we can easily correct in post with a little bit of sharpening. Correcting moire is a far more difficult task, and it must be performed locally rather than globally, only to regions actually affected by it. The concept here is no different than diffraction...stopping down to gain necessary DOF is preferred over shooting wide and ending up with a thin DOF. Correcting for diffraction in post is easy because it is global and linear, correcting for an improper DOF is practically impossible because it is localized and non-linear.
I believe my 100% crop photo of the orange-morph house finch....a bird, with lots of criss-crossing feathers and color detail...looks nearly perfect! No moire at all, no aliasing, however the detail level is exquisite. The 7D has neither a too-weak nor a too-strong AA filter. It has an AA filter that is just about PERFECT for an 18mp APS-C sensor with a 4.3µm pitch.
I stand by my statement. The notion that IQ on the 7D is lost because of an AA filter that is too strong is a myth.
Post by: Zv on April 22, 2013, 04:11:19 AM
Post by: GMCPhotographics on April 22, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
Jrista
search : John Sheehy 7d aa-filter and you get answer
this is from dpreview, 3 aps and the 7d , 7d has a stronger aa-filter like Nikon often have before compared to for example Pentax APS who use the same sensor as Nikon but lighter filter, d7100 has no filter and the resolution is also higher
I personally found my 7D to produce slightly soft per pixel detail when compared to my 5DII/III. I've read that Canon used a stonger than usual AA filter to reduce moire in movie mode. It was a very nice camera to use, but it's IQ wasn't on par with Canon's full frame offerings. It had very high iso noise, slightly odd micro contrast and the pixels were softer than any other DSLR I've used. I loved the 8fps, very capable AF system and great handling.
dpreview resolution test shows 2600 LPH for the rebel and 2500 LPH for the 7d
Lets qualify things here. The 7D has a "stronger" AA-filter than the 650D, 60D, and D7100. STRONGER THAN X. I need to be extremely clear here that having a "stronger" AA filter than any one of those cameras by no means indicates the 7D has a TOO STRONG AA filter. The sentiment that you were pushing was that the 7D is losing IQ because of it's AA filter, an AA filter that is "too strong".
I strongly dispute that notion. When it comes to digital photography, we want an AA filter to be ideally suited for the specific sensor you are using. You don't want it to be too strong, and neither do you want it to be too weak, ESPECIALLY if you shoot anything that might produce aliasing or moire. Aliasing and moire are BAD things...and in your example shot, the 7D image is the ONLY one that looks acceptable to me...it reproduces the information present in the subject being photographed better than all the others. It should also be noted that the softening caused by an OLPF is predictable softening, while it eliminates an unpredictable outcome...moire. Softening is global, and thus something we can easily correct in post with a little bit of sharpening. Correcting moire is a far more difficult task, and it must be performed locally rather than globally, only to regions actually affected by it. The concept here is no different than diffraction...stopping down to gain necessary DOF is preferred over shooting wide and ending up with a thin DOF. Correcting for diffraction in post is easy because it is global and linear, correcting for an improper DOF is practically impossible because it is localized and non-linear.
I believe my 100% crop photo of the orange-morph house finch....a bird, with lots of criss-crossing feathers and color detail...looks nearly perfect! No moire at all, no aliasing, however the detail level is exquisite. The 7D has neither a too-weak nor a too-strong AA filter. It has an AA filter that is just about PERFECT for an 18mp APS-C sensor with a 4.3µm pitch.
I stand by my statement. The notion that IQ on the 7D is lost because of an AA filter that is too strong is a myth.
Post by: jrista on April 22, 2013, 01:44:49 PM
it looks stronger than other filter canon have used together with theirs newer 18Mp cameras
And yet, it is neither too strong nor too weak. To turn the argument around, all three of the other cameras in your sample shot have AA filters that are too WEAK. As a result, you experience moire. Moire is something we have no decent tools to correct in post. The tools we do have are tedious, and must be applied locally. A too-weak AA filter is worse than a just-right or too-strong filter, as when you have a just-right and too-strong filter, all it takes is a little global sharpening to correct in post. Nature is FULL of interfering patterns.
It is relatively rare to not have the need for an AA filter. The cases where you might be ok are most landscapes, or if you regularly shoot below the DLA (in which case, diffraction will soften enough to act as the AA filter itself.)
