Odds & Ends: 70D, 7D2, New Full Frame, D600 & Photoshop CS6

[TTMartin]

Everybody talks like Sony/Nikon have some sort of amazing technological advantage over Canon. Except for DXOMark scores there is nothing that shows this. Dispite what DXOMark says tests at DPReview show that the 5D Mk III has more dynamic range than the D800 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

So either Nikon has some really crappy processors that mess up the 2.7 stop advantage that DXOMark says the D800 has, or we should stop quoting, worrying about, or looking at what DXOMark says.

Or dpreview is using JPEGs and not RAW data.

While you're on that dpreview page, make these changes:
Set the "Canon EOS 5D Mark III" to "HTP On"
Set the "Nikon D800" to "ADL Extra High"

This should give you:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - ~33 to ~2
Nikon D800 - ~38 to ~2

The whole point about DXOMark is that they are supposed to be measuring the sensor without all the electronic nannies.

So, yes ADL and HTP can stretch the data to expand the dynamic range, but, DXOMarks claim that the D800s sensor alone has more dynamic range just doesn't hold water.

Or just look at DXOMarks own data the Canon 5D Mk III matches or outscores the Nikon D800 on the screen scores for ISO Sensitivity, SNR 18%, Tonal Range, and Color Sensitivity, yet for some reason the Nikon D800 has a massive Dynamic Range advantage? My understanding that all of those other scores are necessary components that would give the camera its dynamic range. It just doesn't add up!

The Canon 50D was the first casualty of DXOMark. It had much better sensor performance than the D90, yet, people kept pointing to DXOMark and saying how lacking the camera was. Well, sorry the vast majority of people who actually have owned a 50D know it was one heck of a camera, much better than it was ever given credit for.

So, stop getting a complex over Canon's sensors because of DXOMark, and focus on how they actually perform.

[simonxu11]

I would be surprised if there weren't already FF sensors in existence with the same pixel density as crop sensors today. The problem is manufacturing. With a larger sensor there is also a similar increase in the chance of a flaw in the fabrication process to render the sensor useless. With fewer sensors per slice of silicon than with crop sensors, the requirements for a good yield are much more stringent with full frame sensors. The chance of a flaw during production goes up as the size of the pixels go down and the megapixel count goes up.

Nikon/Sony delivering a 36MP sensor camera for $500 less than the 5D3 also says a lot about the manufacturing processes being used. It may be that Canon have got more catching up to do than we realise.

Well, Canon has built a 120mp APS-H sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/8/24/canon120mpsensor

And a huge CMOS Sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/08/31/canonlargestsensor

So what? Where are the cameras with these sensors?

[dilbert]

Everybody talks like Sony/Nikon have some sort of amazing technological advantage over Canon. Except for DXOMark scores there is nothing that shows this. Dispite what DXOMark says tests at DPReview show that the 5D Mk III has more dynamic range than the D800 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

So either Nikon has some really crappy processors that mess up the 2.7 stop advantage that DXOMark says the D800 has, or we should stop quoting, worrying about, or looking at what DXOMark says.

Or dpreview is using JPEGs and not RAW data.

While you're on that dpreview page, make these changes:
Set the "Canon EOS 5D Mark III" to "HTP On"
Set the "Nikon D800" to "ADL Extra High"

This should give you:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - ~33 to ~2
Nikon D800 - ~38 to ~2

The whole point about DXOMark is that they are supposed to be measuring the sensor without all the electronic nannies.

So, yes ADL and HTP can stretch the data to expand the dynamic range, but, DXOMarks claim that the D800s sensor alone has more dynamic range just doesn't hold water.

I think perhaps that you are in the "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" basket.

If the D800 sensor wasn't able to record such a large dynamic range then where would the data come from for the output above where the D800 can reach down to 38? That number isn't achieved with some magic. It is just a different tone curve applied to the raw data for the rendering of the JPEG output. The tone curve is the means by which raw values from the camera's sensor are mapped into the JPEG colour space.

