I tend to agree. I guess it depends on your intended use. Me, I have been using mine for birding, where the maximum pixel density is desirable, but it suffers at higher ISO compared to the R5.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R7 Mark II to Have Stacked 40MP Sensor?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The IQ at this point for the R7, or for most modern apsc cameras are not limited by needing "better pixels" (whatever that means). While there is a minimal amount of read noise, the vast majority is shot noise which is a purely physical limitation based on total light collecting area i.e. sensor size. The R7 is absurdly good, given that it is an apsc. Objectively as good as the neighboring fullframe cameras like the R6, R5 or R3 if adjusted for sensor size (1 stop).
So if you were interpreting some issue of image quality on an R7, it was because either you have unrealistic or uninformed expectations of what is possible for an apsc sensor, you werent at all accounting for obvious variables like light availability, slower or worse optics, or possibly the camera just wasnt in skilled hands.
Upvote
0
Based on my experience with a 7D vs 5D3 and R7 vs R6-2, I think it's been this way since about 2012. My maximum auto ISO for the APS-C cameras is 6400 and for the FF cameras, 12800.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The Fuji 50-140, at 995g, is absurdly heavy but I think it's pretty old. I want something weighing 500g to 600g. And my credit card is ready..
Upvote
0
11 years old. I have no idea if the quality holds up to today's standards. Definitely overweight. Fuji doesn't seem to "refresh" their lenses particularly often.
If indeed the R7 II is more "entry-pro"/enthusiast level, a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C makes a lot of sense to me. A high school's photography/journalism department or proud parent could feasibly get the camera and lens to shoot basketball or volleyball games for about the cost of the RF 70-200mm Z (no body).
Upvote
0
I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.
Upvote
0
I suspect that I very much disagree with your definition of "equivalence" in lenses. If you have to change the exposure to maintain field of view and depth of field, it isn't equivalent.
Upvote
0
I suggest you read up on the actual definition of (photographic) equivalence. Yours isn’t it.
If you maintain field of view, then you change depth of field. If you want to maintain field of view AND depth of field (as you put it), then you need a wider aperture lens for the crop sensor (as @Chunk correctly stated). That wider aperture means you use a lower ISO on the crop sensor (assuming you keep shutter speed constant), and that makes the image noise equivalent.
This link has a thorough explanation of the concept:
This link is a decent summary:
What is equivalence and why should I care?
Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...
www.dpreview.com
Upvote
0
Those are two excellent articles you quote. The first is detailed and cuts through common misconceptions that that are raised continually. The second is a nice summary of equivalence. They should be a "must" read. It's worth emphasizing for "equivalence" that it is the diameter of the lens, not the f-number, that is key. The diameter of the lens determines the depth of field, effects of diffraction on resolution and key to the S/N of the image, independent of focal length. Thanks for drawing attention to them.I suggest you read up on the actual definition of (photographic) equivalence. Yours isn’t it.
If you maintain field of view, then you change depth of field. If you want to maintain field of view AND depth of field (as you put it), then you need a wider aperture lens for the crop sensor (as @Chunk correctly stated). That wider aperture means you use a lower ISO on the crop sensor (assuming you keep shutter speed constant), and that makes the image noise equivalent.
This link has a thorough explanation of the concept:
This link is a decent summary:
What is equivalence and why should I care?
Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...
Upvote
0
The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 RF-S Art lens, by being a stop and a third faster than the typical f/2.8 standard zoom, and covering 27.2-64mm equivalent angles of view, overcomes full-frame's one-stop ISO noise and backgound blur advantages - and it's a nice sharp lens wide open at all focal lengths.
And yes, as others have noted above, its physical size is not less than that of a full-frame standard zoom. Compared to Canon's budget standard zoom, the RF 28-70mm f/2.8, the Sigma is about an inch longer and weighs 16.5% more - but this - and its thousand dollar price - is "an equitable trade" for giving the R7 parity with full-frame for the standard zoom range. For more reach, add the tiny Sigma RF-S 56mm f/1.4, which gets you to 90mm. (The Sigma 17-40 is smaller, lighter and substantially cheaper than the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L.)
