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

Dalantech

Gatekeeper to the Small World
Feb 12, 2015
48
3
I'm a macro photographer that appreciates shooting with a crop factor camera cause it allows me to fill the frame with the subject at lower magnifications (lower mag equals more depth of field), so an R series camera with an APS-C sensor sounds really good! I'd go with a current R series full frame, but after cropping in post I wouldn't like the pixel count (curently I do not crop my images). The M series is out of the question -too small when I'd be adding over a killo to it with a lens and a flash (I shoot hand held). The 90D is only an option if the sensor has at least one more stop of dynamic range over the 80D (my current camera). So I think I'm in a holding pattern unless I want to go full frame with an R or RP...
 

neonlight

EOS 80D
Jul 10, 2015
122
15
Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640,
Still peddling the 1.6x more reach myth, Ian? Nothing changes the focal length of your lens between a FF and APS-C body. On APS-C you get a narrower field of view (as though it were a longer lens on a FF body, but it's only an illusion). Whether this gives you better effective resolution then depends on the pixel size, coupled with the diffraction limit of the lens, and whether there is an AA filter. Compared with a 5DIV the 7DII does have a pixel size advantage (about 1.3x "reach" if you must) but nothing compared with the 5Ds and then if you compare the 5Dsr without the AA filter it is sharper than the 7DII.
I was hoping Canon would offer an AA filter-less 7DII replacement in a 7DIII (or options like the 5Ds/r) to compete with Nikon D7200 etc.
I suspect the 30MP 90D will have an AA filter but compete with a 20 MP sensor without.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

Ian K

I'm New Here
Jul 20, 2016
19
3
There is loss of quality. While possibly the lens is better for the APS-C crop, the sensor is then worse. That’s why we have ff in the first place, remember? And, yes, I get that you would need a longer lens, which is then heavier and more expensive. But that’s all a compromise which some are more willing to make than others.
Actually, the 7D Mark II has the same size pixels as the 5Ds/5DsR so full frame isn't always better than crop.
 

Ian K

I'm New Here
Jul 20, 2016
19
3
Why should an RF APS-c be a 1.6 Crop factor?
Because APS-C means that the crop would be 1.6, sure they could produce an APS-H or other crop but if it's APS-C then it's 1.6 by definition. It's defined by the size of the sensor.
 

Ian K

I'm New Here
Jul 20, 2016
19
3
Still peddling the 1.6x more reach myth, Ian? Nothing changes the focal length of your lens between a FF and APS-C body. On APS-C you get a narrower field of view (as though it were a longer lens on a FF body, but it's only an illusion). Whether this gives you better effective resolution then depends on the pixel size, coupled with the diffraction limit of the lens, and whether there is an AA filter. Compared with a 5DIV the 7DII does have a pixel size advantage (about 1.3x "reach" if you must) but nothing compared with the 5Ds and then if you compare the 5Dsr without the AA filter it is sharper than the 7DII.
I was hoping Canon would offer an AA filter-less 7DII replacement in a 7DIII (or options like the 5Ds/r) to compete with Nikon D7200 etc.
I suspect the 30MP 90D will have an AA filter but compete with a 20 MP sensor without.
It's not a myth, if you look at the output from each body you would need a 1.6x longer focal length to obtain the same picture from a full frame camera, at the same resolution. I'll grant you you will likely end up with more noise on a APS-C but you certainly do get more reach from the same lens. My 100-400F II produces stunning results on my 7D Mark II. Granted I got better shots with it when I had the 200-400 F4 1.4x but that's almost a whole order of magnitude more expensive and a lot heavier. In day time conditions the 7DII and 100-400 II produce perfectly adequate results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,565
2,001
It's not a myth, if you look at the output from each body you would need a 1.6x longer focal length to obtain the same picture from a full frame camera, at the same resolution.
Please explain how that is true if the APS-C camera is a 7DII and the full frame camera is a 5DsR.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
771
236
59
Blyth, NE England
Please explain how that is true if the APS-C camera is a 7DII and the full frame camera is a 5DsR.
Do you not agree that - OOC, distance to subject being equal for both cameras - the subject will be bigger in the frame in the image from the 7D Mk II?

Ian's right. Which FF and crop camera is involved in the test is utterly irrelevant.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
771
236
59
Blyth, NE England
Still peddling the 1.6x more reach myth, Ian?
Jeez.

It is a fact that the subject will be bigger in the frame (distance to subject being constant for the crop and FF cameras) in the image from the crop camera.

There's just no debate about this, and that's your "crop advantage" right there. It's not an "illusion", it's an observable fact.

Turn it on its head: do you agree that FF cameras are "wider" for a given distance to subject?

It's the same effect.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
437
260
Do you not agree that - OOC, distance to subject being equal for both cameras - the subject will be bigger in the frame in the image from the 7D Mk II?

Ian's right. Which FF and crop camera is involved in the test is utterly irrelevant.
You're neglecting the fact that Ian talks about resolution. With a 7DII and a 5DsR shooting the same subject with the same lens at the same distance will result in 2 pictures with the same amount of pixels on target. To put it differently: cropping the 5DsR picture to match the framing of the 7D2 picture will result in a picture with the same resolution as the 7DII one.

So for this comparison there's only a reach advantage if you are fundamentally opposed to cropping a picture in post. If the cameras don't have a 2.56x or more difference in megapixels there is a reach advantage.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
771
236
59
Blyth, NE England
Ian said:

Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640,
He clearly means the full resolution of the 7D Mk II, uncropped.

That's why he's right, and why I made a specific point of images straight out of the camera, where it is indisputable that crop gives you a bigger subject in the frame.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,565
2,001
Do you not agree that - OOC, distance to subject being equal for both cameras - the subject will be bigger in the frame in the image from the 7D Mk II?

Ian's right. Which FF and crop camera is involved in the test is utterly irrelevant.
Sorry, but you and Ian are wrong.

With the distance to the subject being equal and the same focal length used on both cameras, the subject will fill a larger proportion of the frame on the 7DII than on the 5DsR...a larger proportion of a smaller frame. If you then crop the 5DsR image down to APS-C size, the resulting image will be identical to that from the 7DII, i.e. a 20 MP image with the subject filling the exact same proportion of the frame (except the 5DsR image will be a bit sharper due to the lack of an AA filter).

Broadly speaking, the concept that appears to be eluding you is ‘pixels on duck’. Comparing the output from a 7DII to my 1DX, the crop camera puts more pixels on a subject of a given size. But comparing the output from a 7DII to the output of a 5DsR, the number of pixels on a same-sized subject are identical, meaning the output can be made identical by simply cropping the full frame image.

Certainly the subject will appear larger in the viewfinder of the 7DII, which has implications for composing and focusing. However, Ian specifically mentioned output.

I honestly thought you understood these concepts better. I guess it goes to show that no matter how skilled a photographer, technical understanding does not always match.
 

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
279
40
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
Because APS-C means that the crop would be 1.6, sure they could produce an APS-H or other crop but if it's APS-C then it's 1.6 by definition. It's defined by the size of the sensor.
Hi Ian, Welcome to CR. The question i'm asking is why would a new RF mount smaller (e.g APS-c) sensor need to be a 1.6 crop factor. Nikon do 1.5 PAS-c. It could be 1.3 or 1.7 or anything. The only answer i've heard is that using EOS-m sensors in APS-C style bodies would allow a particular sensor to be used in two or more bodies.

The extra reach that the 7D gave bird spotters was often touted as a major part of why it was chosen, so i was wondering whether they might further push that advantage with perhaps a number larger than 1.6?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,565
2,001
Hi Ian, Welcome to CR. The question i'm asking is why would a new RF mount smaller (e.g APS-c) sensor need to be a 1.6 crop factor. Nikon do 1.5 PAS-c. It could be 1.3 or 1.7 or anything. The only answer i've heard is that using EOS-m sensors in APS-C style bodies would allow a particular sensor to be used in two or more bodies.

The extra reach that the 7D gave bird spotters was often touted as a major part of why it was chosen, so i was wondering whether they might further push that advantage with perhaps a number larger than 1.6?
The trade off with a smaller sensor is image quality. That is a main raison d’être of full frame sensors. An iPhone sized sensor would provide lots of ‘extra reach’ but result in a huge sacrifice of image quality.

I think an APS-C version of the EOS R is unlikely, and I’m certain a m4/3 or smaller version will never happen.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,565
2,001
He clearly means the full resolution of the 7D Mk II, uncropped.

That's why he's right, and why I made a specific point of images straight out of the camera, where it is indisputable that crop gives you a bigger subject in the frame.
Since he’s talking about output, that is completely irrelevant. See my response above.

The full resolution of 7D Mk II, uncropped is identical to the resolution of the 5DsR when cropped to APS-C size.

Incidentally, since you seem to be making a point (albeit an irrelevant one) about ‘images straight out of the camera’, just set the 5DsR to 1.6x crop mode. Then the images straight out of the 5DsR will be identical to images out of the 7DII (except that as mentioned, the former images will be sharper).

 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,565
2,001
Well, no, not really. It gives you a bigger subject *relative to the frame*. The absolute size of the subject doesn’t change given the parameters above.
Exactly. Focal length is an intrinsic property of a lens, and focal length determines the size at which the subject is projected onto the image plane. The sensor at that image plane has nothing to do with the size at which the subject is projected onto it.

A crop sensor merely samples a smaller portion of the image circle than a FF sensor, such that the subject fills more of the crop frame even though the subject is the same size.

When considering output, sensor matters in that it determines the pixel resolution of the image. In most cases, a crop sensor puts more pixels on the subject, meaning the crop sensor delivers better resolution. An obvious example in my case was when I had a 7D and a 1D X, both 18 MP sensors and when focal length-limited the 7D delivered more pixels per duck. But if the pixel pitch is the same, as it is when comparing the 7DII to the 5DsR, given that the lens projects the subject at the same size regardless of sensor, the output resolution is the same for those cameras. Worth noting in that context that if one compared the 5DsR to the original 7D, the FF sensor would deliver more pixels per duck, i.e. a larger subject when viewed 1:1.

In the terms of the original discussion, the FF camera would then have 'more reach'. If Canon comes out with a high-MP EOS R (>50 MP), that camera will have a 'reach advantage' over the 7DII.

@3kramd5, I know you know this stuff. I thought @Keith_Reeder did, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,210
395
It's not a myth, if you look at the output from each body you would need a 1.6x longer focal length to obtain the same picture from a full frame camera, at the same resolution. I'll grant you you will likely end up with more noise on a APS-C but you certainly do get more reach from the same lens. My 100-400F II produces stunning results on my 7D Mark II. Granted I got better shots with it when I had the 200-400 F4 1.4x but that's almost a whole order of magnitude more expensive and a lot heavier. In day time conditions the 7DII and 100-400 II produce perfectly adequate results.
You are getting confused between field of view and image size.
You put a 400mm lens on micro fourthirds, on APS-C and on FF and take a picture of a bird. The image projected on the sensor will be the same size on every sensor - high school physics will tell you this.The only difference between each format is how much stuff round the bird you will see in the viewfinder.
'Reach' comes from the number of pixels that cover the bird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Don Haines
Aug 29, 2019
1
0
Connecticut
My use case for a "Pro APS-C" is photographing high school football games. These are predominantly night games with challenging lighting and occasionally challenging weather.

I am looking for high-performing auto-focus, frame-rate of 10+ fps, decent high ISO, and weather sealing. The crop factor on the APS-C works well with a 70-200 f/2.8 (1.4x TC helps if there's enough light). The 7D Mark II has been a great camera in addressing these requirements. The specs on the 90D appears to fall short on auto-focus and probably weather resistance.

I'd absolutely be interested in an APS-C in a mirrorless RF mount body, but not holding my breath. In the meantime, I'll be sticking with the 7D Mk II for football and R for most everything else.