April 18, 2014, 04:44:03 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AprilForever

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 48
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DM2 as a FF? Hmmm...
« on: July 23, 2013, 10:06:25 PM »
I'm curious to know, who thinks the 70D actually is a move upward in the Canon line-up as this rumor says? Personally I think it sits exactly where you would expect an upgrade to sit after three years. It does seem a little skewed though right now when compared to the even older 7D, but the 70D certainly does not move up to occupy the space the 7D - or even the 50D - used to occupy.

I think the 70D is a HUGE step up compared to the 60D. I mean, when the entry level Rebel T5i has pretty much the same burst rate as the 60D, you know things need updating. And if we're talking burst rates, the 70D is the first time since the 40D that the rate has gone above it (7fps vs 6.5fps). There's also the brand new 20.2MP sensor, Digic 5+ processor, Wi-Fi, articulating screen, 7D AF system, AFMA, 12800 native ISO, etc. The 70D is a much needed upgrade for the mid-tier crop cameras.

Now the 70D still has a couple things the 7D does better, such as burst rate and buffer, magnesium body, better weather sealing, 100% VF coverage, and maybe a couple other things, but for the most part the 70D beats the 7D.

What I think this means is the 7D MK2 will be something quite special, and as another poster pointed out, the APS-C version of the 1D X. The 70D you could argue as the APS-C version of the 5D MK3.

7D mk II with integrated grip!

Canon General / Re: Just For Fun!
« on: July 23, 2013, 10:05:52 PM »
54: people reading page 1 and the last page of the thread ignoring the 60000 posts in between.

55: people still defending crop sensors, "reach" & equivalencey

(does equivalency mean "need a slightly longer lens"?)

No, it means a 50 1.4 on a ff would require a 35(ish) 0.9(ish) to match on APS-C. Sounds great, around middle focal lengths, FF shines. 10mm  APS-C requires about 16mm FF. The price difference is astonishing... But, move to the long end, and the world becomes murder. To see what APS-C sees at 600, on FF it requires a 900mm lens (basically, 500 +2x, 600 + 1.4x and then some...). Then, you need TCs, and getting anything in focus becomes even harder. You get to stop down an extra stop and a half, so that extra stop and a half of IQ dissappears. FF really is a bit of a few trick pony, not an answer all.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DM2 as a FF? Hmmm...
« on: July 22, 2013, 05:40:09 PM »
What do you guys think of this rumor?  I'd only heard rumors before, but thought I'd throw it out into the CR forums to see what you guys all think.  Up until now, 7D has been thought of as the flagship for crop sensors.  However, is the 70D the new flag-bearer with big changes to come in the FF lineup?   

Here's a link to the CanonWatch site where it's discussed:


Absolutely no! It would make no sense lineup wise, and it would kill the 7D. A FF camera what shoots 8FPS or better? That's pretty much a 1DX, and it would be priced accordingly. I don't want FF. I have a 5d MK II which I use for landscape. The 7D does everything else, including ceremonies. FF introduces piles upon piles of problems crop sensors eliminate. Once, fil was 4 inches by 5. Then, the pro idea was 35mm. It makes sense for a lot of reasons for the 7D to be a 1.6 crop!!! A lot of pros I have read about are using 2x crop cameras for a lot of uses!

Canon General / Re: Just For Fun!
« on: July 22, 2013, 12:52:41 PM »
40. Full frame is the answer to everything in the world. (i'm not knocking ff cameras...)

41. People still defending crop-sensor and believing in "reach"

48. People who don't understand equivalency and the real purpose of 1.6 crop.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: July 16, 2013, 10:34:05 AM »
I have to throw out the "horses for courses" line.  I have the 16-35 II, 24-70 II, and 70-200 II, but I also have the 24 1.4 II, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 II, and 135.  I LOVE my primes and when I'm just walking around or shooting portraits, they are what I use.  When I'm shooting commercial work or carrying my gear on my back for long distances, I take the zooms.  There are plenty of situations where shallow DOF isn't needed or desired and many times when you can't "zoom with your feet" because you are stuck in one place and can't get closer or further back -- or you get eaten -- see shot below of a 10'+ alligator using the original 24-70 at, you guessed it 70mm, from around 20ft away.  If I'd had my 24 or 50 on, I wouldn't have been able to get close enough and I wanted good DOF for this shot.

