A Few 60D Specs [CR2]

[Waleed Essam]

Yeah, I'm kinda bummed about the 18mp too.  Not that I am planning on buying one, but I worry that it means the trend of increasing mp is still going.  I was getting hopeful when they lowered the mp on some of their point and shoot cameras.  I guess I just wonder what it means for the whole Canon line.  Maybe nothing.

I'm hoping the new 5D (whenever it comes out) doesn't get a huge mp bump.  I think it has the perfect # of mp for a ff.

Do you feel like you can rely on 3200?  From the test shots I have seen in reviews, the noise begins to climb on that sensor quicker after 800 than I have seen with the 40D, 30D...

Now I have to cross my fingers and hope they have made some substantial change to make it a better performer.  But I am not going to hold my breath.  Part of it they can't fix...  pixel density.

Which camera are you asking if I feel like I can rely on 3200 on?  If you are asking about the 7D, I would definitely say no.  If the 5DII then I'd probably say yes. 

I shoot stock photography and they are REALLY picky on the technical end of things.  A lot of 7D samples I have seen would not be accepted because of noise. Not saying I couldn't use it, but I don't think it would really help me out in difficult situations. 

If they don't release a new FF camera by the time I actually need a camera, I am thinking of just picking up a 40D as a cheap way to hold me over until a camera I really want comes out.  Like you, I think it handles noise very nicely, and you can get them really cheap now.

I use the 7D ISO3200 confidently, without even need for NR, or very slight NR applied. When I opened this subject I mentioned I can't use 6400 confidently as I'd like to. I use it, I apply some NR in Topaz De-Noise or Neat Image, but I just don't feel confident to use it every time I want to. So yeah, the ISO3200 on the 7D is very good.

Hope Canon don't mess things up with the 60D being same noise performance as the 7D, coz if Nikon's D95 is actually cleaner AND 16mpix, Canon will really look bad.

[match14]

I hope “Video Optimized” does not take anything away from the cameras ability to take still pictures.  I don't mind video on Canon DSLRs just now as it does not cripple the still taking process but if “Video Optimized” compromises that then I'm not interested.  I'm not interested in video capture so would never use movie mode but as I say I don't mind that the facility is there as it stands just now.

[Aputure]

About the camera... I pray to god every night it's not 18mpix I already use my 7D and I love it, but sometimes I wish I can use ISO6400 more confidently than I do now, and stick with APS-C. Seems that this is never happening and I'm forced to go FF with the next 5D or 3D or whatever.

Yeah I also vote for a lower mega pixel sensor. Looks like that rumor of a 14mp sensor might not be true, such a shame. Although the 7D sensor is still the best in the business on APS-C cameras, so I guess you can't complain too much. Swivel screen and video optimization should be very, very cool though.

[Woody]

Hope Canon don't mess things up with the 60D being same noise performance as the 7D, coz if Nikon's D95 is actually cleaner AND 16mpix, Canon will really look bad.

The D95 WILL look cleaner at 16 MP, only because Canon has been totally stubborn and so far, they are the ONLY company that refuses to apply in-camera RAW NR. Nikon (see D90/D5000 vs D300s), Sony and Pentax have all gone down that route.

[lol]

I'm happy enough with the 7D at ISO3200 so a 60D behaving similar would be ideal as a 2nd body update for me. That alone is enough for me not to consider getting another 50D... the tilt screen would make me really happy

[that1guy]

This was the sample I had seen a while ago showing the noise difference between the 7D and the 5D mkII. 

http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/

As you can see the 7D actually does pretty well.  I'm not saying that it doesn't do ok (I think I might have ruffled some feathers before , I'm just saying that I would prefer something that is better than that.  Anyway, going based on arguments, more pixels are better than fewer with low noise.  My thought is, why not have more pixels and less noise.  I am of the opinion that if you can have less pixel density you will have a better photo.  I think that is one of the reasons why the 5DmkII has better image quality.  The "more pixels is better crowd" might argue that the 5DII has more pixels, but come on, it is only 3mp more (which isn't that much) and when you look at the pixel level the 5DII really is doing better. 

Another problem with a more tightly packed sensor is diffraction, but that is a whole other topic.  I don't know all of the technical end of it, and I don't want to start a big argument, so I'll quit w/ it here.  Just wanted to show that the less density/better pixels crowd has a good point too

The other thing I will throw out there is this...we all have different needs.  Some people need a camera that has a better looking image when viewed at 100% (stock photographers would be a good example), other people need a fast performing camera that will get the photo in the instant and make a nice print (wedding photographers great example here).  I hope no one thinks I'm bashing one choice over another...just trying to point out why I made mine

Oh, and I just found one more thing that proved me wrong on an earlier thought I had...DxO Mark is an independent lab that tests camera sensors for all kinds of things (sn ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc).  The 7D actually does beat the 40D on most accounts, so that changed my mind there.  A 1D mkiv (a camera that came out around the same time so technology is on a more level field) did beat the 7D by quite a margin.  Is it better technology, or a less dense sensor, or both?  I don't know, food for thought though.  If anyone is curious, they can check the DxO site.  It is pretty cool, you can compare up to three cameras side by side.  Here's the link:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors

[Jan]

If they don't release a new FF camera by the time I actually need a camera, I am thinking of just picking up a 40D as a cheap way to hold me over until a camera I really want comes out.  Like you, I think it handles noise very nicely, and you can get them really cheap now.