To put it briefly, there are 16,384 possible values for each of red, green and blue in the raw data of current model DSLRs. For JPEG files and your monitor, the computer has to squeeze them into a value between 0 and 255. What the above graphs mean is that the Nikon sensor is able to generate meaningful input across a larger part of that 0-16383 number space than the Canon 5D Mark III can but for a normal JPEG output, a large chunk of the dark tones are simply chopped off as being black. Now with the "active lighting", you can change the way the numbers are mapped and move the black point from (say) 2048 on that 0-16383 scale down to 10 or so. With the Canon sensor, that's not possible as there is no meaningful output from the sensor below a value of 2048.

Now it may be that you still don't grasp that. Ok. Go and read some of the reviews of the D800 and look at what people are able to do with shadows - they can get meaningful detail out of the shadows without introducing any amount of significant noise. You simply cannot do that with any currently available Canon DSLR.

DxO are right and their measurements have been backed up by numerous folks with D800s when working with raw files in Lightroom, ACR, etc. dpreview's results match up with DxO's, you're just misunderstanding all of the data that dpreview are giving you.

[TTMartin]

...

Now it may be that you still don't grasp that. Ok. Go and read some of the reviews of the D800 and look at what people are able to do with shadows - they can get meaningful detail out of the shadows without introducing any amount of significant noise. You simply cannot do that with any currently available Canon DSLR.

DxO are right and their measurements have been backed up by numerous folks with D800s when working with raw files in Lightroom, ACR, etc. dpreview's results match up with DxO's, you're just misunderstanding all of the data that dpreview are giving you.

Actually what DPReview shows it that the 5D MkIII has better highlight capability than the D800. So while with the D800 you might be able to dig more data out of the shadows it is at the expense of dynamic range on the high end. Dynamic range isn't just on the shadow end, its at the highlight end too. So, while the D800 retains more shadow detail, the 5D MkIII retains more highlight detail, the total EV range of the two cameras is very similar.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

As a practical matter, I suspect the crop debate, at least in part, boils down to the fact that FF sensors are not likely to emerge with sufficient pixel density to produce IQ equivalent to a high quality crop sensor in distance constrained situations using the same lens, i.e. the same subject distance. 

Surprisingly, when you shoot the same subject at the same distance and crop the FF image to the FoV of the APS-C sensor, the IQ isn't too different, at least based on my comparison of the 5DII with the 7D.  The 7D image was slightly sharper, the 5DII image was slightly less noisy (and you can trade noise for sharpness, meaning effectively a wash).  But...the cropped 5DII image is only 8 MP, compared to the full 18 MP of the 7D.  So...if you need to crop further (or if 8 MP is not enough resolution for your desired output), then the APS-C sensor is the better choice.

Yeah, each left to their max res, the 7D gives more detail with more noise. Normalize them for same detail and then the 7D has a bit less artifacts and a trace less noise.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The only other direction I could see for the 7D is this:

APS-C sensor
30 MP
fill in the rest with whatever...

Not so sure, why not 5D3 AF, 22MP, APS-C, 6fps (8-10fps if they can fit two digic 5+, part of me thinks they could get at least 7fps out of one digic 5+ and they chose not to for the 5D3 maybe due to using a slower mirror box, but who knows).
Basically the exact same thing as the 5D3 only it is APS-C and maybe 1-3 more fps.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon must response  somehow to Nikon. Don't forget the marketing ( something new, something unique ... WOW)...

The APS-H sensor, mirror mechanism, mount, AF system is allready in use. Canon must only redesign the sensor MP and the camera body ( everything else is existing) From the cost point of view only the body and sensor must be redesigned.

There is no "wow" factor involved with the APS-H sensor, it is an old trick and its shine has worn off.

What wildlife/bird shooters want is greater pixel density (or smaller pixels), which is usually an anathema to everyone.