You choose the best gear you have for a given shoot and hope you have the right lens on your camera at the right time.

Nice! Where's this?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 08:14:21 PM »
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
  • 18mp, 1.5x crop factor
  • new AF system - but not the 1DX/5DIII AF system
  • 9fps

No, it will be 1.6, 9FPS is pretty realistic, but I am certain it will the the 5D III AF...

It is certainly not going to have the 5D3 AF. You can't just stick a FF AF system on APS-C.

You might not be able to put a FF AF UNIT in an APS-C camera...but you could reuse the FF AF sensor in an AF unit designed for APS-C. The AF unit houses the sensor, as well as a special lens that handles splitting light for each AF point and directing it to the appropriate AF strips. No reason that lens couldn't be redesigned for an APS-C frame (and, for APS-C frame with very wide point spread, since vignetting wouldn't be as much of an issue as on the FF).

So sure...I believe the 61pt AF system could find its way to the 7D II.

THey'll get it in there, or something along those lines... I think they fear the D400...

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.

Depends on what people it should appeal to - and more metapixies has consumer appeal

Yes, megapickles appeal to consumers.

The question is, is the 7DII supposed to be a consumer camera?

If yes, why should Canon put their 61-point pro AF system in a consumer camera - as many are asking here.
And if not, why should Canon appeal to consumers with a (noisy) 24mp sensor.

The more the better!!!

EOS Bodies / Re: Thinking of leaving Canon
« on: July 11, 2013, 04:38:43 PM »
H & G.
We seriously should have stopped it at this first reply :)

What does  h and g even mean?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 04:37:29 PM »
RLPhotos official prediction for 7D2.

- 61 Point AF
- 24 MP APS-C
- 10 FPS

Pack those 3 key features in, and canon stole the semi-pro sports market again.

Agreed. I really hope it happens!

Nah. They won't put a 24mp sensor in the 7DII.
This is a sports body, remember.
Sports bodies favor ISO/noise over megapixels.

Here are my predictions:
  • 18mp, 1.5x crop factor
  • new AF system - but not the 1DX/5DIII AF system
  • 9fps

No, it will be 1.6, 9FPS is pretty realistic, but I am certain it will the the 5D III AF...


........ Sonys sensor department is healthy, they earn money from the mobile sensors up to 24x36mm
that other departments such as television, consumer electronics, etc. are not going so well is another question ......

Do you have any justification for this statement? or is it just plucked from the depths of your mind?

They sell to everyone -including canon-, they're bound to be profitable.

"Sony, the third largest semiconductor firm in Japan, divides its semiconductor business into in-house use and outside sales. The fourth-quarter revenues from outside sales reached JPY90 billion, representing a sequential increase of 19%. The firm has reported revenue growth for two consecutive quarters and continues to stay in profit."
from :http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130325PD206.html

Profit is a relative and often misleading term. When you are tens of billions of dollars in debt, a significant portion of which was required to build the fabs that make Sony sensors, as well as put into the R&D and patent purchases...well, profit simply means deferred payments on debt. The electronics divisions of Sony, of which IC fabrication is a part, have been in the red for years. Even if some of the subdivisions are making some money, overall Sony is hemorrhaging from their electronics division (and they STILL have immense piles of debt at high interest rates.)

And don't underestimate the impact of profit on a product line. Take a look at Olympus 4/3 cameras ( 4/3, not micro 4/3). The line was not profitable so they let it drop. If Sony cameras are not profitable, expect to see them dropped.

I hope not... I kind of was hopin gincreased competition would help the market...

EOS Bodies / Re: Stay with Canon?
« on: July 11, 2013, 12:57:51 PM »
Here we go... reasons to switch to Hasselblad:

"A Hasselblad camera is not a reward for having achieved a successful career. A Hasselblad camera is the tool with which you build your successful career to begin with.

There is never any time like the present to start building for the future. And if you think 35mm is good enough for this stage of your career, then you’d better hope that your clients are also willing to settle for “good enough”. The best clients, however, are almost never willing to settle for “good enough”. And why should they, when there are photographers out there who can provide the best? And providing the best is what Hasselblad and the new H5D are all about.

