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

[roby17269]

D

That part i sent was the best decided factor, I thought. I can't send the whole file as I don't want to blow all my data this close to the beginning of the month, I may have labeled them wrong, the difference in time was about ten minutes as we went to the car to switch out cameras, as you can see a cloud developed on the r3, both at 800 iso f11. Sorry if I'm waisting your time when you're arguing me.

From my point of view there is no arguing... the evidence you provided does not support your claims. Simple as that.
It's all good fun though, I'm not bothered at all

 

[Mark flyer]

I thought it was fun to drag u guys through that, I knew there was no way a 24mp can outresolve 45mp, just getting all prepared for thr people who think they actually can

 

[neuroanatomist]

I thought it was fun to drag u guys through that, I knew there was no way a 24mp can outresolve 45mp, just getting all prepared for thr people who think they actually can

I wonder who comes across as clever in this scenario. Well, no, I don’t wonder.

 

[Planterz]

Meanwhile...

Canon Eyes an RF 50-150mm F2.8 IS STM - Canon Rumors

Is Canon continuing to research a new Canon RF 50-150mm f/2.8 IS STM? This would be an amazing prosumer lens, let's hope we see it soon!

www.canonrumors.com

Hey, lookie here! It's almost exactly the lens so many were adamant that Canon would never make! (hey, I'm surprised too).

Interestingly, it's not an RF-S lens, which makes sense I suppose - if it doesn't benefit from being smaller for APS-C, they might as well make it full frame. On an APS-C body that'd give you a 80-240mm effective field of view (at f4.5 equivalent depth of field). Not exactly, but close to the 70-200mm commonly used for indoor sports and events. More usable on the wide end than the 112mm field of view that a 70-200mm would have for closer subjects.

Likewise for full frame users I could see this being used by those on a budget, pairing it with bodies like older R6 versions, R8, and the like, for events and indoor sports. Probably good for volleyball. 50mm would be good for more "environmental" portraits, and longer lengths would be good for torso and head portraits. The

It's an STM, which I hope provides fast enough autofocus to keep up with the action this lens would likely often be used for. The image posted in the article is probably just an estimate, but it looks compact and light.

 

[AlanF]

D

That part i sent was the best decided factor, I thought. I can't send the whole file as I don't want to blow all my data this close to the beginning of the month, I may have labeled them wrong, the difference in time was about ten minutes as we went to the car to switch out cameras, as you can see a cloud developed on the r3, both at 800 iso f11. Sorry if I'm waisting your time when you're arguing me.

Yes, you were playing the fool. The R3 and R5 images were not "may" have been labeled wrong, they were, deliberately. In fact, they almost certainly weren't taken on an R3/R5 pair. They are most likely the same image scaled and exposure altered, with the lower pixel one R5 for an extra laugh. Right?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hey, lookie here! It's almost exactly the lens so many were adamant that Canon would never make! (hey, I'm surprised too).

Interestingly, it's not an RF-S lens, which makes sense I suppose - if it doesn't benefit from being smaller for APS-C, they might as well make it full frame.

I can’t speak for all of those people, but I thought it extremely unlikely that Canon would make an f/2.8 RF-S lens providing an FoV similar to 70-200 on FF…and this patent doesn’t suggest I’m wrong.

Your claim/request was explicitly for an APS-C lens.

Sony users have long lamented the lack of a ~45-135mm f2.8 APS-C lens to match the common 70-200m f2.8 telephoto zoom. I think once upon a time Sigma was rumored to be working on one, but clearly that never came to be. Fuji has a 50-140mm f2.8, but they're the only APS-C maker to do so. Now that there's potentially 4 mounts (X, E, Z, RF-S), maybe it'll finally make sense for Sigma or whomever to make one.

This design could become the third lens completing the non-L f/2.8 STM zoom trinity along with the RF 16-28/2.8 and RF 28-70/2.8. All of those lenses give something up compared to their f/2.8 L counterparts, and they also give something up (in addition to the stop of light) compared to their f/4L counterparts though they’re closer in price to the latter.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not everyone pays sales tax in the USA.
There is also Payboo on B&H.

In which case B&H is paying the sales tax for you. The state is getting their money.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think they are reading way too much into the meaning of the numbers.

1 is top.
5 is midrange.
9 is the theoretical bottom, before we head into the double-digit APS-C camera range.
There are a bunch of numbers in between.
None of this tells us what specific features a camera will have, but we can go back to history for existing model names.

My whole point is just because single digit numbers exist does not mean Canon MUST make a camera model for that number.

 

[Michael Clark]

Thank you for showing me that you really only want to look for the mistakes, but not the meaning of an argumentation.