If Canon delivered a FF 46MP DSLR tomorrow, I can almost guarantee you that there'd be a loud chorus of "too many MP", "bad for low light", "bad for high-ISO" and "who needs so many MP" yet it would simply have the same pixel density as the 7D and thus a 300mm zoom on it would result in the same detail as a 300mm on a 7D.

There’s a price war looming. Canon is going to be hard pressed to adjust to whatever the competition push them to do. Good for us anyway.

Agreed.

You forget one essential aspect for wildlife/outdoor photography ... The extra reach.

No, you just don't understand what "extra reach" really means.

A 46MP Full Frame sensor has the same "reach" as a 18MP APS-C sensor.

What you see through the viewfinder deceives you into thinking that you are getting something that you are not.

The current advantage of APS-C sensors of full frame sensors is the increased pixel density on the sensor.

Or to put it another way, both the 20D and 30D have exactly the same "reach" as a 5D MarkII, 1Ds Mark II and for all practical purposes, the 5D Mark III.

Have you not noticed that pro sports togs use 1D4's. There must have been a reason!

APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

APS-H has more reach than FF, IF they both have the same number of MP or the FF doesn't have more than a certain number more than the APS-H camera does.

[unfocused]

The only other direction I could see for the 7D is this:

APS-C sensor
30 MP
fill in the rest with whatever...

Not so sure, why not 5D3 AF, 22MP, APS-C, 6fps (8-10fps if they can fit two digic 5+, part of me thinks they could get at least 7fps out of one digic 5+ and they chose not to for the 5D3 maybe due to using a slower mirror box, but who knows).
Basically the exact same thing as the 5D3 only it is APS-C and maybe 1-3 more fps.

I don't see 30MP. Perhaps someone is just being pessimistic. Given Canon's emphasis so far this year on ISO over resolution, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 7D sensor stay between 18-22 MP. I wouldn't be surprised to see an extra 1-3 fps and I also expect in most other respects it will be an APS-C version of the 5DIII.

[briansquibb]

Have you not noticed that pro sports togs use 1D4's. There must have been a reason!

APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

I think you've left out two very important qualities: frame rate and auto-focus. Without those, the APS-H sensor would be meaningless.

A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

IQ is a property of the design of the pixels and the sensor as a whole. If they used the same pixels from APS-C on a sensor that was APS-H then both sensors would have the same IQ. The only difference would be that the APS-H sensor would have more pixels - approximately 50% more. A 300mm lens on a 12MP APS-H has the same reach as a 8MP APS-C and 21MP Full Frame lens.

I guess you cant see how you are contradicting yourself

[dilbert]

Have you not noticed that pro sports togs use 1D4's. There must have been a reason!

APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

I think you've left out two very important qualities: frame rate and auto-focus. Without those, the APS-H sensor would be meaningless.

A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

IQ is a property of the design of the pixels and the sensor as a whole. If they used the same pixels from APS-C on a sensor that was APS-H then both sensors would have the same IQ. The only difference would be that the APS-H sensor would have more pixels - approximately 50% more. A 300mm lens on a 12MP APS-H has the same reach as a 8MP APS-C and 21MP Full Frame lens.

I guess you cant see how you are contradicting yourself

What gives a lens its "reach" is the pixel density, not the sensor format. A 300mm lens on a 20D will give you almost the same "reach" as on a 5D Mark II/III/1Ds3. The only difference is that the 20D will only show you the very middle part of the image from the lens. Now it might look like the lens has more reach on the 20D because you see a more zoomed in image through the viewfinder, but ultimately that does not determine what gets captured. The image that you see through the viewfinder of the 7D will look approximately the same as that of the 20D so they both appear to have the same "reach" but the captured image is larger because the pixel density on the sensor is higher. Smaller pixels => higher pixel density => more reach. Sensor format size has got nothing to do with it.

...

