Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]

[Jack Douglas]

jrista, no no no don't say such things, it's disheartening!

Jack

[DanielW]

It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.

I just wrote this (below) in another thread.
5D3 + Daniel is looking like a likely couple to me.

*****
Something just occurred to me now... How likely is it that a new 7D will have many advantages over the current 5D3?
Possible advantages I see (sure many debatable):
- Crop factor for birding, wildlife and sports
- Compatibility with EF-S lenses
- Built-in flash
- Higher burst rate and bigger buffer
- Price
Is that it? I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all), and compatibility with EF-S lenses is probably not relevant. The built-in flash may not even come with the new 7D anymore, and some people even dislike it. Burst rate, well, here I see a difference, but it is not important to me (I understand other folks may need it, though).
Anyway, when the 7D2 finally arrives costing US$ 2,000-2,200 body only (more? less?), how much will a 5D3 be costing? I have just found prices under 2,900 on canonpricewatch.com, and rythercamera.com has the 5D3 for 2,499 right now. Even Canon sells it refurbished for under 2,800.
What do you guys think? Will the 7D2 be worth buying when the price of the 5D3 drops even further? I am not so sure anymore.
Cheers
Daniel

[unfocused]

I am getting the distinct feeling that the 7D II will be a 7D with improved video...It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.

Well they already suckered me in with a 5DIII, but I'm still holding out some hope and interest for a 7DII. Mixed emotions. On the one hand, I'd love a 7DII with a modest sensor improvement, 5D style autofocus and a few other goodies like dual card slots, improved weathersealing, touchscreen, etc. But, on the other hand my credit card would be a lot healthier if it turns out that most of the improvements are in video and I can keep my current 7D as a second body.

I'm not one of the those anti-video freaks. I fully understand that video increases demand and reduces the cost to consumers. But, I'm concerned that we are reaching the point where compromises will have to be made to accommodate video (or it might be better stated the other way – Canon is unwilling to make compromises to video to accommodate stills photographers).

Actually Jon, some of your posts have been kind of discouraging to me. Your very thorough dissection of the difficulties of achieving ever-higher high ISO performance makes me think that Canon is likely focusing on improvements and research that offer the best return on investment (which of course they have a corporate responsibility to do).

In that context, enhancements that improve usability and convenience (like hybrid viewfinders) likely offer a much better return and greater opportunities for significant advancements. I suspect we may be facing a long future where sensor technology advances by very small steps, while other features keep getting piled on.

Actually, I don't know that anyone should be surprised by that. We've been spoiled by the massive advancements that occurred during the past decade. It's only natural that, as the technology matures, the pace will slow down and we return to a pattern that is more consistent with the previous 50 years of SLR development.

[Jack Douglas]

"I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all),"

Dan, if the 1.6 factor helps you to fill the frame and you can't otherwise, then it is an advantage that you can't make up by cropping FF.  I believe jrista has explained this in other threads.  The huge downside of crop is the smaller pixels that result in poor high-ISO performance.  If you have 24 MP in a crop, the resolution should be pretty impressive, assuming top of the line lenses (advantage goes away as FF gets more MP).

Jack

[jrista]

I am getting the distinct feeling that the 7D II will be a 7D with improved video...It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.

Well they already suckered me in with a 5DIII, but I'm still holding out some hope and interest for a 7DII. Mixed emotions. On the one hand, I'd love a 7DII with a modest sensor improvement, 5D style autofocus and a few other goodies like dual card slots, improved weathersealing, touchscreen, etc. But, on the other hand my credit card would be a lot healthier if it turns out that most of the improvements are in video and I can keep my current 7D as a second body.

I'm not one of the those anti-video freaks. I fully understand that video increases demand and reduces the cost to consumers. But, I'm concerned that we are reaching the point where compromises will have to be made to accommodate video (or it might be better stated the other way – Canon is unwilling to make compromises to video to accommodate stills photographers).

