*UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

[TrumpetPower!]

Sounds pretty good, it's got everything you need in a mid range crop camera. Wonder how that SL1 sensor is doing so far?

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).
And 6.5 fps is a big improvement on the 60D's frame rate.

This is kind of a flawed argument, as you are comparing the FF sensor of the 5D III to the APS-C sensor of the 70D. The 18 megapixels of the 70D are capable of resolving FAR more detail than the 5D III. The FF sensor has 6.25µm pixels, while the APS-C has 4.3µm pixels. The 70D has a 52% resolving power advantage over the 5D III!

Now, in some cases this doesn't matter. In some cases, the only thing that matters is total pixel count. These kinds of things would be landscapes, still life, portrait/wedding photography. Any time you can easily fill the frame with your subject and fully utilize ALL of the pixels a sensor has to offer, pixel size matters less, and if all you need is 18mp because all you do is print lower-resolution or upload downscaled versions to the web, then the 1D X sensor will serve you well.

On the other hand, any kind of photography where you need reach...sports, wildlife, birds, etc. Any kind of photography where the expectation is that you will be enlarging the results in print. Then the smallest pixels you can get away with, as well as having as many as you possibly can, DOES matter. At that point, 18mp, 22.3mp, hell even 36.3mp aren't really enough. You can always use more. In the case of needing reach, APS-C sensors with their higher pixel density have a lot to offer over a FF sensor.

I'm sorry, but the notion that a high megapickle APS-C camer makes for a better sports camera than the 1DX is ludicrous. Image quality especially.

b&

[TrumpetPower!]

obviously you get higher  image quality with more resolution. An APS camera with 24Mp pixels will always be an advantage for a nature photographer or sports photographer  to come closer  (have better reach with the same lens) as long as the signal level  and the  light is sufficient high  compared to 1dx 18 mp resolution and signal/noise level.

More resolution is always more resolution and  Its a question about light/ signal/noise and what the lens can resolve.

God damn, but that's got to be the most idiotic thing I've read all week.

I mean, really? You seriously think that the Nikon D3200, a 24 megapickle APS-C camera, is "obviously" a better camera than the 1DX?

Seriously?

And for sports photographers?

Please tell me that this is a joke or that I've somehow otherwise managed to misinterpret what you wrote.

In case you weren't aware, the 1DX actually has marginally better image quality than even the 5DIII. And, yes, the D800 as well. It positively mops the floor with anything APS-C, chews it up, spits it out, and laughs over its corpse.

Find me a Sports Illustrated photographer who could manage to not bust out laughing at the notion that she should scrap her 1DX for a D3200 just because it's got more megapickles and therefore is "obviously" superior, and I'll go out and buy a hat just so I can eat it.

Cheers,

b&

[TrumpetPower!]

have you problem to understand what Im writing?

I sure hope so, because it sure seemed to me that you wrote that a 24 megapickle APS-C camera is "obviously" a superior sports camera to the 1DX.

If that's not what you intended to write, then perhaps you should add a bit of clarification.

b&

[TrumpetPower!]

no, read above. you are mixing up things and come to strange conclusions

You wrote -- and I quote:

An APS camera with 24Mp pixels will always be an advantage for a nature photographer or sports photographer  to come closer  (have better reach with the same lens) as long as the signal level  and the  light is sufficient high  compared to 1dx 18 mp resolution and signal/noise level.

There is no APS-C camera on the market, period, which can match the image quality of the 1DX. Period, full stop, end of story -- and that you think there's even a theoretical possibility that such might be the case...well, it just goes to show the success of the marketing departments in selling megapickles, and your gullibility in falling for it.

Any blather to the contrary about resolution this and DXO that is bullshit, pure and simple -- and the type of bullshit that only comes from somebody so completely clueless about the matter as to never have actually touched a 1DX, let alone shot with one.

You can spout numbers all day long, but the fact of the matter remains that the images from the 1DX, even after cropping, are so far superior to those from any and all APS-C cameras that all you're doing is digging that hole for yourself even deeper.

...and, yes, that's a not-so-subtle hint that you might wish to refresh your knowledge about the First Rule of Holes before continuing this discussion.

Cheers,

b&

[Zv]

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.

