*UPDATE* EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change

[Black berry]

I'm not too fussed about the 70D.
For me the 7D11 should excel and be a significant improvement over the 7D in some key areas: NOISE, image quality and AF. It should also remain a 1.6 crop.
I don't personally give a hoot about WIFI, GPS or video, I just want an absolute killer that does the basics in class leading style!

[SpecialGregg]

Just wondering - what if Canon shocked us all and came out with a new sensor that was a new format - a 1.5 or 1.4 APS-C? I know Nikons are already a 1.5x. Is it possible to make the sensor any bigger and still maintain the necessary mirror distance to keep compatibility with EF-S lenses? That would be interesting.

[dilbert]

Just wondering - what if Canon shocked us all and came out with a new sensor that was a new format - a 1.5 or 1.4 APS-C? I know Nikons are already a 1.5x. Is it possible to make the sensor any bigger and still maintain the necessary mirror distance to keep compatibility with EF-S lenses? That would be interesting.

Given that they ditched a well selling 1.3 (APS-H), I can't see them inventing a new crop sensor.

[TheBadger]

The 70D will be DOA or Canon figured out we will buy anything with a Canon logo on it. The population aiming for the XXD series are not ignorant - for the price of it, most of them know what to expect from it.

[jd7]

I've noticed I have fewer keeps now with the 5D3 than the 7D. The auto focus seems a little slower, probably due to the shallower depth of field but if I stop it down past f/4 (that's like past f/2.4 DoF on APS-C) the cross-type points turn off and I lost a ton of light! On the 7D I could go all the way down to f/5.6 (that's like f/9.5 DoF on full frame) and still have 19 working cross-type points or just keep it at f/2.8 and get a better light, better focus shot with the 7D.  I just need the better ISO noise so please Canon hurry up!

Couldn't help but jump on a couple of things there ...

As another poster has already said, the number of cross-type focus points doesn't vary when you stop down past f/4.  The way the focus points perform depends on the maximum aperture of the lens you're using, but not the aperture value you choose for a particular shot.

Also, f/5.6 on an APS-C sensor does not give you DOF equivalent to 9.5 on 35mm (full frame) sensor.  The DOF is determined by the lens, not the sensor.  The only sense in which a full frame sensor gives different DOF is when you take into account the FOV.  In other words, if you want two photos with the same FOV, and you're shooting with the same lens, the APS-C camera will need to use a shorter focal length - and DOV decreases as focal length increases.  So, for example, use a 24-70 lens on an APS-C camera and it will have to be set at 30mm to give the same FOV as the full frame camera at 48mm, so if you take two shots with the same FOV (and same aperture value, of course) the APS-C camera will give you greater DOF. But if you take two shots at, say, 30mm the DOF will be same on both cameras (again, assuming the same aperture value was used).

That's my understanding anyway. I'm pretty sure it's right, but happy for anyone with greater knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong!

On another point, I'm a bit confused by what Canon is up to. After I read the initial story about the Maeda interview on DPReview I was thinking Canon saw it this way:  No low end compacts - leave that market to mobile phones.  Small sensors for super-zoom compacts with better low light performance as sensor tech improves.  APS-C sensors for mirror-less ILC cameras which will take the place of the high end compacts and APS-C DSLRs (and I have to say, if there was an M series camera (so relatively small and light) with a good viewfinder (optical is my preference), good control system (buttons/dials/joystick!) and autofocus and high speed shooting like a 7D ... and it could use existing EF/EF-S lenses and smaller/lighter M lenses ... that would be tempting! Any reason it couldn't be done?  And 35mm sensors for DSLRs, which will be limited to the pro/semi-pro/high end enthusiast levels (however you might define those levels, but you get the idea).  But then the follow up info on CR seems to suggest maybe there will be more APS-C DSLRs ...??

[neuroanatomist]

If you stop down past f/4 the cross-type points turn into normal old af points that only reference details in a single direction.

Sorry, but that's not true.  You can stop down to f/22 if you want, the aperture you select is irrelevant - phase-detect AF is always performed with the lens wide open.

What does matter is the max aperture of the lens - that's what determines available AF points.  An f/5.6 lens (e.g., 100-400 or 28-135) on a 5DIII is limited to the central 3 columns of cross-type points (plus 40 single orientation points), whereas that same lens on a 7D gives all 19 cross-type points. An f/2.8 or faster lens gives 41 cross-type including 5 high-precision points on a 5DIII and 19 cross-type including one high-precision on a 7D.

The other issue is AF accuracy.  Having shot with both the 7D and the 1D X (same AF sensor as 5DIII), I find the frequency of AF misses to be noticeably lower with the 1D X (even with the lateral points).  Some aggregated data from Reikan FoCal are consistent with that observation.