The next step in the evolution of the world renowned Hasselblad H System, the Hasselblad H5D provides a powerful addition to any photographer’s toolbox and provides you with the competitive edge you need in today’s crowded marketplace. The H5D features Hasselblad’s legendary image quality, a new stylish and more compact design, an updated lens line, new electronics, improved AF precision and speed, increased stability and performance, and a range of other new camera functions and improved features, including:
New HCD 4.8/24mm lens
New Macro Converter
More accurate focusing with True Focus II
New Immediate Focus Confirm
New print ready Jpeg files
New compressed multi-shot RAW files for faster and smoother workflow
New Camera Configurator
Larger and more ergonomic buttons
Larger, easier to read display style
Updated Graphics User Interface
More programmable buttons
New and improved weather sealing
New and faster processors implementing Hasselblad Image Processing Architecture
And more...

I need this camera just for the MORE

I NEED MORE!!! this camera has it!

If they can come out with a 1600 f4 IS for Bird Photography, I am all in!!! Also, I will need a Hassy with at least 6 FPS, and hopefully also serious AF!!!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 12:52:49 PM »
I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie.  When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

First, I am not presenting an argument, I am presenting empirical results of a test.

You were, intentionally or not. When you claimed that the previous statements were untrue, you started a debate, and proceeded to present your "argument" for your opinion...

Second, I used a FF 1Ds MkIII not an APS-H 1D MkIV.

Ok, not that it really matters to the point being debated any. The point of yours that I am arguing against is the notion that all or nearly all of the benefit of the 7D's higher resolution as offered by higher pixel density is mitigated by "real world factors". And I quote:

but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This is the specific point of yours that I am debating. I think you are FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG...there ABSOLUTELY IS a difference that CAN be FULLY REALIZED in the real world. It would take some very significant camera shake or a severely missfocussed lens to diminish the resolution benefit the 7D has over the 1D III. Someone with particularly unsteady hands and a non-IS lens is probably at a much higher risk of "not being able to realize the 7D's resolution edge", but in general I think the edge is entirely realizable. I realize it every day, in both tripod-based and hand-held photography. It is the reason the 7D has been my body of choice for the last couple of years, and why I am holding out against buying a 5D III until the 7D II has been released and its upgrades evaluated.

I'll HAPPILY take an even HIGHER resolution sensor than the 7D has...because I know first hand that the extra resolution can be utilized even in a hand held scenario (or a missfocus scenario...a problem with the 7D that I believe is far more severe than its supposedly overdone sensor resolution).

Third, I agree the 7D "wins", though I don't agree with the oversimplified knee jerk rhetoric.

First..."knee jerk"?? LOL...not sure where that came from
Second..."rhetoric"?? I know I can be wordy...I often use a lot of words just to be clear in getting my point across. Ironic, as I though my last reply to you was rather concise and clear, and explicit in its form as a STATEMENT, not a question...rhetorical or otherwise. (Unless, I guess, you think the use of the word "convolution" is rhetoric...)

I even pointed out in my initial post that the 7D does have more resolution, just nowhere near as much as anybody would guess or expect, most people are pretty emphatic that the far denser sensor of the 7D would trounce the less than half the pixel numbers of the FF, but it just is not so. The 18MP of the 7D equate well to the 36MP of the D800, we all know, as a system, the 5D MkIII at 24MP and the 24-70 f2.8 MkII resolves more, as bench tested, than the D800 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8, 18MP to 15MP.

I'd be careful not to conflate spatial resolution with pixels on subject. Assuming one could frame identically, the simple fact of the matter is that the 5D II, 5D III, D800, or any other full-frame sensor with more than 18mp will produce a more detailed result. But I think that notion is counter to the prior discussion about why one would want an 18mp APS-C  (not FF) sensor: crop factor. Identically framed, hands down, the full frame sensor with more pixels is going to produce a better result...not only because it puts more pixels on the subject, but because it puts more BETTER pixels on the subject.

