Canon EOS R7 Mark II to Have Stacked 40MP Sensor?

[neuroanatomist]

So what, pray tell, was the point of neuro's post #38 in this thread, which explicitly mocked a discussion of the advantages of an APS-C camera in getting more reach from a lens by calling those who said that those "who still believe in fairies, wizards and the magic of the crop factor." and then included the following image:

View attachment 227196
with no disclosure that it was actually a comparison of an iPhone photo to a picture taken with an R3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8L until 63 posts later in post #101, and then only if you followed the link in post #101 to see it was that image.

I consider it perfectly appropriate to call that intentionally deceptive, which is why, in post #85 I was demanding that neuro tell us what gear was used to take those shots. If neuro had labeled that image as what it was in post #38, it could be claimed as disclosed with full caveats, but the opposite was the case.

The point was a jab, intended with humor, at those who suggest 'full frame equivalent focal length' is the only thing that changes with a smaller sensor. The post to which I was replying included, "But not for the same effective FL. So a wildlife shooter on APS-C can shoot his 800mm equivalent using a 500mm lens." It was a general comment, honestly somewhat tangential to the post to which I replied. I suggest you not take things personally unless they're clearly intended that way. You'll know when that's the case.

In this context, don't dump on APS-C because full frame has some advantages over it.

So in your mind, stating facts such as DoF with APS-C is 1-1/3 stops deeper than with the same focal length on FF and images from an APS-C sensor have 1-1/3 stops more noise at the same ISO compared to a FF sensor is 'dumping on APS-C'.

Then you must also think that stating facts like the higher pixel density of APS-C sensors enables putting more pixels on target and APS-C systems are often smaller, lighter and cheaper than FF systems is 'dumping on FF', right? No, I bet you think those are just pieces of good information because they support your choices.

The bottom line is that cameras are tools, and it's always best to use the right tool for the job. That's why I have and regularly use cameras ranging from an iPhone to full frame, with two sizes in between. It's why I have a large set of lenses to support different types of photography. I shot an outdoor event yesterday, casual and somewhere I could be close to the subjects, and would be taking mainly group shots...I used the PowerShot V1 with its 2x crop sensor and 16-50 equivalent lens. Today, I shot an indoor jazz concert where I would be relatively far from the stage and needed to take ensemble shots and close-ups of soloists...I used the R1 and two lenses covering 24mm to 300mm at f/2.8, and even with that wide aperture I was using ISOs ranging from 3200 to 40000.

But you have that combination of a superiority complex, a (deliberate?) misconstruing of everything you read, and a brittle defensiveness that makes any discussion pointless.

I respectfully disagree with your first characteristic. It seems to me that @Philnick has an inferiority complex, at least as far as his camera choices. Basic facts about the smaller APS-C sensor clearly trigger him in some way. Maybe he's just jealous that others have bigger sensors than him.

See, @Philnick ^^that was intended for you to take personally.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That is indeed one of the things I am looking for. And better pre-capture would also be great, e.g. for insects taking off. I do hope the auto focus will be better because it currently has trouble following flying insects.

Precapture definitely improved post-R7. Current cameras save individual files that don't require DPP to unpack (unlike the R7, IIRC), and with current firmware you can specify the number of shots in the precapture, up to 20. The stacked sensor would also help with AF, especially with tracking because the faster sensor readout allows more sampling for AF (assuming Canon implements that as they did with the R1, which Canon being Canon is unfortunately not a given).

 

[Philnick]

@neuroanatomist Have you never heard the expression, "Many a true thing is said in jest" ? But of course you take that further by posting untrue things - like that unlabeled comparison photo - and when called on them excuse them as jokes- and blame those who take offense as thin skinned.

That kind of conduct does not belong in a public forum - if indeed it belongs anywhere. The only place I'm aware of it being applauded is when practiced by picadors in a bull-fight. This forum should not tolerate it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

@neuroanatomist Have you never heard the expression, "Many a true thing is said in jest" ? But of course you take that further by posting untrue things - like that unlabeled comparison photo - and when called on them excuse them as jokes- and blame those who take offense as thin skinned.

What was untrue about that comparison, other than your mistaken assumption about what was being compared? The images were photos that I took, and one was taken with longer lens and a bigger sensor while the other was taken with a shorter lens with a smaller sensor. As I stated. You assumed I was comparing APS-C and FF, but really if you look at the image on the left, it's very obvious that it was taken with a smartphone. But your assumption about what I was comparing triggered you, and you can't seem to get past that. How sad for you.

 

[Maximilian]

DPP is absolutely cr*p at high noise reduction. It's using decades old technology ...

I know that but it is the original RAW converter from Canon.
As as you could read in my initial post about the R7 noise, I was talking about/referring to and comparing SOOC files, knowing and mentioning (!) that one can do a lot in PP.
But it was about sensor and pixel performance, not about PP tools.