[Krob78]

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!

[jrista]

It's simple physics. If you have 24 million pixels crammed on a aps-c sensor those pixel must be very small and therefore each pixel well will collect less light resulting in more noise. Sure it might be theoretically able to resolve more detail but in reality it wont as any detail will be smudged by noise as the processor is now making up values for the insufficient light. You can't add light that wasn't there to begin with. The 1DX will have the advantage as the pixels are larger, collect more light and the process produces a much more accurate image. In the real world this means better image quality and sharper images.

That is only true if you assume the exact same manufacturing process is used for both APS-C and FF. Manufacturing processes continually improve, as do the peripheral technologies related to sensors, such as the quality of the IR Cut and Low pass filter stack, CFA design, etc. If Canon is really doing something revolutionary with the 7D II sensor, especially if they apply some kind of active cooling mechanism to reduce dark current noise (which can eat up a fair amount of photodiode charge capacity), there is nothing to say they could not actually achieve similar light sensitivity characteristics with a 20-25mp APS-C sensor as they can with a 25mp FF sensor. Probably wouldn't be exactly as good, photodiode area is definitely a critical factor, but it is not the sole factor. I am not sure if Canon will take things that far, but it is not out of the realm of possiblility, actually it is well within the realm of possibility.

I can't say I believe any small-pixel sensor could perform as well as the 1D X. It has very large pixels that support a FWC of over 90,000 electrons. The 5D III is around 60,000 electrons. A 25mp FF sensor would probably be around 40,000 electrons. I could foresee an APS-C reaching into the 35,000 electron range if dark current is controlled with very efficient active sensor cooling, a 180nm process, and a very forgiving CFA...and such a sensor produce CONSIDERABLY better IQ than the current 18mp APS-C sensor (which scrapes by with a 20,000 electron FWC).

There is also the fact that smaller pixels divide detail more finely. On a per-pixel basis the standard deviation of noise might be higher, but from a whole-image standpoint (assuming you utilize all the pixels the sensor has to offer for each camera you are comparing), having more pixels can only be a good thing, and the average appearance of noise will be lower, not higher.

[jrista]

I can't say I believe any small-pixel sensor could perform as well as the 1D X.

explain what do you mean with  performe as well ?

Well, if you have a 21mp APS-C and an 18mp FF, not even downscaling the APS-C image will normalize noise enough to compare to the 1D X image at high ISO. It has a 91,000 electron full well capacity. Assuming a 21mp APS-C has similar Q.E., a similar CFA, and gets around 27,000 electrons at FWC (similar to the D5200), the 1D X is still going to have a 340% full well capacity advantage. It'll require considerably less gain at high ISO...so, even a fairly revolutionary APS-C sensor design on a 180nm process, even if you normalize the APS-C image to the 1D X image size, is not going to perform as well. The difference between 18mp and 21mp is just not enough for the basic post-process scaling algorithms most photographers have access to to overcome.

Now, if you printed both on an 8x10, the 7D II will have the resolution advantage, and would have sharper detail than the 1D X, and with that much downscaling, the noise and DR differences would be negligible. And, of course, you could print the 7D II image at a slightly larger native size, and if you upscale the 7D II image will retain more detail than the 1D X, even if it appears to be a bit noisier.

[GMCPhotographics]

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

ps : smaller pixels results in less noise

From my limited understanding of pixel / sensor design is that the pixel etchines are all physically the same size on all of Canon DSLR cameras. Every pixel is pretty much the same. but the bucket or well which they sit in in varies in size. On top of this arrangement is a microlens which helps direct as much of the light from the bucket surface into the smaller pixel at the bottom of the hole. Which is why Canon and Nikon made such a fuss over their gapless microlenses. Canon haven't made 
much advancement to their pixel design for a very long time because they were using the microlenses to mop up more or less light as required in their design brief. Nikon went a bit crazy and added gapless microlenses in their D700/D3. Keeping their mp low at 12mp, meant that they had a real advantage over the same generation of CAnon cameras. But it was a one off advantage and one which wouldn't be sustainable in future products as their MP increases. Canon's idea was far better and offered future scalability in MP. Then Nikon proved this point and released the most barmy camera ever...the D800, which created confusion in their product range. No one wanted an ultra high MP camera riddled with iso noise. The D700 was snapped up by pros who saw a big iso and AF advantage over Canon...but within one generation have been soarly let down by their new chosen brand. When I look through their camera portfolio, there's nothing there that inspires me. When I look at the Canon camera portfolio...it's looking very strong. The 6D is sweet, the 5DIII is amazing and the 1Dx is probably the best DSLR ever made. 

[Diko]

... Sony is developing new A-mount cameras that can outperform the competition. The status quo between Nikon-Sony-Canon is over. Sony wants to become “serious” and start a real war in the camera market. The A78 simply was good but not really a game changer camera.

That's the kind of approach I wish all camera makers would adopt.  Obviously, investors in Canon are happy with extreme utilization of technologies long ago paid for, but the USERS of that equipment who are currently invested and are looking for a substantial upgrade are left out in the cold.

If Sony can put out glass as good as Canon's and produce image quality on par as well - I see no reason not to go with the innovative company.  Especially when in-body IS is baked right in to the experience and EVERY lens gets IS.  And that's why I won't buy a refreshed 60D - no "game changing" features.

Amin. That is what I am talking about. I am sick with that inertia from Canon. They were the best, but not anymore after 7D release. Now they are just milking those with Canon glasses. That's it.

Want to force Canon to innovate?  Don't buy into everything they release.

Don't buy?!? Are you sure I should stick to your advice with my 40D and needs for night and low-light scene shooting?

...
Read what I wrote. I was shooting with a retail-bought 5DIII for a long time before you could even place a pre-order for the 1DX.

Plus, you've just acknowledged that the 5DIII's autofocus and low light performance is second only to Canon's most ultimate ever flagship camera. And yet it's still an insignificant marginal improvement over the 5DII? Please. At least have the decency to keep your trolling consistent....

Are you sure? As far as I can recall 5D3 got out 6 months after 1DX....? Are you Canon regional manager or Photo Tester? Otherwise I could hardly believe you... Or the trolling person just cries out loud to get the trolling person...?

Shutter lifecycle is irrelevant. Almost nobody ever wears out a shutter on any DSLR...?

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.

Dual memory card slots are irrelevant to all but a very small minority of shooters.

Again - where do you get your conclusions from? AFAIK almost every wedding Photographer is obsessed to have dual memory slots.

My problem is with Canon's dis-respect of the vast majority of their customers.
If it wasn't for xxxD an xxD sales there would be no R&D money to support xD development.

I wouldn't call 7D, 5D, 1D users "vast majority". Vast Majority are PowerShot users ;-)
But agree with the second part. I am also against the "milking" the users with Canon Glasses. :-(

[GMCPhotographics]

"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...."

The 5DIII's AF capabilities are a vast improvement over the 5DII. It's the same basic system as the 1Dx but with out the face recognition and colour tracking abilities. But the AF array and circuitry is the same. I regularly use a 5DII and 5DIII alongside each other at weddings. The 5DII's centre spot is the only usable AF spot and it's pretty good. But as the light levels drop it starts to fail. The 5DIII's AF array is extensive and most of those spots are slightly better than the centre 5DII spot. The middle vertical 5 spots on the 5DIII are amazing and can lock on in REALLY low light levels, which the 5DII can only dream of. The 6D's AF array is new but low in AP points. Again the centre spot is the really usefull spot here and in low light it's better than the central 5 spots on the 5DIII and 1Dx.
The 1Dx's AF is slightly better that the 5DIII where AF Servo mode is employed, but not a huge improvement.
In One Shot mode, there is no difference between the 1Dx and 5DIII's AF abilities. The 1Dx's big ability is that crazy fast card eating fps and buffer size.

[Zv]

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.)

[jrista]

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.

[TrumpetPower!]

In your example, you filled the frame with your subject. When you have the option of doing that, then the only thing that really matters is total pixel count.

Which is why, of course, the 20 megapickle CyberShot H200 produces images that are so much more awesome than the lowly 16 megapickle 1DsII.

Oh, wait...hmmm....

I mean, seriously, people. Do you even stop to pretend to think about what you're writing?

Cheers,

b&

[Zv]

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?