Actually Jon, some of your posts have been kind of discouraging to me. Your very thorough dissection of the difficulties of achieving ever-higher high ISO performance makes me think that Canon is likely focusing on improvements and research that offer the best return on investment (which of course they have a corporate responsibility to do).

In that context, enhancements that improve usability and convenience (like hybrid viewfinders) likely offer a much better return and greater opportunities for significant advancements. I suspect we may be facing a long future where sensor technology advances by very small steps, while other features keep getting piled on.

Actually, I don't know that anyone should be surprised by that. We've been spoiled by the massive advancements that occurred during the past decade. It's only natural that, as the technology matures, the pace will slow down and we return to a pattern that is more consistent with the previous 50 years of SLR development.

Sorry to be discouraging, however I don't think it is useful for anyone to get extremely high hopes over physical impossibilities. ;P Better to get your hopes up over ACTUALITIES or ACTUAL POSSIBILITIES. I don't aim to discourage, I only aim to be realistic, and redirect people's hopes towards things they might actually get at some point in the future.

High ISO, at it's best, could double in performance, maybe twice. Double Q.E., and improve color filtration at the pixel to allow more light (and probably a couple other things like using black silicon and such to fully get us that two stops). That gets us ISO 6400 performance that looks like ISO 1600. That's not bad, but the chances of that actually happening are pretty low...doubling Q.E. would be EXTREMELY difficult. Of course, there will always be the option of larger pixels. That can be achieved by reducing megapixel count, or increasing sensor size. Maybe something like a ThreeCCD will find it's way into CMOS cameras, giving us the maximum full-color potential in a single package (that would be amazing, although I suspect the camera body would be rather large.) In the long run, not really sure how long, I foresee a sensor larger than FF finding a common home in DSLRs.

As for the rest of your post... Maybe we have been spoiled. I think there is still a decade of exploration left before we actually reach the stage your describing. We still have to actually employ discoveries that improve Q.E. at room temperature, that improve total transmission of light past the color filter, that increase the charge capacity of each pixel (despite shrinking area), etc. There is research and some patents in this area, but they have not yet actually been employed in stills cameras. Some of these discoveries have been employed in certain types of video cameras, usually in the security industry...however just because they have been employed somewhere does not mean that growth in sensor capabilities in the stills photography department will suddenly stop. We have a long ways to go before we actually REALIZE ISO 6400 in the future that looks like ISO 1600 does today, and at some point, we will realize that full potential.

Furthermore...a lot of the advancements in sensor technology we talk about here have been employed in stills, but not by Canon. Not yet... That means Canon has a LOOONG ways to go before they hit any kind of technological wall. They have a LOT of things they could implement to improve IQ, particularly at low ISO, but even at high ISO. Maybe not a literal two stops better high ISO, but something better. I certainly have the hope that Canon will start to do something radical with their sensor technology, but it gets harder and harder to actually EXPECT that hope to become a reality when each successive CR rumor about the 7D II talks about video. A Hybrid VF certainly sounds cool...and I certainly HOPE the EVF is an option I'll be able to enable at will. However with my realistic mind, I can't help but EXPECT the EVF will only activate if I enable video mode, which eliminates the option of it being a user-selectable thing for stills photography.

I don't just expect that, I HIGHLY EXPECT that, because, well, you know...it's Canon. If there is one thing they do well, it's THE TRICKLE. They will trickle out the technology, not that trickling helps their bottom line or anything (a user-selectable Hybrid VF would probably triple their bottom line with the 7D II alone), just because that's what they do. So, I don't foresee a true Hybrid VF where I can choose between OVF and EVF at will whenever, video or stills. Again, not to be discouraging...just being realistic. It helps me better control the flow of my funds to things that will best suit my needs, and redirect sooner rather than later so I don't sit on my hands missing opportunities while I WAIT. The aura of the 7D II has been fading for me for a while, and while I still hold out hope that it will be this great and wonderful thing....it's Canon... I have to be realistic. My money is best invested in a 5D III, I feel I am no longer able to escape that realization, and I think it's ok to share that.

