An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera mentioned again [CR1]

Lee Jay

EOR R
Sep 22, 2011
2,069
51
Great.

I just switched from full-frame (5D) to crop (7D Mark II), sold all but one of my full-frame lenses (Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye, 24-105/4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.8, 17-40L, kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II) and bought 3 EF-s lenses (10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM), one Sigma crop lens (18-35/1.8) and a bunch of different full-frame lenses targeted at my crop camera (8-15/4L fisheye, 50/1.8STM, Sigma 150-600C) and I've never been happier.

Now, EF-s has been abandoned, the 7D line looks to have been abandoned, and mirrorless cameras (which absolutely suck, in my opinion, due to the EVFs) are sucking up all the development money.

All I want is an updated 7D with more pixels (I'm often focal-length-limited even with the 150-600), a better sensor, better video (I'm especially interested in low-resolution high frame-rate, windowed zooming and electronic stabilization in video modes) and some more AF upgrades. And it looks like that's never going to happen.

I guess all I can hope for is that EVFs suddenly become tolerable and my EF-s lenses will work on one of them with a high pixel density (even 61MP full-frame is the same as the 80D as far as pixel density goes).
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
303
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
I have a crop camera and a ff camera.

The FF is better in poor light.
The FF has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
The FF is faster and tougher
The FF is better for wide angles
The FF gives me more depth of field control

The FF battery life is vasty better
This is probably relevant to your particular camera models, but only a couple of points I highlighted in bold are relevant to the actual "FF vs crop" difference.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
303
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
I just switched from full-frame (5D) to crop (7D Mark II), sold all but one of my full-frame lenses (Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye, 24-105/4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.8, 17-40L, kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II) and bought 3 EF-s lenses (10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM), one Sigma crop lens (18-35/1.8) and a bunch of different full-frame lenses targeted at my crop camera (8-15/4L fisheye, 50/1.8STM, Sigma 150-600C) and I've never been happier.

Now, EF-s has been abandoned, the 7D line looks to have been abandoned, and mirrorless cameras (which absolutely suck, in my opinion, due to the EVFs) are sucking up all the development money.
So the lesson is, never downgrade to an abandoned tech? I think you'll still be able to use your EFS lenses on an RF body with an adapter in crop mode, but that's not ideal. That is when your current 7D is completely worn off and you're forced to upgrade the body.

I got rid of all my EF-S lenses a while ago, now I'm not so sure even about my EF lenses. But current Canon FF mirrorless offerings aren't tempting at all. The best strategy for me is to not buy anything at the moment and wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Lee Jay

EOR R
Sep 22, 2011
2,069
51
So the lesson is, never downgrade to an abandoned tech?
I didn't downgrade, I upgraded.

The new system, which I bought in March of 2015, is better in every way than the old system.

I think you'll still be able to use your EFS lenses on an RF body with an adapter in crop mode, but that's not ideal. That is when your current 7D is completely worn off and you're forced to upgrade the body.
At the moment, I can't imagine a mirrorless camera ever being an "upgrade" over an SLR. Not with the current state of EVFs.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
303
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
I didn't downgrade, I upgraded.

The new system, which I bought in March of 2015, is better in every way than the old system.
With the body, if you changed an original 5D to 7D, it was an upgrade. But I'm not so sure about the lenses. From your list, "10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM" are not adequate replacements for the EF ones you sold. You had EF L lenses and changed them to lower-end EFS ones.

I worked with EFS 10-18, 18-135, 18-200, 17-55. Only the famous EFS 17-55 was comparable to good EF L lenses. It's not on your list though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,699
797
119
This is probably relevant to your particular camera models, but only a couple of points I highlighted in bold are relevant to the actual "FF vs crop" difference.
You can’t argue FF image quality isn’t better in low light, nor that I can reproduce the FF image much larger (or crop into it, which is the same thing), they are both intrinsic characteristics of larger sensors of the same generation.

My post was in reply to Don’s post with a similar list, the point was we choose the cameras that have the features we need them to have, for some that is a 7D MkII and a 5D MkI, for others it is a 1DX MkII and an M5, or a 5DSr and an 80D, it doesn’t matter, we aren’t ‘wrong’ for choosing the feature set that suits us even if others may not agree with that choice for themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana and tron

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
303
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
You can’t argue FF image quality isn’t better in low light, nor that I can reproduce the FF image much larger (or crop into it, which is the same thing), they are both intrinsic characteristics of larger sensors.
The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the low light performance. The pixel size has and more technical stuff like analog noise, well capacity etc.
The room for cropping is also a characteristic of the resolution, not the sensor size. Images from Canon 80D have more room for cropping than 5DMkI. Also it has a better low light performance.

