November 25, 2014, 11:46:13 PM

Author Topic: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]  (Read 46398 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #135 on: July 12, 2013, 01:47:52 PM »
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

Well, you've switched contexts from sports to studio photography, where use of a tethered laptop or computer is quite normal. The original context was sports and action photography, where the OVF and a dedicated AF unit still rules as king.

I would take my tethered Surface Pro any day over an EVF, though. There was a thread a while back where I computed the necessary pixel densities to make an EVF screen be high enough resolution for the average 20/20 viewer at a 25mm eye relief such that pixels were invisible. For 20/20 vision, you would need just over 5000ppi. To accomodate users who have better vision, or users such as myself who have 20/10 vision with contacts, you would need an insane 12,000ppi. With the average size of a viewfinder, 5000ppi is pushing the limit of how small pixels can be and still be transparent to light. At 12000ppi, you are already cutting off the longer frequencies of light, and therefor only able to pass greens, blues, and violets. And that isn't even touching DR, or the fact that even if the EVF supports high bit depth it is still limited by the camera's DR.

The day will never come when an EVF (or, for that matter, a tethered laptop screen) becomes superior to an optical view finder for action photography. There is no substitute for a truly real-time, high resolution, bright, optical prism based viewfinder. For action. Studio work is a different matter, but as you say, people have been tethering and using huge screens for a very long time in that industry, so they still have a superior tool than an EVF.

Not really sure what you mean about switchable glass. Sounds like you are talking about the piezoelectric effect,  however I am not really sure how that is much different than what Canon already has with their transmissive LCD that overlays their current viewfinders. It is fairly simple right now, but there is no reason Canon couldn't drop a whole ton of information into that screen with a selectable mode button...imagine seeing the histogram as black bars in the viewfinder...or the electronic level...or, any amount of information you desire, and still always have full use of the OVF.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #135 on: July 12, 2013, 01:47:52 PM »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 5106
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #136 on: July 12, 2013, 02:07:59 PM »
I'm not sure how much that matters any more - for most uses, high fps or high precision, a Hybrid/PDAF via image sensor is conceptually superior, just add enough computing power. That goes hand in hand with the requirements of the video market of the coming years.

Agreed, but there is a medium volume conservative dslr market (many of the forum users here are part of it) of people that are either pro and thus hesitant to break their successful habits or old-school enthusiasts that wouldn't touch a evf with a ten-foot pole. This group will keep demanding traditional dslrs for the next decade and pay (nearly) any price premium, so Canon will be careful to shape and deliver to this market.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2777
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #137 on: July 12, 2013, 02:19:38 PM »
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

There are many full time pros using EVF's, Ctein and Kirk Tuck are very prominent ones that springs to mind. Neither is sponsored by any camera manufacturer and are both pro EVF's and have written many articles on their blogs pointing out how good they are. Ctein might not need ultrafast refresh, but Kirk Tuck is a very active general shooter often in theaters and poorly lite events. Not saying EVF's are for everybody, but blanket statements like jrista's are clearly unsupportable and easily shown to be false.

As an individual I can well understand
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2777
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #138 on: July 12, 2013, 02:24:58 PM »
Do you know the difference between a 1D MkIII and a 1Ds MkIII, because you never seem to be talking about the correct camera?

I know the difference, I'm just being lazy. The 1Ds III is the studio full frame. Whether I spell the name right or not, the comparison was between a 21mp FF and an 18mp APS-C, a point I was quite clear on, and the difference IS clear...the 7D is definitely sharper, and enough so that it is easily visible.

Yet you often pull other people up for being imprecise, it is certainly difficult to take people that are being lazy seriously.

However, my example was stage managed to show the biggest difference possible between the two. You don't need a 30" anything to view my 700px 100% crop. Further, when printed there is zero difference.

Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3476
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #139 on: July 12, 2013, 02:29:08 PM »
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

There are many full time pros using EVF's, Ctein and Kirk Tuck are very prominent ones that springs to mind. Neither is sponsored by any camera manufacturer and are both pro EVF's and have written many articles on their blogs pointing out how good they are. Ctein might not need ultrafast refresh, but Kirk Tuck is a very active general shooter often in theaters and poorly lite events. Not saying EVF's are for everybody, but blanket statements like jrista's are clearly unsupportable and easily shown to be false.

As an individual I can well understand
I am most definitly not a pro, but I do have an SX-50 with an electronic viewfinder. I find that it works suprisingly well in daylight, but at night it is patheticly bad. Perhaps the day will come when they are as good, or even exceed an OVF, but I don't think we are there yet... certainly not with the SX-50...
The best camera is the one in your hands

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14962
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #140 on: July 12, 2013, 02:43:46 PM »
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well.  But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two.  He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D.  I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.  Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2777
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #141 on: July 12, 2013, 03:15:53 PM »
At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #141 on: July 12, 2013, 03:15:53 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #142 on: July 12, 2013, 03:23:46 PM »
...any serious or professional photographer who relies on actual real-time update and large, full-detail viewfinder won't be moving to EVF any time soon. There is just plain and simply no replacement for a prism.
Wouldn't a serious photographer know the benefits of a waist level finder and consider the prism a technical detail rather then a dogma? The viewfinder of a 1Dx feels rather tiny compared to a 645, and don't even think about anything large. And if one compares the mandatory ~40ms release lag to the less then 10ms you can get electronically...
Guess it will take some time for the pros who now shoot tethered and use the computers screen as VF to accept anything else then a prism. ;)
Just think of switchable glass, a surface that changes from clear to mirror depending on a static voltage applied to it, that allows for a hybrid viewfinder with a user selectable blending ratio. You'd still be limited in VF size though.