[ahsanford]

If you stop down past f/4 the cross-type points turn into normal old af points that only reference details in a single direction.

Everyone's corrections are on point.  The lens (plus possible slowdown from a teleconverter) dictate your focus point options.

A simple test if you aren't convinced re: AF running only at wide open.  Set your camera to a narrow aperture with the AF on.  Face a mirror and half depress the shutter.  The aperture should be and stay wide open during focusing.  The aperture only shrinks down at full shutter press or if you press the DOF preview button.

I suppose if you want to verify your focus point options, see what points are / are not allowed after a changeout from a fast to a slow lens.  I lack a slow lens to test this on my end, but I presume it would work.

- A

[bseitz234]

My understanding was that DOF was affected by sensor size, in that it was deeper in proportion to the crop factor. So an APS-C camera had 1.6x deeper DOF than FF equivalent. For instance, in terms of framing (FOV) and DOF (not exposure and amount of light hitting the sensor), the 17-55 2.8 was equivalent to a FF 27-88 f/4.5. Anyone?

Edit: Neuro? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=449.msg10548#msg10548

[bseitz234]

dare we dream - f/8 AF on the center point.

I hadn't dreamt of that yet, since I just assumed it would remain exclusive to 1-series bodies. But that would be pretty cool.... I will start dreaming.

[neuroanatomist]

dare we dream - f/8 AF on the center point.

I hadn't dreamt of that yet, since I just assumed it would remain exclusive to 1-series bodies. But that would be pretty cool.... I will start dreaming.

Canon announced that the 5DIII will get f/8 AF with a firmware update due out in April.

[AprilForever]

This has been somewhat beaten to death on the 2013 roadmap thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12606.0

But the story does tickle a few of the major 7D2 potential talking points.

I still am sticking to my guns on the following guesses re: the new 7D2:

• I think it will be APS-C for certain, and a new sensor at that.  There are a mountain of reasons -- strategic and functional -- that back this, at least in my mind.
  
  
• As a best in class crop system for pros, I think it will have the 1DX & 5D3s AF system, obviously implemented a little differently given the crop real estate.
  
  
• Getting back to the original story of this thread... By the time the 7D2 comes out, I think it will cost more than the 6D.  This wound some people up when I last offered this, but I think a stellar APS-C body that prevents you from needing to buy the longest glass (because of crop) is worth its weight in gold to some folks.  A $2K APS-C body, as such, is entirely possible.
  
  
• I know this offends some peoples' sensibilities -- particularly "FF is always more expensive than APS-C" folks -- but consider that 6D guys aren't going to buy as much high-end glass as birders/sports guys/etc. who may favor the 7D2.  i.e. I think -- sensor be damned -- 7D2 owners are likely to be more serious shooters than 6D owners.  I could very well be wrong.
  
  

Just my two bits,
A

Indeed. I agree. There are many pro shooters with small budgets who shoot 7D's. I run into their blogs all over the internet, like dewdrops on a virtual spiderweb. A lot of them use 500f4s or 300 2.8's.

The 7D mk II will indeed hopefully appeal mightily to us bird people who don't want to lug an 800 5.6 around just to get reach...

[jrista]

This has been somewhat beaten to death on the 2013 roadmap thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12606.0

But the story does tickle a few of the major 7D2 potential talking points.

I still am sticking to my guns on the following guesses re: the new 7D2:

• I think it will be APS-C for certain, and a new sensor at that.  There are a mountain of reasons -- strategic and functional -- that back this, at least in my mind.
  
  
• As a best in class crop system for pros, I think it will have the 1DX & 5D3s AF system, obviously implemented a little differently given the crop real estate.
  
  
• Getting back to the original story of this thread... By the time the 7D2 comes out, I think it will cost more than the 6D.  This wound some people up when I last offered this, but I think a stellar APS-C body that prevents you from needing to buy the longest glass (because of crop) is worth its weight in gold to some folks.  A $2K APS-C body, as such, is entirely possible.
  
  
• I know this offends some peoples' sensibilities -- particularly "FF is always more expensive than APS-C" folks -- but consider that 6D guys aren't going to buy as much high-end glass as birders/sports guys/etc. who may favor the 7D2.  i.e. I think -- sensor be damned -- 7D2 owners are likely to be more serious shooters than 6D owners.  I could very well be wrong.
  
  

Just my two bits,
A

Indeed. I agree. There are many pro shooters with small budgets who shoot 7D's. I run into their blogs all over the internet, like dewdrops on a virtual spiderweb. A lot of them use 500f4s or 300 2.8's.