 

[EricN]

If the R7II has the stacked sensor that is mentioned in this rumor, the ability to use flash with electronic shutter and thus combine flash with focus stacking (as currently possible on the R1 and R5II) might be of significant interest to you. That assumes you use the camera's focus stacking feature, if you use a macro rail as I sometimes do then you won't have that limitation.

Which rail are you using?

 

[EricN]

So what, pray tell, was the point of neuro's post #38 in this thread, which explicitly mocked a discussion of the advantages of an APS-C camera in getting more reach from a lens by calling those who said that those "who still believe in fairies, wizards and the magic of the crop factor." and then included the following image:

View attachment 227196
with no disclosure that it was actually a comparison of an iPhone photo to a picture taken with an R3 with a 70-200mm f/2.8L until 63 posts later in post #101, and then only if you followed the link in post #101 to see it was that image.

I consider it perfectly appropriate to call that intentionally deceptive, which is why, in post #85 I was demanding that neuro tell us what gear was used to take those shots. If neuro had labeled that image as what it was in post #38, it could be claimed as disclosed with full caveats, but the opposite was the case.

It's point should be (and sorry if I'm putting words into mouths) evident purely by observation = the depth of field - which is what we've been talking about! The rest can be attributed to processing/hardware.

Many people state they don't care about depth of field [B]which is fine[/B], but it's important point to it out for the people who do care or are curious.

 

[EricN]

@neuroanatomist Have you never heard the expression, "Many a true thing is said in jest" ? But of course you take that further by posting untrue things - like that unlabeled comparison photo - and when called on them excuse them as jokes- and blame those who take offense as thin skinned.

That kind of conduct does not belong in a public forum - if indeed it belongs anywhere. The only place I'm aware of it being applauded is when practiced by picadors in a bull-fight. This forum should not tolerate it.

Why don't you want to blame Bob for bringing up sexuality?

Further off topic: this is the most interesting the forum has been in quite a long time.

Back on topic: Is the following correct? Using the smaller sensor on macro, you could achieve the wider depth of field with the same settings (which could be useful for moving subject that can't be focus stacked), but noise would be increased and with the higher magnification, any motion or shake would be more visible.

 

[Markov]

Which rail are you using?

I am not using a focus rail. The built-in focus bracketing of the current R7 works fine for most of my situations (I don't do extreme macro). When I am careful I can even use it handheld. The only problems are that you cannot use a flash and that you cannot set the interval between shots, which is in the newer Canon models.

 

[Planterz]

Back on topic: Is the following correct? Using the smaller sensor on macro, you could achieve the wider depth of field with the same settings (which could be useful for moving subject that can't be focus stacked), but noise would be increased and with the higher magnification, any motion or shake would be more visible.

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

 

[EricN]

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

I remember OM has something for astronomy to take multiple photos as opposed to one long exposure, but that's about as far from Macro as you can get.

 

[Markov]

From what I understand, yes. Micro 4/3 cameras are popular for macro for a few reasons. You get extra working distance because you get to/have to back a bit to fill the frame with the same object (assuming same focal length lens). The 2x crop factor gives you twice the depth of field at the same aperture, which in some cases will let you keep the aperture more open for faster shutter speeds and less ISO. I think the Olympus/OM lenses also accept their teleconvertors, so you can combine TCs and extension tubes for some pretty crazy magnification factors (not sure about Panasonic). The higher end M4/3 bodies also have very good IBIS and the stacked sensor ones like the OM-1 can shoot up to 50fps, so you can fire off handheld brackets easier. I've reason something about OM holding a patent for some fancy focus stacking thing they do, but I'm not sure what that is.

Indeed. You get more depth of field, when you use the same framing as on a full-frame camera. Or you get the same DOF but with a larger effective magnification. I did quite a bit of checking and reading and decided against the micro 4/3 sensor and went for APS-C though. Also because of some of the other features of the R7. I also do flower photography and then the increase DOF can hurt you because the background is not blurred enough. (Fortunately you can correct that in post-processing nowadays.)

IBIS does not work too well with macro. Maybe one or two stops. So when shooting hand-held I always use a shutter speed of 1/300 or more. I often use a diffused flash to get enough light. And don't forget to use continuous autofocus (Servo) as any minor motion of yourself or the subject will throw off the focus.

As far as I know, the focus bracketing of the OM is similar to the R7. (I think OM takes the shots from back to front and Canon from front to back; both have advantages and disadvantage).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Which rail are you using?

This one:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1658877-REG/really_right_stuff_macro_150_macro_150_single_axis_rail.html

With the extender for a collared lens:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1807299-REG/really_right_stuff_b2_lmt_lens_mount_for_macro_150_b2_lmt_lens_mount_for.html

 

[Philnick]

What was untrue about that comparison, other than your mistaken assumption about what was being compared? The images were photos that I took, and one was taken with longer lens and a bigger sensor while the other was taken with a shorter lens with a smaller sensor. As I stated. You assumed I was comparing APS-C and FF, but really if you look at the image on the left, it's very obvious that it was taken with a smartphone. But your assumption about what I was comparing triggered you, and you can't seem to get past that. How sad for you.

Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past. As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.

Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Indeed. You get more depth of field, when you use the same framing as on a full-frame camera. Or you get the same DOF but with a larger effective magnification.

Technically, if you keep the subject distance the same between FF and APS-C, the field of view is smaller with APS-C and the depth of field is slightly shallower at the same aperture setting. The ‘deeper DoF with crop’ is entirely due to increasing the subject distance to match framing. The magnitude of the effect of increasing distance on DoF is greater than that of the opposing effect of a smaller sensor.

The scenario of keeping the distance the same is arguably more common with macro photography, because the minimum focus distance (which delivers the maximum magnification for the lens) is an intrinsic property of the lens.

 

[EricN]

Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past. As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.

Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.

At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.

*IF* f/stop isn't important between apsc and full frame, then why would it mater if it's the iphone's 2.8 lens or the r7 or R1? I believe the point was that it's it's easier to see the depth of field changes between the more extreme difference in sensor sizes. Sometimes it's hard to admit we're wrong, but I'm here for you

 

[Philnick]

*IF* f/stop isn't important between apsc and full frame, then why would it mater if it's the iphone's 2.8 lens or the r7 or R1? I believe the point was that it's it's easier to see the depth of field changes between the more extreme difference in sensor sizes. Sometimes it's hard to admit we're wrong, but I'm here for you

I didn't know I had wandered into a private clubhouse. Keep it up, folks, and you'll find yourselves alone here.

I didn't say a word abouf f/stop in my criticism of neuro's post - I criticized it for implying that APS-C images were terrible.

PS No you're not here for anyone but neuro and neuro's friends. Honest discussion is only allowed, it appears, if it doesn't call out dishonest posts as such.

 

[EricN]

I didn't know I had wandered into a private clubhouse. Keep it up, folks, and you'll find yourselves alone here.

I didn't say a word abouf f/stop in my criticism of neuro's post - I criticized it for implying that APS-C images were terrible.

PS No you're not here for anyone but neuro and neuro's friends. Honest discussion is only allowed, it appears, if it doesn't call out dishonest posts as such.

In my universe, we were talking about Equivalency and how the depth of field (among other things) is affected. If your interpretation was it's terrible that's on you. Some people would say the left photo is preferable because more is in focus. As I attempted to explain before they contrast and artifacts can be attributed to the sensors dynamic rage, MP count and processing. Several of the people you seem to be upset with have a variety of cameras with an array of sensor sizes. I can admit I'm not the most conservative person with my spending habits, but even so, I wouldn't have bought an R7 or an S25 ultra if I thought the image quality was poor.
If Neuro said something I disagree, think is dishonest or whatever with, I'll ask him, but probably not in an insulting way (the redneck in me is going to come out and say, "mess with the bull and you get the horns").
I don't know what else to say other than sorry for offending you with my crazy sense of reality. I'll go see a therapist soon.

 

[Philnick]

In my universe, we were talking about Equivalency and how the depth of field (among other things) is affected. If your interpretation was it's terrible that's on you. Some people would say the left photo is preferable because more is in focus. As I attempted to explain before they contrast and artifacts can be attributed to the sensors dynamic rage, MP count and processing. Several of the people you seem to be upset with have a variety of cameras with an array of sensor sizes. I can admit I'm not the most conservative person with my spending habits, but even so, I wouldn't have bought an R7 or an S25 ultra if I thought the image quality was poor.
If Neuro said something I disagree, think is dishonest or whatever with, I'll ask him, but probably not in an insulting way (the redneck in me is going to come out and say, "mess with the bull and you get the horns").
I don't know what else to say other than sorry for offending you with my crazy sense of reality. I'll go see a therapist soon.

Click twice on the comparison image in post #38 and tell me that the left image, seen large, is anything but garbage - so bad that neuro claims that it was so obiously a smartphone photo that it wasn't necessary to say it was. No one in this universe would say the left photo is preferable.

My point throughout is that post was libel of APS-C imagery, calling it garbage by implication, and doesn't belong in an APS-C anticipation thread.

Neither neuro nor I were talking about depth of field in connection with that photo comparison. (He talked about effective focal length.)

This appears to be your attempt to rescue his dishonest post. It doesn't work.

If this forum gave us the ability to block abusive posters, I'd be using it on neuro. You hangers-on - keep going. I'm not that offended by you all yet, but it won't be long before I'm simply out of here, having lost patience with a group unwilling to stand up to a liar, preferring to attack those who call a liar out.

 

[EricN]

Some people say, "we see what we want to see."
What in your opinion makes it garbage?