You're not really saying that a 40D offers better image quality at lets say 3000x2000 px than a 7D, are you? 

Edit: oh, sorry, I didn't read your last post. Never mind. 

[Jan]

18mp (Exact same as the 7D & T2i)

Exact the same as 7D/550D? Wasn't there a difference between these two sensors? I remember having read this somewhere...

[unfocused]

Wasn't there a difference between these two sensors?

It appears you are correct. At least, several websites say the sensors are different "according to Canon." However, no one seems to be able to explain what the differences are. Perhaps the difference is that one sensor is in the 7D and one is in the T2i. 

[J]

This is just hearsay, but I recall reading somewhere that the difference was on the back-end. The 7D is dual processor and the T2i is single processor, so the difference is that there are half the data channels (i.e. the sensor outputs data more slowly). Technically that would be a "different" sensor, just not so much regarding IQ.

[Woody]

As you can see the 7D actually does pretty well.  I'm not saying that it doesn't do ok (I think I might have ruffled some feathers before , I'm just saying that I would prefer something that is better than that.

I'm not a big fan of 7D, but it's nothing to do with image quality. So, I am not upset by what you say about the 7D. However, the belief that high pixel density automatically translates into poorer IMAGE quality is a myth.

This was the sample I had seen a while ago showing the noise difference between the 7D and the 5D mkII.
http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/
... I think that is one of the reasons why the 5DmkII has better image quality.  The "more pixels is better crowd" might argue that the 5DII has more pixels, but come on, it is only 3mp more (which isn't that much) and when you look at the pixel level the 5DII really is doing better.

While the 5D2 may be better because it has a larger sensor (nothing to do with its absolute pixel count), the difference is really not astounding (i.e., definitely not 2 to 3 stops better like what many people think). Let me quote from your web link:

"While the differences aren't HUGE, the 5D Mark II's full-size sensor definitely made a difference at ISO 3200 and beyond. Of course that means both cameras were fairly well matched up through ISO 1600, not an easy feat for an 18MP cropped-sensor camera."

I should also point out that in the above link, the 7D shots are darker (i.e., lower exposure) than the 5D2.

Another problem with a more tightly packed sensor is diffraction, but that is a whole other topic.  I don't know all of the technical end of it, and I don't want to start a big argument, so I'll quit w/ it here.  Just wanted to show that the less density/better pixels crowd has a good point too

That is a myth that can be debunked most easily. If you compare images from the 12 MP 450D against the 18 MP 7D side-by-side, all the way from f/2.8 to f/16 using the same lens,
you'll see they are EQUALLY affected by diffraction beyond f/8. The 7D is not in any way worse. Some other points to note:

(a) diffraction occurs at the lens, and the sensor merely records what has already taken place
(b) diffraction believers forget about the AA filter in front of the sensor, its strength can be lowered with increasing pixel density

Oh, and I just found one more thing that proved me wrong on an earlier thought I had...DxO Mark is an independent lab that tests camera sensors for all kinds of things (sn ratio, dynamic range, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc).

DXOMark is full of garbage. Their numbers have no real world meaning (in fact, they contradict what you actually SEE from DPReview etc) and they are not even self-consistent. I do not wish to go into all the gory details here unless you really want me to.

[Woody]

This is just hearsay, but I recall reading somewhere that the difference was on the back-end. The 7D is dual processor and the T2i is single processor, so the difference is that there are half the data channels (i.e. the sensor outputs data more slowly). Technically that would be a "different" sensor, just not so much regarding IQ.

Yes, that is nearly correct. The 7D sensor has two channel outputs for faster frame rate while the T2i only has one.

[that1guy]

Hey Woody,
I really would be interested in reading more, and seeing more comparisons on diffraction.  Everything I have read and seen says that it gets worse on dense sensors, but this is one of those things where I would love to be proven wrong.  It would make my life better, especially since it seems sensors are getting packed tighter and tighter these days   Any info, links and photo samples would be appreciated!

[Grendel]

that1guy -- check Physical Limits in Digital Photography and Lens Diffraction & Photography.

Just know your camera limits and choose your settings wisely

[Woody]

Hey Woody,
I really would be interested in reading more, and seeing more comparisons on diffraction.  Everything I have read and seen says that it gets worse on dense sensors, but this is one of those things where I would love to be proven wrong.  It would make my life better, especially since it seems sensors are getting packed tighter and tighter these days   Any info, links and photo samples would be appreciated!

I have tested this before but did not keep the photos. Will do so again. Give me some time.