Your very own argument, which equated a cropped 1D III to a 7D, implicitly assumes a focal-length limited scenario where one literally cannot frame the same. That falls in line with the prior discussion, and I have no question that if actual samples of photos taken hand-held with the 7D and 1D III in a variety of scenarios at ISO settings up to 1600...the 7D would trounce the 1D III. No contest. I might even buy a 5D III just to prove the point!  ::)

I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

If you are claiming an "empirical" observation, sample data would be a necessity to back up your claim.

I can make the same argument, that I have made empirical observations that the 7D produces very different results (and superior, in terms of resolution usefully resolved) than something like the 5D II. As a matter of fact, a well respected scientist did just that very comparison (7D, 1D IV, 5D II), and his results are pretty definitively in favor of the 7D:


In the context of this discussion, I think the following statement from that article is key:

The sensor sizes are irrelevant in these examples. All three cameras could well have been full frame sensors. It is purely a test of pixel size and the trade of detail versus noise.

Additionally, the results of the test, as evaluated by Roger Clark:

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.

The visual examples, which I cannot post here, CLEARLY demonstrate the benefit of having a sensor with denser pixels. The 7D images, while at times noisier than the 1D IV, have a more than measurable increase in overall detail...a very meaningful difference between the two cameras.

You might be well advised to go back and actually read my first post, it contains the images you ask for, the one on the left is a FF image (FROM A 1DS MkIII !) with an overlayed full image from a 7D, the red rectangle. They were shot from the same place with the same lens, a 300 mm f2.8 IS @ f5.6. This is a 100% demonstration of a focal length limited situation.

Now as I have repeatedly said, the 7D does have a fraction more resolution but it is not in the order most expect it to be. I did do further real world testing, though unfortunately don't have those images with me and they are not bench tested direct comparisons anyway (so would only lead to all sorts of not fair comparison claims), but after using both cameras side by side I concluded that the 7D gave me no more realisable resolution, I was surprised, but rather than throw down $1,500 because everybody said it would, I got a loaner and tested it for myself.

Other tests, by other people for their uses might show different results, I was surprised by my results but entirely happy they were accurate and got a second 1Ds MkIII. Again, there are many good reasons to own/buy a 7D/crop camera, but thinking you are getting a "free" TC is not the most sensible, or accurate, one.

To me, it seems to be a noticable amount more resolution than my old Rebel XSI. I assume 24MP instead of 18 would bring a rather similarly noticable help.

EOS Bodies / Re: Stay with Canon?
« on: July 10, 2013, 08:46:40 AM »
After 4 years using Canon gear i am thinking of selling all my stuff and switch over to Nikon to get better sensor performance.  The lenses of Nikon are not as good as Canon's but with the Nikon sensor the (DSLR+Lens combi) scores are much better. "It's the combi that makes the picture"

What do you all think?
Keep waiting till Canon gets up (again) with Nikon?

I think this can take a long time... Maby never... Or are there any rumors canon wil get back on top soon?

Maybe try Sony or Pentax? The Sony sensors are said to be quite good, and their lenses also... Also, the Pentax K-5II seems quite good, by all accounts, but largely ignored... Look at them, and maybe you'll see something you like.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 10, 2013, 08:42:04 AM »
We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

Two new pro bodies could be the high MP 1D camera and a new pro level cinema body.

The 7D MK I was pretty pro. The 7D MK II hopefully will be more pro. I think that the sensor should have at least a 2 stop ISO improvement, and there should be better sealing, a MUCH improved grip, and also a third wheel for ISO.

The big unknown at this time is whether Canon will use the same sensor in the 7DII or not.

If the 7DII has the same sensor as the 70D, Canon will have a hard time, IMO, convincing people to spend more on the 7DII.
The 70D specs are quite good already, so why bother?

It would be a completely different story, though, if the 7DII has better image quality than the 70D.

So, it makes more sense for Canon to put a better sensor in the 7DII - but who knows what they will actually do.

If the 7D mk II is only as good as the 70D, then upgrading from the 7D mk I seems much less interesting...

However, if they put some special AF sauce in it, and make the body better sealed, and maybe e'en make the grip like the 5D III, then...

EOS Bodies / Re: So I made the jump to FF - now what?
« on: July 07, 2013, 05:07:53 PM »
What to do? Mostly be sad that nothing is in focus anymore!!!

What do you shoot?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 48