However even in nature, there are plenty of repeating or nearly repeating patterns. Birds feathers are an excellent example. Fur on wildlife. Striated detail in leaves or other natural materials that often show up in macro photography. There are also plenty of things that just experience aliasing, not necessarily moire, such as twigs in trees, power lines, strong edges on any surface or structure, etc. These are all things we have to correct in post if we don't have an AA filter or have an AA filter that is too weak.
I've never seen meaningful, visible softening in the 7D that was not due to a lens. When I use top-end telephoto glass, I see no softening whatsoever. That tells me that the bulk of "softness" people experience is due to the lens, or an incorrect AFMA setting. If you use high quality glass, softness just doesn't occur. It may not be hypersharp either, but it is still sharp as a tack every single time, and if I want things to be even sharper, I can always add just a little sharpening in post. Note, here, that the shot of the finch with the 500/4 L II + 1.4x TC was NOT sharpened. That sharpness is strait out of the camera.
Post by: jrista on April 22, 2013, 08:20:14 PM
no it looks not like that, se the difference above, the aa-filter together with the sensor is a package and which canon changes and "improve" by the time, to me with the same sharpening the new camera has more details and shows also more moire in this case and in this detail and structure
Sure, it does have more detail. It also has moire. In my opinion, moire is an UNACCEPTABLE artifact, and indicates the AA filter is TOO WEAK. I don't want moire. It is a pain in the ass. It serves no purpose, and depending on exactly how it manifests, it might be impossible to eliminate. There isn't any point in having an AA filter at all if you are not eliminating or nearly eliminating moire. The amounts in all the other photographs are so significant that I don't understand why they have an AA filter at all. The entire goal is to ELIMINATE moire, or at least reduce it to levels where it is not obvious without deeper examination (which is the case with the 7D, which actually indicates the AA filter is still ever so slightly too weak).
MOIRE == BAD!
Softness == manageable!
You can sharpen a photo with ease, and extract detail that is there. Particularly today, with tools like those from Topaz and Nik, the ability to not only sharpen but REVERSE blurring gives us unprecedented ability to recover detail that is lost in a GLOBAL, LINEAR process like blurring from an AA filter or diffraction.
On a camera like the 7D, which is primarily built for action shooting...applications where you need reach...I expect the AA filter to be perfect. I don't want to be shooting anything...a baseball player wearing fabric, a bird with detailed feathers, an elk with its striated fur, or anything else that is likely to be shot with the 7D line of DSLRs with a weak AA filter. No one does. We don't like Moire. The only time you can actually get away without having an OLPF of the proper thickness (strength is determined by the thickness of the filters) is when you know for a fact that you will never have repeating patterns.
Landscapes is the only thing that really comes to mind as a viable situation where you would never have to worry about it, in which case it would be better to forego the AA filter entirely rather than have a weak one that needlessly softens detail without purpose. Ironically, that is also one of the only time I think most people really need two extra stops of DR, too. Well, the D800E is certainly king of the landscape photography world...but that does not mean a weak AA filter is a good thing all the time. It is not. Moire is bad news, and I believe it is even more important to make sure that consumer-grade cameras like the 650D, 700D, D7200, whatever, have properly designed OLPF filters such that they anti-alias at least as well as the 7D does, therefor serving their purpose: to eliminate moire.
Now, it is obvious you don't understand the purpose of an AA filter, are unwilling to acknowledge that the 7D's AA filter is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do to near-perfection, and are just here to argue the benefits of anyone other than Canon and deride Canon themselves once again. I am therefor done with this conversation. I've made my points. Multiple times. Until you acknowledge that raw IQ, regardless of how it is achieved, especially if it is achieved "at any cost", is not the only thing that matters in photography, I'm out.
Post by: Krob78 on April 23, 2013, 10:47:40 PM
Agreed, this argument and post is getting old!no it looks not like that, se the difference above, the aa-filter together with the sensor is a package and which canon changes and "improve" by the time, to me with the same sharpening the new camera has more details and shows also more moire in this case and in this detail and structure
Sure, it does have more detail. It also has moire. In my opinion, moire is an UNACCEPTABLE artifact, and indicates the AA filter is TOO WEAK. I don't want moire. It is a pain in the ass. It serves no purpose, and depending on exactly how it manifests, it might be impossible to eliminate. There isn't any point in having an AA filter at all if you are not eliminating or nearly eliminating moire. The amounts in all the other photographs are so significant that I don't understand why they have an AA filter at all. The entire goal is to ELIMINATE moire, or at least reduce it to levels where it is not obvious without deeper examination (which is the case with the 7D, which actually indicates the AA filter is still ever so slightly too weak).