There are many full time pros using EVF's, Ctein and Kirk Tuck are very prominent ones that springs to mind. Neither is sponsored by any camera manufacturer and are both pro EVF's and have written many articles on their blogs pointing out how good they are. Ctein might not need ultrafast refresh, but Kirk Tuck is a very active general shooter often in theaters and poorly lite events. Not saying EVF's are for everybody, but blanket statements like jrista's are clearly unsupportable and easily shown to be false.

As an individual I can well understand

My statement wasn't blanket...it's limited to the original context that inspired it: high speed action photography. Sports. Wildlife. Birds. You could probably throw air shows in there as well. I am not saying that in every form of photography an OVF is superior. There are simply certain types of photography where an EVF has a LONG way to go before it even catches up, and from a technological standpoint, unless someone figures out a way to emit 700nm-550nm light from a 400nm aperture, they will never provide pixel-free viewing.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #143 on: July 12, 2013, 03:28:07 PM »
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well.  But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two.  He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D.  I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.  Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

In the mean time, I'll once again provide a link to the best visual evidence of the 7D's resolution advantage in a focal length limited situation (photographing the moon) performed by someone far more respected than myself:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html

I don't know how many more times I can post this link and have it be ignored, but it provides exactly the visual comparison, AT A RANGE OF ISO SETTINGS, that you've been asking for @privatebydesign. You seem to have conveniently ignored it the last several times I've linked it in relation to these kinds of discussions, both in this thread and others. I would really like to hear an actual response from you, as I don't know what better evidence you want than this.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 03:30:28 PM by jrista »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2777
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #144 on: July 12, 2013, 03:46:49 PM »
Now, do you have any example images that demonstrate your assertions or not?

I'd like to see that, as well.  But only as a comparison between APS-C and FF...not just how sharp a shot with the 7D can be.

I recall a couple of posts by AlanF, where he performed mathematical calculations to determine the theoretical resolution advantage of the 7D over the 6D, followed by shots of a feather with his 7D and 300/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, showing how the image approached the theoretical limit of resolution, concluding that the 7D must outresolve the 6D.

Then he got himself a 5DIII and compared the real world performance of the two.  He found that despite his earlier theoretical predictions and testing (testing only the 7D), the IQ of the cropped 5DIII image was equivalent to the 7D.  I found the same thing with my 1D X and 600 II, which is why I eventually sold the 7D (that, and the higher hit rate with the better AF system).

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.  Plus, that applies only at low ISO - at high ISO (>800), the IQ advantage of the cropped FF image progressively surpasses the APS-C image as the ISO increases.

At last, a voice of reason that many will respect. Thanks Neuro, I felt I was fighting a one man battle on occasions on this one.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to own crop cameras, just not because you think you are getting a free TC.

Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

If all you ever do is downscale and drop your images online somewhere, then I have no argument. If you print large like I do, then I still disagree...the spatial resolution advantage of a cropped sensor is still valuable, even in the face of increased noise.

I would gladly do a comparison. I don't own a FF camera myself yet, as I've been waiting for an official 7D II announcement. As soon as I pick one up, or the next time I find a good reason to rent one, I'll provide as many visual comparisons as I can, at a range of ISO settings (because Neuro is definitely right that there is a threshold wherein the superior ISO performance of bigger pixels outweighs the spatial resolution advantage of smaller pixels.)

So you don't have any actual images to back that up? I did.

I print, my smallest print is 16"x24". I looked at the 7D specifically to print big and to give me more reach, it doesn't give you a focal length multiplier, enhancer, or anything else many seem to think it does. "Pixels on duck", when used in this context, is a fallacy.

Even at base iso when making big prints the 7D noise interferes with the detail, the 21MP FF doesn't have the ultimate detail, but it doesn't have the noise either.

Remember, I am not theorising here, I did the tests to see for myself.

Here is 200% crop of the APS-C and a 300%+ crop of the FF, no development processing just resizes to match pixels to each other. To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 04:01:31 PM by privatebydesign »
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14962
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #145 on: July 12, 2013, 03:49:30 PM »
Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

To clarify my "critical qualification," if you are printing at 16x24" or smaller, there is no difference. We aren't talking about 4x6" prints at Target. If you routinely print at 24x36", yes the APS-C sensor has an advantage, assuming the AF of the 7D is up to the task. But, that only applies at low ISO, i.e. in good light. Much of the time, my shots are not under those circumstances. 