Now it may be that you still don't grasp that. Ok. Go and read some of the reviews of the D800 and look at what people are able to do with shadows - they can get meaningful detail out of the shadows without introducing any amount of significant noise. You simply cannot do that with any currently available Canon DSLR.

DxO are right and their measurements have been backed up by numerous folks with D800s when working with raw files in Lightroom, ACR, etc. dpreview's results match up with DxO's, you're just misunderstanding all of the data that dpreview are giving you.

Actually what DPReview shows it that the 5D MkIII has better highlight capability than the D800. So while with the D800 you might be able to dig more data out of the shadows it is at the expense of dynamic range on the high end. Dynamic range isn't just on the shadow end, its at the highlight end too. So, while the D800 retains more shadow detail, the 5D MkIII retains more highlight detail, the total EV range of the two cameras is very similar.

I don't know where you get that from. When the maximum tonal range is selected for both cameras, they both peak at about the same point on the highlight side according to dpreview's data.

[briansquibb]

What gives a lens its "reach" is the pixel density, not the sensor format. A 300mm lens on a 20D will give you almost the same "reach" as on a 5D Mark II/III/1Ds3.

Yep - perhaps you need to tell the sports pros that they have been using the wrong sensors for the last 10 years, never mind the wrong manufacturers cameras

You seem to have missed out the bit about APS-C using thr sweet spot of the lens and why the ff D800/D600 is such a good camera.

I actively use all 3 sensor types - I dont think I need your opinion about which is best

[Richard8971]

Honestly, the odds of BOTH the 7DII and a 70D being released are hard to swallow. I would see one or the other, but given the "failures" of the 60D to continue the legacy of the XXD series, I forsee the XXD line being dropped for a new flagship APS-C 7D mark II.

They won't upgrade the 7DII to full frame or APS-H (unless it supports EF-s lenses) and it doesn't make much sence to release TWO high performace APS-C cameras (which is where the 70D and 7DII would have to be placed) after the T4i.

The merging of the 70D and 7DII is logical. My guess with the sucess of the 7D, they will call the "new" camera the 7DII and NOT the 70D.

Just my 2 cents.

D

[Richard8971]

I also expect in most other respects it will be an APS-C version of the 5DIII.

I would have to agree.

The 7DII would most likely be

Dual Digic 5

22+ MP APS-C sensor (or perhaps even higher MP) This could be the high MP APS-C Canon Camera.

8-10 fps.

The XXD line will be dropped (in MO). It has to be dropped based on the features found on the new T4i. Canon won't drop the flagship line 7D in favor of a "new" flagship 70D. The 60D "sucked" in terms of performace (based on previous XXD cameras) and the T4i is almost as good (almost) at $150.00 cheaper.

They HAD to "strip" some of the XXD features to encourage sales of the 7D. The 50D was too close to the 7D in terms of basic features so the downgrade of the XXD line was unavoidable.

I had always assumed that the XD line (7D) was going to be a replacement of the XXD line anyway. It IS the flagship APS-C camera and will continue the trend. No WAY the 70D will replace that.

Sorry guys, just my opinion and will stay such.

D

[ThomasN]

Canon must get their house in order

Entry level FF will be called 6D not 7DII because Canon will kill the 7D APS-C by making it FF and  will not have the possibility to get back to 7D APS-C on a later time if that should fit into the lineup.
An entry level 6D makes sense.
And put the 7D to sleep and put the features into 70D, and let th 70D again be the top of the APS-C line.

This gives us this perfect lineup

1D Top of the line pro camera
3D (name saved for 3D video DSLR for movie use)
4D 46MP (or so) studio and pro 4K video camera
5D wedding and architect camera
6D Entry level FF
70D Top of the APS-C line (prosumer)
xxxD Top amateur APS-C line
xxxxD entry level DSLR

 

[samirachiko]

In my opinion: 70D will replace 7D and it will be the top of aps-c sensor. The next 7D will be called 6D: the cheap full frame!!!

Totally agree with ThomasN!