* For those who felt a tingle at the echo of the phrase "an equitable trade, Doctor," go rewatch "Operation Annihiate!" (TOS 1srt season) to hear Spock say that about the loss of his sight in exchange for being freed from the flying parasite - shortly before his sight came back due to being protected by Vulcans' long-forgotten nictitating membrane that shielded his retinas.
And yes, as others have noted above, its physical size is not less than that of a full-frame standard zoom. Compared to Canon's budget standard zoom, the RF 28-70mm f/2.8, the Sigma is about an inch longer and weighs 16.5% more - but this - and its thousand dollar price - is "an equitable trade" for giving the R7 parity with full-frame for the standard zoom range. For more reach, add the tiny Sigma RF-S 56mm f/1.4, which gets you to 90mm. (The Sigma 17-40 is smaller, lighter and substantially cheaper than the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L.)
* For those who felt a tingle at the echo of the phrase "an equitable trade, Doctor," go rewatch "Operation Annihiate!" (TOS 1srt season) to hear Spock say that about the loss of his sight in exchange for being freed from the flying parasite - shortly before his sight came back due to being protected by Vulcans' long-forgotten nictitating membrane that shielded his retinas.
Upvote
0
I read Butler’s essay when it first came out but the James piece is new to me. Let me be blunt. Joseph James, Richard Butler and you do not have the social power to tell everybody what “equivalence” means and force them to use your definition, especially because your definition is almost certainly different than what most people use.I suggest you read up on the actual definition of (photographic) equivalence. Yours isn’t it.
If you maintain field of view, then you change depth of field. If you want to maintain field of view AND depth of field (as you put it), then you need a wider aperture lens for the crop sensor (as @Chunk correctly stated). That wider aperture means you use a lower ISO on the crop sensor (assuming you keep shutter speed constant), and that makes the image noise equivalent.
This link has a thorough explanation of the concept:
This link is a decent summary:
What is equivalence and why should I care?
Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...
The physical reality is known by almost everybody here. We’ve certainly discussed it enough. Given three parameters (1) Field of View, (2) Depth of Field and (3) exposure, it is possible to define “equivalence” of lenses for different sensor sizes such that two of the three are held constant but the third must be allowed to vary. In your (and Butler’s and James’) definition, the FOV and DOF must be the same but the exposure is allowed to change. I maintain that most people, including me, say that FOV and exposure must be the same but, because the focal lengths of the two lenses differ, the DOF also differs. The difference in DOF is simply less important.
(So how does one hold exposure and DOF constant and allow FOV to change? Answer: use a different size sensor with the same lens at the same distance from the sensor using the same aperture. Alternatively, simply crop the image differently.)
FWIW, Chris Niccolls of PetaPixel has, within the last year or so started stating (usually rapidly) that some lens is equivalent to some FF lens but the DOF must be changed to some different aperture value. I suppose the PetaPixel folks got tired of folks complaining.
Frankly, this whole issue seems suspiciously like some guy with a penis and XY chromosones demanding that everybody must say that he’s a she. Social dominance only goes so far.
Upvote
0
I thought "Bob" was a male name. Sorry for assuming your gender.
Upvote
0
Equivalence means the resulting images are equivalent – same FoV, DoF and noise. It's right there in the word, equivalent is defined by the Oxford dictionary as equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. Equivalent doesn't mean two things are the same and one is different. That applies in any context, not just photography. You're saying that having two apples and an orange is equivalent to having three apples. Toddlers know better.
Incidentally, the difference in focal length is not what causes the DoF to change, and keeping focal length, distance and f/number constant but using a different sensor size does not hold DoF constant. Seems there is more than one photographic concept where your understanding is sorely lacking.
Upvote
0
Sorry, but when you tend to argue down to sensor size and adjusting to just "1 stop", I can tell you from my direct comparisons that I use my R6m2 up to ISO 6400 while I wouldn't use the R7 at higher than ISO 2000, because of s/n in the photos, given the RAW files I get out of the camera. (Of course, you can use SW to compensate this in PP)
So this is more than you say or think to calculate.
This is my direct experience, and here I would say, if Canon had to chose to get the same noise with 32 MP at ISO 3200 or 4000, or with 40 MP at ISO 2000 I would prefer s/n over resolution.
IF we are at physical borders here and it is not possible to increase s/n then it is as it is.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