So, your right...Canon technology will probably advance in very small steps. But I don't think that's because were approaching wall that will stop technological advancement. Other CIS manufacturers will continue to push the envelope for several years to come at least, while Canon...well, Canon will TRICKLE. I love Canon, don't get me wrong. They deliver the goods in every other area except sensors EXCEPTIONALLY WELL. I couldn't live without Canon glass, their ergonomics and button placement are just about perfect, I think their 61pt AF system is a thing of wonder, and when you feel a 1D X firing off like a machine gun...yeah, I can't choose anything other than Canon. That doesn't mean there are not things about Canon that irk me royally, there are...like THE TRICKLE...and like their low ISO read noise when I'm doing landscapes.

I could very well be proven wrong with the 7D II. I sincerely hope I am!! If I am, thats great, and certainly OK for me...there is no way the 5D III will be a bad purchase, for me or for anyone else in the same boat as I am in. If the 7D II hits the streets with 24mp (30k FWC, which would mean ISO 3200 would be usable), 10fps, 61pt(esque) AF system, Hybrid VF, 5D III level weather sealing and all the goodies we can imagine, those of you who hold out will certainly be richly rewarded. I'll probably sell my 7D and pick up a 7D II for a second body at some point in the future, too.

[jiphoto]

I definitely appreciate the 1.6x crop for birds and wildlife, but apart from that very special example, I wish I had FF.  It's extremely difficult to find wide-angle lenses that aren't excessively expensive, or off-brand crap - even fairly wide-angle zooms like the 24-105 are usually too tight for indoor work.  While there may be a resolution advantage, if you compare 7D and 5D3 crops (there are plenty floating around the forums here if you look for them), there isn't really much sharpness difference between the two, even though the 5D3's 22MP is equivalent to an 8.6MP APS-C sensor when cropped. 

I'm not trying to kick a hornet's nest here, I know that this is a sensitive topic on the forums, but it's very hard to dispute that for all intents and purposes, nobody will notice a substantial sharpness difference between a 7D and a cropped 5D3 when printed, despite the 7D having nearly twice the pixel density.

[jdramirez]

I can't tell you the number of times I have looked my head into the viewfinder when shooting video.  Every time I feel like an ass.

[unfocused]

Sorry to be discouraging, however I don't think it is useful for anyone to get extremely high hopes over physical impossibilities...

Honestly, I don't find your posts discouraging. Eye-opening with a heavy dose of reality maybe, but not discouraging.

As a completely non-technical person (a trait that I have had since my days of film and darkrooms, when the need for technical accuracy was much more important) I appreciate your insights and appreciate even more that you dispense them without sarcasm.

Having grown up on film, I am constantly amazed at the quality of the equipment available today from all manufacturers. While I want more and look forward to the next model of anything, I know in my heart that if technology stopped advancing today I could still spend the rest of my life enjoying and trying to master what is currently available.

I definitely appreciate the 1.6x crop for birds and wildlife, but apart from that very special example, I wish I had FF.  It's extremely difficult to find wide-angle lenses that aren't excessively expensive, or off-brand crap...

I'm kind of surprised by that. If you can live with a zoom, the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is definitely not crap. And, the Canon 10-22 is well regarded if a little on the slow side.

I'm not trying to kick a hornet's nest here, I know that this is a sensitive topic on the forums, but it's very hard to dispute that for all intents and purposes, nobody will notice a substantial sharpness difference between a 7D and a cropped 5D3 when printed, despite the 7D having nearly twice the pixel density.

I think that's been pretty thoroughly discussed and the general consensus is it is correct. Just, as it is correct that at 400 IS0 and below, almost no one can tell the difference between an APS-C image and a full-frame image.