The 7D mk II will indeed hopefully appeal mightily to us bird people who don't want to lug an 800 5.6 around just to get reach...

Agreed. The extra reach is a huge benefit of the 7D. That said, there IS something to be said about using the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a FF sensor...the thinner DOF really helps subject isolation, and the wider aperture and lighter weight of the 600 f/4 L II IS make it an extremely appealing lens, regardless of whether you have a 7D or a 1D X.

As a bird photographer myself, the one thing I really do struggle with on the 7D with cheaper lenses is blurring out my backgrounds. At f/5.6, or f/4 with 300mm or shorter lenses, getting that nice creamy background while still getting as many pixels on subject as possible can be a tricky ordeal. These days, I love it when I rent a 500mm or 600mm f/4 L II lens...the high spatial resolution of the 7D really packs on the detail like you've never seen, and the extra stop of light means better exposures and less noise on top of the extra reach (which, in FF terms, is 800mm or 960mm, respectively).

[neuroanatomist]

The extra reach is a huge benefit of the 7D. That said, there IS something to be said about using the 600/4 or 800/5.6 on a FF sensor...the thinner DOF really helps subject isolation, and the wider aperture and lighter weight of the 600 f/4 L II IS make it an extremely appealing lens, regardless of whether you have a 7D or a 1D X.

As a bird photographer myself, the one thing I really do struggle with on the 7D with cheaper lenses is blurring out my backgrounds. At f/5.6, or f/4 with 300mm or shorter lenses, getting that nice creamy background while still getting as many pixels on subject as possible can be a tricky ordeal. These days, I love it when I rent a 500mm or 600mm f/4 L II lens...the high spatial resolution of the 7D really packs on the detail like you've never seen, and the extra stop of light means better exposures and less noise on top of the extra reach (which, in FF terms, is 800mm or 960mm, respectively).

In the other (very similar) thread, in your post with the very nice finches, you stated, "I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third," and went on to discuss the benefit of FF at higher ISOs.  All of those reasons are actually why I prefer to use the 1D X with the 600 II, rather than the 7D.  The AF is not only faster, it's more consistently accurate on the 1D X than the 7D, and the faster frame rate is nice.  In very bright light, the 7D does very well; but, even in 'relatively good' light, it often takes a fairly high ISO to achieve the desired shutter speeds (especially with long lenses), and of course, birds often perch in the shadows...

I'm curious - you like the 7D for the 'reach' and 'pixels on target' especially with a supertele, but have you tested a 1D X or 5DIII along side the 7D in the same scenarios?  I ask because in many cases, empirical reality trumps theory.  Case in point are some tests from AlanF.  Some time back, he posted some real-world testing of the 7D (and note - only the 7D), and came to the conclusion that, "It doesn’t matter how superior the 5D III is than the 7D, the laws of optics and information theory dictate that at 9 m you can resolve the barbs of feathers on a 7 D but you see a blur with the 5D using a 600mm lens."  That conclusion sounds quite consistent with your comments. 

Subesquently, Alan got himself a 5DIII and actually tested it along side the 7D - he concluded, "... the 5D III is just about as good for detail as the 7D (now my back up) and has all the advantages of much better focussing and lower noise," and also stated, "...in practice the higher IQ and lower noise of the 5D III more than makes up for the loss of crop factor."

Personally, I had planned on keeping my 7D even after getting  the 1D X, for the (supposed) 'reach advantage' in focal length-limited situations.  In practice, I came to the same conclusion as AlanF, and my 7D has been a very nice paperweight (ok, that was a little harsh...let's say, a very nice backup camera  ).

[dlleno]

nicely articulated, Neuro.  we're all anxious for you to obtain a 7D2 and repeat the experiment!   

[AlanF]

Thank you Neuro. Here is something else I wrote in another test in the Forum EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C? My answer here:

"Agreed about both taking very good pictures.  The 7D under the right conditions performs just as well as its expensive brother.  On the other hand, much of the advantage of crop in giving extra reach is illusory. I did some iso12233 chart tests at 100 iso with the 100-400mm L on both bodies as it is a very popular but not very sharp lens - its defects according to Plamen's analysis should show up more on the crop.  At closer distances where the closely spaced lines on the chart are easily resolved, the 5D III gave clearer, more contrasty images. At long distances where the lines were at the limits of resolution, they were marginally better resolved by the 7D but IQ was much poorer from poorer contrast and so again the resultant overall image was not better.

The good news for the bird photography 7D owner is that you have camera that can equal the best (at lower iso).
The good news for the bird photography 5D III or 1DX owner is that you are not really disadvantaged by not having the crop factor (but both owners probably don't need me to tell you that). "