Given the very same pixel size and pixel density, yes, FF sensor is better than a crop sensor.

My post was in reply to Don’s post with a similar list, the point was we choose the cameras that have the features we need them to have, for some that is a 7D MkII and a 5D MkI, for others it is a 1DX MkII and an M5, or a 5DSr and an 80D, it doesn’t matter, we aren’t ‘wrong’ for choosing the feature set that suits us even if others may not agree with that choice for themselves.
That's absolutely right, just don't use wrong criteria for choosing.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,699
797
119
The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the low light performance. The pixel size has and more technical stuff like analog noise, well capacity etc.
The room for cropping is also a characteristic of the resolution, not the sensor size. Images from Canon 80D have more room for cropping than 5DMkI. Also it has a better low light performance.

Given the very same pixel size and pixel density, yes, FF sensor is better than a crop sensor.
Whilst on a technical level you might have a point the truth is on same generation sensors the technology in the cameras we are actually talking about is close enough to the same so the bigger sensor wins every time. So to your first point that is not what is seen in practice, FF sensors are better than same generation crop sensors irrespective of pixel density in low light. Just look through the studio comparisons at DPR to prove that.

To your second point, you are 100% wrong, pixel numbers do not factor into enlargement/reproduction ratio calculations. Comparing a 7D MkII and 5D is fallacious, compare the cropping capability of the 5D with that of the contemporary 20D and you are looking at a fair and relevant comparison. Ever wonder why circle of confusion figures and depth of field calculations don’t take the pixel density into account? It’s because pixel density is irrelevant in magnification within the practical numbers of MP we now get in cameras.

To your third point, again you are wrong, given the same pixel density and size a crop camera is at no disadvantage to the FF sensor and has specific benefits in practical shooting applications over the FF sensor in focal length limited scenarios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,366
775
The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the low light performance.
It is the dominant factor in low light performance. So much so that FF from a generation or two prior will still typically match or out perform the latest crop sensors. Pixel density...at the densities we've seen this decade in ILC cameras...has virtually nothing to do with low light performance. (This isn't even surprising. It's what you would expect when it comes to low light.)

The room for cropping is also a characteristic of the resolution, not the sensor size. Images from Canon 80D have more room for cropping than 5DMkI. Also it has a better low light performance.
Given identical sensor resolution, a larger sensor will handle cropping slightly better due to the sharpness advantage. But for all practical purposes I would agree that resolution is the dominant factor in cropping and a higher resolution APS-C sensor can handle more cropping than a lower resolution FF.

But have to disagree on low light. The 80D may match or beat a 5D in low light, but it's worse than a 5D mark II (see sample RAWs at DPReview). Again, sensor size is dominant in low light.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,699
797
119
Given identical sensor resolution, a larger sensor will handle cropping slightly better due to the sharpness advantage. But for all practical purposes I would agree that resolution is the dominant factor in cropping and a higher resolution APS-C sensor can handle more cropping than a lower resolution FF.
That doesn’t make sense. If a FF camera sensor is 2.6 times the area of a crop camera sensor I can crop the FF camera that much and it be essentially the same as the crop camera image, ergo I can crop the FF camera much more, or more relevantly to my original point, I can enlarge the FF image much more than the crop camera.

I did extensive testing, that I posted here back in the day, with the 7D and 1DS MkIII and found pixel density to be so small an advantage that it needed absolutely perfect conditions for it to be even visible under extreme magnifications and the only situation where that possible advantage could be realized in a cropping scenario is if you are focal length limited. Certainly in situations where you are not focal length limited it is indisputable that you can crop a FF sensor more or print it much bigger.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,366
775
That doesn’t make sense. If a FF camera sensor is 2.6 times the area of a crop camera sensor I can crop the FF camera that much and it be essentially the same as the crop camera image,
It's not the same unless the pixel density is the same. Remember that the image projected onto the sensor is ultimately sampled to a digital file. If the total sensor resolution is the same (lower pixel density on the FF) then when you crop you will end up with a lower resolution file.

ergo I can crop the FF camera much more, or more relevantly to my original point, I can enlarge the FF image much more than the crop camera.
Resolution (sensor sampling frequency) is dominant in enlargements. A 24mp APS-C sensor will print larger than a 12mp FF. Given identical sensor resolution the FF will enlarge slightly better (sharpness advantage), but after post processing this typically isn't visible at low ISO. Given identical pixel density (FF at higher total resolution) FF can certainly print larger.