MOIRE == BAD!
Softness == manageable!
You can sharpen a photo with ease, and extract detail that is there. Particularly today, with tools like those from Topaz and Nik, the ability to not only sharpen but REVERSE blurring gives us unprecedented ability to recover detail that is lost in a GLOBAL, LINEAR process like blurring from an AA filter or diffraction.
On a camera like the 7D, which is primarily built for action shooting...applications where you need reach...I expect the AA filter to be perfect. I don't want to be shooting anything...a baseball player wearing fabric, a bird with detailed feathers, an elk with its striated fur, or anything else that is likely to be shot with the 7D line of DSLRs with a weak AA filter. No one does. We don't like Moire. The only time you can actually get away without having an OLPF of the proper thickness (strength is determined by the thickness of the filters) is when you know for a fact that you will never have repeating patterns.
Landscapes is the only thing that really comes to mind as a viable situation where you would never have to worry about it, in which case it would be better to forego the AA filter entirely rather than have a weak one that needlessly softens detail without purpose. Ironically, that is also one of the only time I think most people really need two extra stops of DR, too. Well, the D800E is certainly king of the landscape photography world...but that does not mean a weak AA filter is a good thing all the time. It is not. Moire is bad news, and I believe it is even more important to make sure that consumer-grade cameras like the 650D, 700D, D7200, whatever, have properly designed OLPF filters such that they anti-alias at least as well as the 7D does, therefor serving their purpose: to eliminate moire.
Now, it is obvious you don't understand the purpose of an AA filter, are unwilling to acknowledge that the 7D's AA filter is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do to near-perfection, and are just here to argue the benefits of anyone other than Canon and deride Canon themselves once again. I am therefor done with this conversation. I've made my points. Multiple times. Until you acknowledge that raw IQ, regardless of how it is achieved, especially if it is achieved "at any cost", is not the only thing that matters in photography, I'm out.
Post by: dgatwood on April 30, 2013, 09:33:22 PM
I wouldn't call 7D, 5D, 1D users "vast majority". Vast Majority are PowerShot users ;-)
Not anymore. The smartphone market is eating the lunch of point-and-shoot cameras. Take a look at, for example, Flickr's camera stats. The top 5 are all iPhone or Canon DSLR models. If you further look at just Canon's cameras, the first non-DSLR camera comes in at #19.
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/ (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/)
Now I'm not saying that Flickr users are representative—they probably are more likely to use quality gear than your average person—but it's an indicator of the direction that the market is going. As far as future sales are concerned, the point-and-shoot camera market is pretty much dead and buried at this point, and is a waste of R&D spending.
Post by: jrista on April 30, 2013, 10:03:25 PM
it looks stronger than other filter canon have used together with theirs newer 18Mp cameras as here
(http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=14226.0;attach=31345)
Just for comparison...I've sharpened the 7D image just enough to compare to the image with a weaker AA filter (and note, this is a JPEG being sharpened...so compression artifacts are limiting my abilities here...give me a RAW, and I can do MUCH better! :)):
Post by: Krob78 on May 09, 2013, 06:03:36 PM
Post by: jrista on May 09, 2013, 07:04:48 PM
Sigh... :)
Yeah...even visual evidence derived FROM HIS OWN evidence isn't even enough! Oh well...guess a Zebra really can't change its stripes.
Post by: Krob78 on May 11, 2013, 01:18:00 AM
Indeed! I think there was some biblical quotation that went something like: "no man is wrong in his own eyes"Sigh... :)
Yeah...even visual evidence derived FROM HIS OWN evidence isn't even enough! Oh well...guess a Zebra really can't change its stripes.
But I'm not positive...
Post by: dlleno on May 16, 2013, 11:39:40 AM
and thanks Jrista for the great clarification re: color noise and moire and the AA filter.
Post by: Krob78 on May 28, 2013, 11:34:47 AM
There are several ... the one you're thinking of is probably: proverbs 21:2. "every man's way is right in his own eyes..."Yes, that's the one! Thank you Dlleno! ;D
and thanks Jrista for the great clarification re: color noise and moire and the AA filter.