@jrista - I encourage you to rent or borrow a 5DIII and compare it to the 7D head to head for yourself.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14962
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #146 on: July 12, 2013, 04:10:26 PM »
To my mind if you process the noise out of the APS-C you get the FF detail, or

Exactly.  Roger Clark's moon shots are consistent with this.  He notices the noise of the 7D, but doesn't find it objectionable - and maybe with the background of the moon shots, it's not. But with the blurred-out green of a forest or grey of clouds in the background of a bird shot with the 7D, it's both noticeable and objectionable, to me. Sure, it can be reduced - at the cost of detail...and bye-bye goes the 'crop factor advantage'.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Lawliet

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #147 on: July 12, 2013, 04:30:30 PM »

Well, you've switched contexts from sports to studio photography, where use of a tethered laptop or computer is quite normal. The original context was sports and action photography, where the OVF and a dedicated AF unit still rules as king.
No, both contexts are equavlly valid. For action photography you drop the need for predictions regarding the shutter lag. At the same time the AF gets more complete tracking data and the capability to take the guesswork out of focus priority. Add the option of using zebras to highlight information thats hard to follow due to small viewfinder size or just simple motion blur introduced by the human visual system. Thats what actually has an effect on the resulting picture, thats (among)what has killed the OVF in cinematography.
Quote
I would take my tethered Surface Pro any day over an EVF, though. There was a thread a while back where I computed the necessary pixel densities to make an EVF screen be high enough resolution for the average 20/20 viewer at a 25mm eye relief such that pixels were invisible.
First: You assume there are no optics involved. Not to think about the structure of the ground glass that can get annoying.
Second, and more important: Its not neccessary to surpass on OVF in that regards, its only a matter of benefits exeeding costs. Is the kind of additional information a type of VF delivers actually helping or just icing on the cake? Contemporary ground glass is quite transparent, combine that with the high magnifications digital brought and a simple high pass overlay wins in the utility department. Tradition doesn't help with taking sellable pictures or keeping production times short.
Quote
The day will never come when an EVF (or, for that matter, a tethered laptop screen) becomes superior to an optical view finder for action photography. There is no substitute for a truly real-time, high resolution, bright, optical prism based viewfinder. For action.
Well, those who actually had the choice went with EVFs. Guess that die was cast...so "will not come" is quite accurate. ;)
That guy charging towards your camera position: is the focus point on his eyes or rather on the shoulders? Motion blur and panning are also factors. Edge detection tells me what will be in focus & sharp on the final print, the OVF shows a blend of various motions.
Quote
Not really sure what you mean about switchable glass. Sounds like you are talking about the piezoelectric effect,  however I am not really sure how that is much different than what Canon already has with their transmissive LCD that overlays their current viewfinders.
The idea is akin to LCDs, but instead of transparent/black it switches between transparent/mirror - integrate it into a beam splitter and you can blend  OVF and EVF at will.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #147 on: July 12, 2013, 04:30:30 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2777
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #148 on: July 12, 2013, 04:32:45 PM »
Quote
In the mean time, I'll once again provide a link to the best visual evidence of the 7D's resolution advantage in a focal length limited situation (photographing the moon) performed by someone far more respected than myself:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/index.html

I don't know how many more times I can post this link and have it be ignored, but it provides exactly the visual comparison, AT A RANGE OF ISO SETTINGS, that you've been asking for @privatebydesign. You seem to have conveniently ignored it the last several times I've linked it in relation to these kinds of discussions, both in this thread and others. I would really like to hear an actual response from you, as I don't know what better evidence you want than this.

That is exactly the same test I did and presented, it is not what I asked of you for though. A shot of a brightly illuminated subject at infinity is not a taxing "real world" situation. Handhold a long lens, use AF, poor lighting etc etc, that is what I asked you for.

Don't feel bad, I have asked the same question many times in different places, nobody has ever presented real world images that illustrate the crop camera "tele advantage" when comparing same generation ff and crop sensors.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #149 on: July 12, 2013, 04:40:34 PM »
Don't miss the critical qualification there:

My conclusion matches that of PBD - when looking at real world images, the 'extra reach' of the APS-C sensor is an illusion, provided that the cropped image from the FF sensor gives you sufficient resolution for your desired output format.

To clarify my "critical qualification," if you are printing at 16x24" or smaller, there is no difference. We aren't talking about 4x6" prints at Target. If you routinely print at 24x36", yes the APS-C sensor has an advantage, assuming the AF of the 7D is up to the task. But, that only applies at low ISO, i.e. in good light. Much of the time, my shots are not under those circumstances. 

@jrista - I encourage you to rent or borrow a 5DIII and compare it to the 7D head to head for yourself.

I print anywhere from 13x19" to 32x48", hence my long standing desire for pixel density. It is really more about that, than specifically crop factor (i.e. 47mp FF or 18mp APS-C, doesn't really matter to me, although the 47mp FF would be my pick for landscapes, obviously.) I'll see if I can muck with Roger Clarks images by upscaling the 5D II and 1D IV shots to 7D size to demonstrate my argument.

I intend to buy a 5D III soon enough, and if Canon doesn't announce a 7D II by fall, then I will.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #149 on: July 12, 2013, 04:40:34 PM »