As far as the cropping goes though, it becomes much more problematic when you are talking about a distance-limited shot that must be significantly cropped in APS-C and even more significantly cropped in full frame.

By the same token, if you have to shoot at higher ISOs the limitations of APS-C quickly become apparent.

[DanielW]

"I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all),"

Dan, if the 1.6 factor helps you to fill the frame and you can't otherwise, then it is an advantage that you can't make up by cropping FF.  I believe jrista has explained this in other threads.  The huge downside of crop is the smaller pixels that result in poor high-ISO performance.  If you have 24 MP in a crop, the resolution should be pretty impressive, assuming top of the line lenses (advantage goes away as FF gets more MP).

Jack

I read jrista's comments about it a while ago, and to be honest I had a conclusion in my mind that, in the end, one could achieve similar results when cropping FF. Have I misunderstood? Maybe it was exactly that, pixel density was counterbalanced by cleaner image, and in the end there was no clear advantage for crop. I am not sure anymore, though, and if you are, well, I guess I had better believe you...
Question: Is it better to shoot with a crop camera than with a FF + teleconverter?
Anyway, other than that, I am not sure it will be worth buying a 7D2 because a 5D3 will be costing (am I wrong?) nearly the same at the time. We keep praying for 5D3-like AF, 5D3-like IQ etc... Well, if the price is similar, then I see no advantage of the new 7D2 except for when the extra reach is important (not my case).
(Sorry if it was waaaay off-topic.)
Thank you for answering, Jack!
Daniel

[jiphoto]

I definitely appreciate the 1.6x crop for birds and wildlife, but apart from that very special example, I wish I had FF.  It's extremely difficult to find wide-angle lenses that aren't excessively expensive, or off-brand crap...

I'm kind of surprised by that. If you can live with a zoom, the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is definitely not crap. And, the Canon 10-22 is well regarded if a little on the slow side.

I'm not trying to kick a hornet's nest here, I know that this is a sensitive topic on the forums, but it's very hard to dispute that for all intents and purposes, nobody will notice a substantial sharpness difference between a 7D and a cropped 5D3 when printed, despite the 7D having nearly twice the pixel density.

I think that's been pretty thoroughly discussed and the general consensus is it is correct. Just, as it is correct that at 400 IS0 and below, almost no one can tell the difference between an APS-C image and a full-frame image.

As far as the cropping goes though, it becomes much more problematic when you are talking about a distance-limited shot that must be significantly cropped in APS-C and even more significantly cropped in full frame.

By the same token, if you have to shoot at higher ISOs the limitations of APS-C quickly become apparent.

That's true, I had forgotten about the Tokina.  IMHO, wide-angle lenses for crop cameras become so specialized that one has to be absolutely certain that one will use it well, because otherwise, it's a $300+ paperweight that gets pulled out only when absolutely necessary.  I have an old Canon 20-35 (it's in my signature - I wouldn't recommend it), and that's exactly what happened to it when I upgraded from a 28-135 to my current 24-105.  The slight FOV difference between 20 and 24mm is not enough for me to leave behind IS and the exponentially better image quality of the 24-105.

High ISO is a huge problem with the 7D, as any 7D owner knows well .  I won't deny drooling over 5D3 high-iso shots, and I'd love to have a stop better ISO performance on a 7D successor.  The 7D is, in certain cases, nearly a stop better than my old 40D, so we have some hope there, but it seems that every ISO improvement has a substantial price increase attached - the 5D2 -> 5D3 and 1D4 -> 1DX upgrades were both pretty bad in that respect.

I read jrista's comments about it a while ago, and to be honest I had a conclusion in my mind that, in the end, one could achieve similar results when cropping FF. Have I misunderstood? Maybe it was exactly that, pixel density was counterbalanced by cleaner image, and in the end there was no clear advantage for crop. I am not sure anymore, though, and if you are, well, I guess I had better believe you...
Question: Is it better to shoot with a crop camera than with a FF + teleconverter?
Anyway, other than that, I am not sure it will be worth buying a 7D2 because a 5D3 will be costing (am I wrong?) nearly the same at the time. We keep praying for 5D3-like AF, 5D3-like IQ etc... Well, if the price is similar, then I see no advantage of the new 7D2 except for when the extra reach is important (not my case).

