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

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,722
813
119
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.

View attachment 186027

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).

View attachment 186028




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:

View attachment 186029

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.
Jesus Daniel, how many times in each post do I have to say the only fair/relevant/meaningful comparison is with same generation sensors? It seems like people want to actively misinterpret posts when it is perfectly clear what I was saying and even your linked samples support what I am saying. Technology has moved on, sensor tech is way better now than it was on the first affordable FF sensor, do I really need to point that out?

As for high and low iso, in my experience that is just another function of enlargement. If the ff camera is better at 3200iso (for example) then it will also be better at 100iso but the differences so small as to be irrelevant at a particular size of enlargement, enlarge bigger still and the ff camera will do it 'better'. It's 2.6 times the area so it is being enlarged 2.6 times less, how is this not obvious?

We are not addressing the 'it's good enough' position here, we are addressing the irrefutable fact that for same generation sensors sensor size is king when talking IQ. You yourself have argued many times that pixel size is a fallacious argument when equal enlargement is the comparison.

So let me reframe my point. If I wanted to buy a FF and crop camera with the intention of them complimenting each others capabilities a 7D MkII and a 1DX MkII would make poor stablemates, a 6D MkII and 7D MkII would make good stable mates. If I wanted to make big prints I'd use the 6D MkII, if I wanted to shoot action or was focal length limited I'd use the 7D MkII. A 5D and an 80D would be as foolish as holding them up as a 'comparison'.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,737
1,305
Irving, Texas
Who pissed in your self righteous coffee? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::LOL::LOL:
Nobody. Your conviction that Canon could output 50 megapixel FF cameras for $800 and still make a profit means you are smoking some great stuff. Pissing and self righteousness has nothing to do with it. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Now, Canon "could" put out such a camera, but that ain't happening because there would be no profit. In the same way, you "could" custom design a building for me at $800, but that would be the end of your business should you decide to make that your business model for the mass market. Understand yet? o_O:poop:
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,366
775
Jesus Daniel, how many times in each post do I have to say the only fair/relevant/meaningful comparison is with same generation sensors?
It doesn't matter how many times you say it because it is wrong. Fab a 12mp FF sensor with the latest circuitry available today and it will not be able to resolve any more detail than a 5D. Nor will it be able to handle enlargements or cropping to the level of a 24mp sensor whether that sensor is m43, APS-C, or FF. This is governed by the Nyquist theorem and no technological advance could ever enable a single pixel to record the same detail as 2 or more pixels.

It seems like people want to actively misinterpret posts when it is perfectly clear what I was saying and even your linked samples support what I am saying. Technology has moved on, sensor tech is way better now than it was on the first affordable FF sensor, do I really need to point that out?
The 12mp Sony A7s II FF sensor is both newer and more technologically advanced than the 20mp Canon 7D II APS-C sensor. And at low ISO there is no question which can handle greater enlargement and greater cropping, and it's not the A7s II. This should quite frankly end the discussion.

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 12.07.28 PM.png

It's 2.6 times the area so it is being enlarged 2.6 times less, how is this not obvious?
It's obvious. It just doesn't mean what you think it means. You're treating sensors as if they were film and proclaiming larger formats enlarge better. That's true if the film is identical. But Velvia 100 in 35mm would enlarge better than the worst ISO 100 print films in 645.

Pixels on target determine the detail resolved and that is one of the most important limiting factors in enlargement. If the smaller format is recording more pixels then it's going to enlarge better at low ISO where noise is not a factor.

...we are addressing the irrefutable fact that for same generation sensors sensor size is king when talking IQ.
Sensor size is dominant when it comes to high ISO noise. Total sensor resolution is dominant when it comes to low ISO enlargements. Pixel density is dominant when cropping to the same physical area regardless of format (i.e. when focal length limited).
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,722
813
119
I have printed from 80D files and 1DX MkII files, the 1DX MkII files print big better at any ISO when you use . You can tell me I am mistaken as much as you like, I'm not interested in pissing contests anymore because we both end up looking like idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,080
399
I have printed from 80D files and 1DX MkII files, the 1DX MkII files print big better at any ISO when you use . You can tell me I am mistaken as much as you like, I'm not interested in pissing contests anymore because we both end up looking like idiots.
Out of curiosity, do they enlarge proportionally as well as each other (i.e., not to the same final format, but to the same final percentage increase over sensor area)?
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,366
775
I have printed from 80D files and 1DX MkII files, the 1DX MkII files print big better at any ISO when you use . You can tell me I am mistaken as much as you like,
You are demonstrably mistaken in your claim that sensor size is more important than total sensor resolution. That's been put to rest. However, if sensor resolution is the same or similar, as it is between a 1DX II and 80D, then the larger format will be sharper ooc than the smaller. In a resolution test the 80D will resolve more detail, but the difference is small and sharpness impresses viewers more than very small differences in fine detail. (I doubt you could even detect the difference in resolving power outside a lab test in this case. MP differences start to become apparent in print when the jump is 50% or more between sensors.)

The sharpness difference itself is not very large and disappears if you adjust sharpening in post accordingly, and in some cases if you just use a sharper lens on the smaller format. But if you process the files the same then yes, the 1DX2 file is going to look better at large print sizes.

A couple other factors which can impact performance between formats are shutter speed (due to motion across a higher pixel density sensor) and aperture. Diffraction doesn't impact any format more than another for the same FoV and DoF, but the same FoV and DoF mean different focal lengths and apertures.
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,092
1,571
Canada
There is no easy answer.

You can find specific cases where a 20Mpixel crop will outperform a 20M FF camera, cases where the opposite is true, and cases where it really doesn’t matter.