I did extensive testing, that I posted here back in the day, with the 7D and 1DS MkIII and found pixel density to be so small an advantage that it needed absolutely perfect conditions for it to be even visible under extreme magnifications and the only situation where that possible advantage could be realized in a cropping scenario is if you are focal length limited.
My experience back then was that you could crop FF to match a further-cropped APS-C file off a 7D and have comparable IQ...right up until the moment you couldn't. There was a point where the FF file just became too small, with too low of a ppi on the print, to keep up and the 7D's pixel density absolutely was an advantage.

Certainly in situations where you are not focal length limited it is indisputable that you can crop a FF sensor more or print it much bigger.
Many people would dispute that if you're talking about identical total sensor resolution. Now if pixel density is the same resulting in FF having a higher resolution, then yes, you can enlarge the FF file more. And crop more if you're starting with the full file from both cameras, as opposed to starting with the APS-C center of the FF camera.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,699
797
119
I disagree and have posted many examples to support this. I have printed hundreds of prints for dozens of photographers and in my experience sensor size is more important than pixel numbers when printing big, which is basically the same as cropping. Certainly any advantage that might be found in perfect conditions specifically in focal length limited situations pales to insignificance for most users most of the time,.

On a very practical level an 80D will not print as large as a 1DX MkII, well not to my or the photographers I print for eyes.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
303
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Whilst on a technical level you might have a point the truth is on same generation sensors the technology in the cameras we are actually talking about is close enough to the same so the bigger sensor wins every time. So to your first point that is not what is seen in practice, FF sensors are better than same generation crop sensors irrespective of pixel density in low light. Just look through the studio comparisons at DPR to prove that.
That's what I acknowledged from the beginning. For the sensors with the same pixel size, a FF sensor is definitely better than a crop one. But in general your statement was incorrect. Simply being an FF doesn't make the sensor better.

To your second point, you are 100% wrong, pixel numbers do not factor into enlargement/reproduction ratio calculations.
Errm how is it so? The final image resolution is what matters for the postproduction cropping. Again, 80D's resolution is better for cropping than 5D, 5DII and even 5DIII's, that's simply a mathematical truth.

Comparing a 7D MkII and 5D is fallacious, compare the cropping capability of the 5D with that of the contemporary 20D and you are looking at a fair and relevant comparison.
It's not fallacious for the purposes of this argument. Your statement was that FF sensors are better, but in general this statement is wrong, there's so many examples of crop sensors being better than FF - better in terms of low light, resolution, dynamic range etc.

Ever wonder why circle of confusion figures and depth of field calculations don’t take the pixel density into account? It’s because pixel density is irrelevant in magnification within the practical numbers of MP we now get in cameras.
Given the same pixel density, the circle of confusion will affect the very same amount of pixels on FF and crop sensors. With the same pixel density, the only advantage FF has is the higher resolution, but the sharpness will be exactly the same, if the same lens is used.

To your third point, again you are wrong, given the same pixel density and size a crop camera is at no disadvantage to the FF sensor and has specific benefits in practical shooting applications over the FF sensor in focal length limited scenarios.
Given the same pixel density and same tech, just different sensor size, FF is definitely better. More expensive, yes, but better in all regards. I'm not sure what you mean by 'focal length limiting scenarios'. If you put the very same say 200mm lens on a crop sensor and compare it to an FF sensor with the same pixel density, you don't get any advantages. Maybe some indirect advantages like smaller file sizes, but no advantages in terms of image quality and room for postproduction.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,366
775
I have printed hundreds of prints for dozens of photographers and in my experience sensor size is more important than pixel numbers when printing big,
Here's a 12mp 5D FF vs a 24mp 80D crop. There's zero question as to which enlarges better or which could handle more cropping, and it isn't the 5D.

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 12.32.52 AM.png

Now here's a 22mp 5D3 FF vs a 24mp 80D crop. About the same despite the sensor size difference (or the slight MP difference).

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 12.33.09 AM.png


On a very practical level an 80D will not print as large as a 1DX MkII, well not to my or the photographers I print for eyes.
Of course it will at low ISO. In my experience when post processing crop needs a little more sharpening than FF, but that barely shows here:

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 12.37.49 AM.png

Now if all your tests were done at high ISO that would explain it. At high ISO FF is cleaner and retains more sharpness and fine detail.
 
Last edited:

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
455
303
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
I disagree and have posted many examples to support this. I have printed hundreds of prints for dozens of photographers and in my experience sensor size is more important than pixel numbers when printing big, which is basically the same as cropping. Certainly any advantage that might be found in perfect conditions specifically in focal length limited situations pales to insignificance for most users most of the time,.

On a very practical level an 80D will not print as large as a 1DX MkII, well not to my or the photographers I print for eyes.
Those two cameras have different pixel sizes. Much larger in 1DX MkII.
 