Dan, I can't speak for the newest Canon TCs, but it seems that unless you're willing to pony up $8000+ for one of the newer super-teles specifically designed to work better with TCs, the image degradation for a TC is pretty horrendous.  Since unfocused agrees that cropping a FF camera down to APS-C sizes doesn't usually have obvious adverse effects, I'd conclude that there's no need for a teleconverter on an FF if you're looking for the reach of APS-C.  Just crop and don't worry about the resolution decrease - even 11x14" prints don't show much difference between 9mp and 18mp (at least from my experience).

I certainly wouldn't complain about the 7D2 having 5D3-level AF and IQ, but the only realistic expectation is probably the AF, and AF is only one piece of the puzzle.  If the current 7D suddenly had the 5D3's AF, would people be all over it again?

[Jack Douglas]

Daniel, I'm no expert to believe!   One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping.  I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement.  While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it.  Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.

If you're thinking wide, go full frame for sure.

Jack

[DanielW]

If the current 7D suddenly had the 5D3's AF, would people be all over it again?

I would definitely buy one!

[jrista]

"I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all),"

Dan, if the 1.6 factor helps you to fill the frame and you can't otherwise, then it is an advantage that you can't make up by cropping FF.  I believe jrista has explained this in other threads.  The huge downside of crop is the smaller pixels that result in poor high-ISO performance.  If you have 24 MP in a crop, the resolution should be pretty impressive, assuming top of the line lenses (advantage goes away as FF gets more MP).

Jack

I read jrista's comments about it a while ago, and to be honest I had a conclusion in my mind that, in the end, one could achieve similar results when cropping FF. Have I misunderstood? Maybe it was exactly that, pixel density was counterbalanced by cleaner image, and in the end there was no clear advantage for crop. I am not sure anymore, though, and if you are, well, I guess I had better believe you...
Question: Is it better to shoot with a crop camera than with a FF + teleconverter?
Anyway, other than that, I am not sure it will be worth buying a 7D2 because a 5D3 will be costing (am I wrong?) nearly the same at the time. We keep praying for 5D3-like AF, 5D3-like IQ etc... Well, if the price is similar, then I see no advantage of the new 7D2 except for when the extra reach is important (not my case).
(Sorry if it was waaaay off-topic.)
Thank you for answering, Jack!
Daniel

The quirky thing about that question is it has changed over time. Back when the 7D was first released, there was no question it produced better results in reach-limited scenarios. It's higher spatial resolution extracted more detail, even if that detail was a little more noisy.

The situation has changed today, with the 5D III and 1D X. Both of those cameras have considerably less noise than the 5D II did beforehand, and even less than the 1D III and 1D IV. The quirk here, is that with so much less noise, the detail they resolve can be pushed around more, and cropping then enlarging still produces great results.

Now, technically speaking, the 7D still resolves more detail. The 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, while the 5D III has 6.25 micron pixels. You can fit 2.11 7D pixels into every 5D III pixel. Even despite the AA filter and the noise levels, the 7D still resolves more detail. I think the key difference most people observe is that the 5D III images are crisper and smoother and cleaner, which in the grand scheme of things produces more pleasing results.

I feel it these days, when I take nice, razor-sharp images with my 7D, they still lack the clarity and cleanliness of similar 5D III or 1D X images. For those who shoot with the 5D III or 1D X with a 600/4 + 2x TC, even though they have a smaller maximum aperture, their results are STILL less noisy than what I get with my 7D. The 7D only gathers less than 21000e- per pixel at maximum signal (and most images don't expose every pixel to maximum, so the average signal in terms of charge is probably less than 18000e- at ISO 100, and certainly less than that at higher ISOs. The 5D III has over 67000e- per pixel at maximum signal, and the 1D X has over 90000e- per pixel!! The 1D X has a stronger signal at ISO 400 than the 7D does at ISO 100. The 5D III has nearly as strong a signal at ISO 400 as the 7D does at ISO 100. It's that stronger signal that largely overpowers the loss in resolution. For what detail those two cameras DO resolve, despite being less detail than the 7D, it is more well defined detail.

If the 7D II gets its much-needed sensor improvement, and achieves around 30000e- FWC at ISO 100, then that would bring it up to par with the 5D III at ISO 200. That's a full stop of real-world improvement. That could have significant implications for the 7D II IQ. Especially if it achieves that increase along with a resolution increase. At 24mp, with 30000e- FWC, the 7D II would once again be able to offer a TRUE reach advantage over the 5D III and 1D X. It would be roughly equivalent to using the 5D III or 1D X with 1.4x teleconverters to achieve more reach, which would level out the noise differences...however the 7D II would still have a meaningful resolution advantage. Both FF cameras could still be used with 2x teleconverters, at which point they could regain a small advantage over such a hypothetical 7D II...being able to pack more pixels on subject with only slightly greater noise.

I dunno if that answers your question or not, but there is a bit of generational flipflop going on. The 7D used to demonstrate a significant resolution advantage over FF models. With the 5D III and even the 1D X, that resolution advantage is no longer sufficient to overcome the benefit of having less noise with FF. With the 7D II, assuming it gets all the goodies we hope it does, it will once again attain that resolution advantage. If that occurs, then there will be no way to get around the fact that as 7D II with 400mm lens will be just as good as a 5D III with 600mm lens, for a very small fraction of the cost. (Can't forget the very significant cost advantage that the 7D enjoyed for so long...the 7D II will have it, too!)

[jrista]

Daniel, I'm no expert to believe!   One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping.  I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

The 300/2.8 II would be one of those "$8000 lenses" he was talking about, though (even though it's really only about $6500, it's still out of the price range of most individuals). If you try to use a 1.4x or 2x TC on the 70-200 f/2.8, or a 1.4x on the 300/4, the results are not nearly as phenomenal as what you experience with your 300/2.8 II.

When you cannot afford to spend thousands on a Mark II supertele and a couple Mark III TCs, the 7D line offers something that is very valuable to a LOT of shooters who have less deep pockets: Free reach. The 7D II should still continue to offer that, and even more so, if it gets a good resolution boost to 24mp.

[photonius]

Sounds interesting. If true, does that mean Canon thinks this development (hybrid viewfinder) somehow eclipses the touch focus (by introducing it in 7DII instead of 70D)? Or maybe it is just another option. But I fail to see what is the big advantage of the hybrid viewfinder over the larger back screen (other than power consumption/visability in adversely bright situations).

I'm sure someone smarter than me (low threshold) can point out the additional advantages. 

I'd love to think that the hybrid viewfinder would help video, but I wonder if it would hurt more than it would help?  Any filmmaker would want the camera to be far more mobile than having it perpetually affixed to one's eye, and imagine how hard it would be to keep the camera steady with the viewfinder up to one's face, and change settings at the same time!  Granted, it would definitely help those of us who use our cameras as the functional equivalent of a camcorder (I know I do sometimes), but I don't think it'd be a draw for professional videographers, who use external monitors anyway.  I still want to see what Canon would do with a hybrid viewfinder though, it sounds fascinating!

I guess you never used a real video camera, or the old film (e.g., super cameras.  Holding it against your eye stabilizes things a lot. In particular the Leicina with the upper compartment that rests against your forehead allowed for nice steady holding. http://www.super8data.com/database/cameras_list/cameras_leicina/leicina_super_rt1.htm