What you have is a trade-off between total light gathering ability and sampling density. The thing about the 5Ds is that it maintains the total light gathering ability, yet also has the same sampling density of a 7D2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,722
813
119
Out of curiosity, do they enlarge proportionally as well as each other (i.e., not to the same final format, but to the same final percentage increase over sensor area)?
Now that is an interesting question that I don't have an answer to immediately. I'd guess that the 80D performs proportionally better, these things are all subjective and I haven't done big prints from the same scenes from both, but I am generally happy with the print quality of 20" x 30" prints from 135 format sensors and generally not happy with 24" x 36" prints from 135 format. I am pretty much always happy with 14" x 20" prints from a crop camera and often happy with 20" x 30" from the same, and I have some very high quality prints from m4/3 at 12" x 16". All these big prints have been sub 800iso initial captures.

So I would guess if I were to do my own tests I'd expect the sensor size to be a diminishing return with regards large prints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3kramd5

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
462
310
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
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.
Sensing area is just one of the factors to the image quality. Pixel count/pixel density, DR and high ISO/low light performance are among other factors. Basically the sensing area is derived from pixel count and pixel density. area = count / density

Also tbh I'm not convinced 1DxII produces better prints than 80D in all conditions, despite your experience. I agree it may be sharper on average given people don't usually put mediocre lenses on 1DxII and there's a higher chance of having a not very sharp lens on 80D.

In a blind test at low ISO, good light and sharp enough lenses I doubt there will be any significant difference


Push ISO to 800 and 80D starts lagging behind, obviously

 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
302
230
117
Williamsport, PA
Nobody. Your conviction that Canon could output 50 megapixel FF cameras for $800 and still make a profit means you are smoking some great stuff. Pissing and self righteousness has nothing to do with it. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Now, Canon "could" put out such a camera, but that ain't happening because there would be no profit. In the same way, you "could" custom design a building for me at $800, but that would be the end of your business should you decide to make that your business model for the mass market. Understand yet? o_O:poop:
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: I guess someone did more than piss in your coffee.
No one really knows anything about anything sensors or whatever.
Only canon really knows, but we can speculate. Having lived long enough to have a world view that what people really think they know is generally quite the opposite.
So I will stand by my speculation as much as you stand by your WAG. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,092
1,571
Canada
Nobody. Your conviction that Canon could output 50 megapixel FF cameras for $800 and still make a profit means you are smoking some great stuff. Pissing and self righteousness has nothing to do with it. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Now, Canon "could" put out such a camera, but that ain't happening because there would be no profit. In the same way, you "could" custom design a building for me at $800, but that would be the end of your business should you decide to make that your business model for the mass market. Understand yet? o_O:poop:
They could do it.... All they have to do put the 50Mpixel sensor in a really crappy body and then convince the retail stores to not make any margin on it. Oh yes, batteries not included :)
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,080
399
No one really knows anything about anything sensors or whatever.
Only canon really knows,
Canon isn’t the only sensor game in town. Here’s one data point for 50MP machine vision full frame sensors at over $5,000 each.

 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
302
230
117
Williamsport, PA
Canon isn’t the only sensor game in town. Here’s one data point for 50MP machine vision full frame sensors at over $5,000 each.

The reference is people on this site have no idea about costs of Canon or marketing.
There are many sensor makers and we all know that.
 

Philrp

I'm New Here
Sep 2, 2018
21
30
All this aside, the 7D II is now going to be 5 years old, the same age the original 7D was when it was replaced.

if Canon feels the 7D fills a hole in their market, then it's time they provide a real replacement for it. Waiting until next year would make that replacement cycle truly very long.
 

AJ

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
617
24
An R-mount APSC camera. Smart move on behalf of Canon.
The EF (or EF-S) -mount offers a clear upgrade path. You can buy a drebel, buy a few EF lenses, and then eventually upgrade the body to a 6D or something like that.
An R-mount rebel will offer a similar upgrade path. I imagine an R-mount drebel packaged with kit lens, all for a low price, will sell really well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Don Haines

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,080
399
The reference is people on this site have no idea about costs of Canon or marketing.
There are many sensor makers and we all know that.
Of course, this was just an indication of how much sensors can cost. Internal processes, yield, scale, external politics, etc all affect things. That being said, a 900 camera with a brand new full frame sensor sounds unrealistic.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,092
1,571
Canada
An R-mount APSC camera. Smart move on behalf of Canon.
The EF (or EF-S) -mount offers a clear upgrade path. You can buy a drebel, buy a few EF lenses, and then eventually upgrade the body to a 6D or something like that.
An R-mount rebel will offer a similar upgrade path. I imagine an R-mount drebel packaged with kit lens, all for a low price, will sell really well.
Exactly!

Canon can make EF mount cameras with both FF and crop sensors. Canon can make RR mount cameras with both FF and crop sensors. Same thing!
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,737
1,305
Irving, Texas
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: I guess someone did more than piss in your coffee.
No one really knows anything about anything sensors or whatever.
Only canon really knows, but we can speculate. Having lived long enough to have a world view that what people really think they know is generally quite the opposite.
So I will stand by my speculation as much as you stand by your WAG. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Speculate all you want, my friend... just don't pretend that speculation is fact. That's called delusional. :rolleyes:
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,737
1,305
Irving, Texas
An R-mount APSC camera. Smart move on behalf of Canon.
The EF (or EF-S) -mount offers a clear upgrade path. You can buy a drebel, buy a few EF lenses, and then eventually upgrade the body to a 6D or something like that.
An R-mount rebel will offer a similar upgrade path. I imagine an R-mount drebel packaged with kit lens, all for a low price, will sell really well.
I dreble all the time. That's what the diapers are for, but I'd never buy a dreble. :ROFLMAO: