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.
We’re told a lens will be announced with the EOS 70D, but we haven’t heen told what it will be.
cr
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
18 MP? Amazing!
Canon, 18 megapixels for 18 years!
Seriously, what.the.hell Canon.
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, I don't buy it.
This rumor looks like it's been put together from previous rumors.
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.
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.
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.
DXO tells us the sensor is useless, yet somehow people manage to take great pictures.
It sucks having too much Canon glass to affordably switch camps. #firstworldproblems
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.
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.
18mp Sensor (Same as SL1).
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.
Unless they did a body redesign, I assume the built-in flash is gone too?
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.
Just because it's 18 doesn't mean it is the same sensor... This would seem like a worthy successor to the 60D
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?
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!
* - 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.
I don't get people's complaints about resolution.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The 70D, T5i, and SL1 are terrific cameras for those whose needs they meet.Exactly! :'(
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.
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.
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.
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... ;)
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?
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!
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.
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).
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.
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 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'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.
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.
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
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?
[T]he 5D Mark III does not present such a technological leap[....]
[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&
... It sucks having too much Canon glass to affordably switch camps. #firstworldproblems
[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
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
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?
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 ???
I´d like to know why Canon is announcing the cams so late....
Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant. Almost nobody ever wears out a shutter on any DSLR, let alone a consumer model,
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.
If they want to pull some Rebel/Kiss/xxxD users upmarket they really need to up the AF.
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, ...
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.
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.
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 you think that 61 point autofocus is important on a 1Dx, but irrelavant on a 70D ???
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?
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.
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.
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&
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 ???
As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless.
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.
[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&
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.
[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
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.
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 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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
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... ;)
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....
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?
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...)
I cannot imagine they'll just chuck in the good 7d af system into a xxd system yet
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. :)
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.
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?
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&
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.
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.
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.
have you problem to understand what Im writing?
no, read above. you are mixing up things and come to strange conclusions
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.
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
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.
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 ?
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
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.
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....
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 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.)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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 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!
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.
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
And now lets zoom in and see. What conclusions can we draw from this?
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
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.
OK here we go, upscaled on photoshop (which is destructive so .... anyway).
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! :)
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
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.
it looks stronger than other filter canon have used together with theirs newer 18Mp cameras
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
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.
I wouldn't call 7D, 5D, 1D users "vast majority". Vast Majority are PowerShot users ;-)
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)
Sigh... :)
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.
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.