Memirsbrunnr

EOS T7i
Nov 19, 2017
95
55
54
Denmark
It depends on how it is done. I recall reading that (some? all?) Sony cameras offering APS-C output sample only the APS-C image area which, because of the smaller data output enables greater frame rate, whereas where Canon does this the whole sensor is used for the image and the image is cropped in the processor and as a result the frame rate cannot increase because the same amount of data is leaving the sensor. So you are correct in as much Canon makes no difference if you do it during capture or post capture, but the Sony implementation offers advantages.
HOWEVER, if Canon can follow Sony's lead they will have the same advantages as Sony.
looks like Sony's implementation is much better. Canon likely doesn't trust your decision to go aps-c and want to guard you against such foolishness by doing the whole picture against your will.
 

Lee Jay

EOR R
Sep 22, 2011
2,069
51
With the body, if you changed an original 5D to 7D, it was an upgrade. But I'm not so sure about the lenses. From your list, "10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM" are not adequate replacements for the EF ones you sold. You had EF L lenses and changed them to lower-end EFS ones.

I worked with EFS 10-18, 18-135, 18-200, 17-55. Only the famous EFS 17-55 was comparable to good EF L lenses. It's not on your list though.
  • The 10-18 is better than the 17-40L - sharper, wider and with IS.
  • The 18-135 is a better walk-around than the 24-105 because it has twice the range. It's also a good video lens.
  • The 55-250 is a better light-weight telephoto than what I used to carry in the 400mm zoom range, the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC. It's also good for video.
  • The 8-15/4L zoom fisheye is better than the Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye because it's wider, longer and just as good optically.
  • The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is better than the 35/1.4L because I'm not always cropping because of the lack of focal length range.
  • The 50/1.8STM is as good as the 85/1.8 but only cost $85 and works well as a video lens between the 18-35 and 70-200.
  • The Sigma 150-600C is a better long-tele than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC.
  • And I still have the 70-200/2.8L IS II.
The only area where I don't feel I got an upgrade was when attached to my telescope. Even with a wide-adapter, the moon doesn't fit in the frame on my 7DII while it did on the 5D. So I'm shooting panoramas now to get moon shots or breaking out the 5D for that.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
294
227
117
Williamsport, PA
Um, 5DSR is on the way out and getting ready to be replaced... kinda like last year's model car being replaced with this year's. Overhead costs money.

Is the RP a loss leader? You tell me. What is the profit margin? Is there a profit margin? Or will the money be made on lenses? Kinda like printers. The fact is you made an uneducated statement that has no supporting data that you have any personal knowledge of. None.
Who pissed in your self righteous coffee? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::LOL::LOL:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,872
1,132
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
  • The 10-18 is better than the 17-40L - sharper, wider and with IS.
  • The 18-135 is a better walk-around than the 24-105 because it has twice the range. It's also a good video lens.
  • The 55-250 is a better light-weight telephoto than what I used to carry in the 400mm zoom range, the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC. It's also good for video.
  • The 8-15/4L zoom fisheye is better than the Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye because it's wider, longer and just as good optically.
  • The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is better than the 35/1.4L because I'm not always cropping because of the lack of focal length range.
  • The 50/1.8STM is as good as the 85/1.8 but only cost $85 and works well as a video lens between the 18-35 and 70-200.
  • The Sigma 150-600C is a better long-tele than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC.
  • And I still have the 70-200/2.8L IS II.
The only area where I don't feel I got an upgrade was when attached to my telescope. Even with a wide-adapter, the moon doesn't fit in the frame on my 7DII while it did on the 5D. So I'm shooting panoramas now to get moon shots or breaking out the 5D for that.
You made educated choices based on your needs. Nothing wrong with that.

I wouldn't anguish too much over the future of the 7D line. The 7DII is still a great camera and will continue to be a great camera regardless of what else is introduced. I also would not get too worked up until we see the 90D. The rumors indicate it will be a significant upgrade over the 80D, so lets just wait and see what it looks like.

Even if the 90D isn't quite as good as the 7DII, you still have the 7D and future generations of the XXD line (or whatever they call it after the 90D) will be better than the previous generation. If you ultimately decide to switch to mirrorless, you have the knowledge that all your EF-S lenses will work with future EOS R cameras, regardless of their sensor size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,699
797
119
Those two cameras have different pixel sizes. Much larger in 1DX MkII.
But your previous comments were predicated on the point that the crop camera had more pixels. So which is it, bigger pixels or more of them, you can't have it both ways.

A clue: the correct answer is neither, the correct answer is sensing area.