Please tell me your method, how to compare two RAW files with a minimum of PP correction, so that they are almost what one can call "SOOC".
Maybe I can learn from you...
But maybe you are just not willing to think about what I saw with my own eyes and tried to describe here with just a few words instead of a "white paper" 30 pages long, containing all constraints including my blood type

Open the same raw "image" with several different raw processing applications and you will get several different images from the same raw data. Which of those varied interpretations do you propose to call the SOOC "raw image"?

Raw sensor data is just that. Raw sensor data. It must be processed to create a color image viewable on your screen that is anything more than a white blob. The in camera settings that control how the raw data is processed to create the JPEG preview image you see on the back of the camera can be altered before taking the photo. The result will be changed by the difference in processing instructions, even though the actual raw data will be identical. What you see on a screen anytime you open a "raw" image is one of a near infinite possible valid interpretations of the raw data captured by the sensor.

There's no such thing as a SOOC raw image. There's only an interpretation of the raw data captured by the camera which may be determined by the in camera settings or the default settings of the opening application.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In which case B&H is paying the sales tax for you. The state is getting their money.

Some states have no sales tax at all.

 

[Maximilian]

...
There's no such thing as a SOOC raw image. There's only an interpretation of the raw data captured by the camera which may be determined by the in camera settings or the default settings of the opening application.

Thank you for enlighten me. But not giving a real answer to my question. Do you work in politics? They talk a lot but don't answer questions, too.

With your argumentation we can stop any argumentation, any reviews and any tests, any camera forum because all is just "interpretation".
Can't the "interpretation" provided by the camera manufacturer's own software, which knows (or should know) its sensor and internal camera processing best, be taken as the main reference?
OMG

Back to the (my) original argument:

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.

So what would you "interpret" here?

 

[AlanF]

Thank you for enlighten me. But not giving a real answer to my question. Do you work in politics? They talk a lot but don't answer questions, too.

With your argumentation we can stop any argumentation, any reviews and any tests, any camera forum because all is just "interpretation".
Can't the "interpretation" provided by the camera manufacturer's own software, which knows (or should know) its sensor and internal camera processing best, be taken as the main reference?
OMG

Back to the (my) original argument:

So what would you "interpret" here?

My experience of using the R7 extensively for a couple of years is that I can go up far higher than the iso 2000 that you concluded after a brief use of your friends R7. Here, for example, is a 500x1500 px crop (0.75 Mpx) from centre of an image at Iso 12,800 and 1/1000s, f/10 with the RF 100-500mm + 1.4xTC on the R7. This was from DxO and PP, and you would not get this quality from Canon's DPP4, which is several generations back in noise suppression, not withstanding its knowing best the lens corrections and producing good jpegs SOOC. (Goldcrest, Europe's smallest bird).

 

[Maximilian]

My experience of using the R7 extensively ... this was from DxO and PP, and you would not get this quality from Canon's DPP4, which is several generations back in noise suppression, not withstanding its knowing best the lens corrections and producing good jpegs SOOC.

Alan, thank you again for trying to answer to my original argument.
And once again, as I already agreed, of course one can go far above IOS 2000 with the R7 and modern PP.
And I agree again, that DPP is not the tool of choice, if you want to achieve the best PP and de-noising.

Going back to the roots of what I wanted to say and find out:
When you turn off all RAW noise correction or put it to minimum level - in whatever tool of choice you prefer - at which higher ISO settings does the noise level of the R7 meet the noise level of an R6m2 or in you case an R5m2?
Is it really just "1 stop" difference?
Or is it more than 1 stop, as I experienced with the latest version of DPP, where I turned both color and signal noise to "0"?

 

[AlanF]

Alan, thank you again for trying to answer to my original argument.
And once again, as I already agreed, of course one can go far above IOS 2000 with the R7 and modern PP.
And I agree again, that DPP is not the tool of choice, if you want to achieve the best PP and de-noising.

Going back to the roots of what I wanted to say and find out:
When you turn off all RAW noise correction or put it to minimum level - in whatever tool of choice you prefer - at which higher ISO settings does the noise level of the R7 meet the noise level of an R6m2 or in you case an R5m2?
Is it really just "1 stop" difference?
Or is it more than 1 stop, as I experienced with the latest version of DPP, where I turned both color and signal noise to "0"?

I showed that tiny crop which is at the pixel peeping level to show what could be squeezed out of the R7. Here is the uncropped image from DPP4, with its image quality lowered by the Image Optimiser app to the minimum to be small enough to upload. I think many would be happy printing that as an 8" x 10" or larger.
Goldcrest at iso 12800, converted by Canon DPP4 with automatically selected settings by software.