APS-C DSLR lineup to get a shake up? [CR1]

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,155
578
But if Canon can overcome the problems of EVF (which should be possible) and gain some advantage on battery life (which would appear to be difficult - I don't know why they just don't use Dilithium crystals) this would be a market advantage. Mirrorless has the potential for much higher frame rates. Mirrored is physically limited to how FPS it can be.
For most high frame rate shooters, fps is useless unless the AF tracking can keep up. So far mirrorless can't track a moving subject at 10-14 fps nearly as well as DSLRs can. Before sports/action shooters will switch from DSLRs to mirrorless, that has to change.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,155
578
I agree but I'd like to add that Canon would need to improve the 7DII's underwhelming phase detection AF performance substantially. When I added the 7DII as crop camera to my 5DIII I was really shocked because I hoped that the 7DII would nail e.g. BIF just like the 5DIII (e.g. with an EF 500mm lens). It does not, and I tried nearly every AF settings available. I get much more in-focus images with the 5DIII when I shoot action, despite its much slower burst rate.
Anyone who expects an APS-C camera to PDAF as well as a full frame camera does not understand the physics of PDAF. The width of the baseline between light from one side of the lens to the other is necessarily narrower in an APS-C camera than a FF camera because the mirror, and the semi-translucent portion of it, is narrower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcm

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,620
2,106
Well, except that above ISO 800, the 7D Mark II already has higher DR and S/N ratio than the 80D. The only place the 80D's sensor is qualitatively better than the 7D Mark II's sensor is at ISO 100 and ISO 200.

View attachment 182700
I think you mean quantitatively better. I doubt that a stop of DR at base ISO makes a qualitative difference in most shooting situations.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,155
578
I think you mean quantitatively better. I doubt that a stop of DR at base ISO makes a qualitative difference in most shooting situations.
No, I meant qualitatively better. The 1.22 stop difference (which is a quantitative measurement) at ISO 100 is qualitatively more significant, that is, it is more perceivable when looking at photos taken at ISO 100 under certain conditions that tax a camera's dynamic range, than the quantitative 0.02 Ev difference at ISO 800 that can be measured in a laboratory but not seen in actual images.

Nor did I say anything about "most shooting" situations.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,620
2,106
No, I meant qualitatively better. The 1.22 stop difference (which is a quantitative measurement) at ISO 100 is qualitatively more significant, that is, it is more perceivable when looking at photos taken at ISO 100 under certain conditions that tax a camera's dynamic range, than the quantitative 0.02 Ev difference at ISO 800 that can be measured in a laboratory but not seen in actual images.

Nor did I say anything about "most shooting" situations.
Situations that ‘tax a camera’s dynamic range’ are not uncommon. The subset of those situations where one stop more DR makes a meaningful difference in the output are very rare. I think something that makes a difference in ~1% of shooting situations is insignificant, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,192
1,773
Canada
Situations that ‘tax a camera’s dynamic range’ are not uncommon. The subset of those situations where one stop more DR makes a meaningful difference in the output are very rare. I think something that makes a difference in ~1% of shooting situations is insignificant, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
I would tend to agree. When I have needed more DR, I have needed a LOT! more DR. That said, a stop more, or even a half stop more would be welcome.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
460
271
Frankfurt, Germany
Anyone who expects an APS-C camera to PDAF as well as a full frame camera does not understand the physics of PDAF. The width of the baseline between light from one side of the lens to the other is necessarily narrower in an APS-C camera than a FF camera because the mirror, and the semi-translucent portion of it, is narrower.
Well, as a physicist I know a bit about optics and triangulation (astronomy) - and basically you are right. But that's only one aspect. Another aspect is AF sensor technology. Today it could be made so light sensitive that it could detect much more subtle shifts between the two overlapping split images, I am pretty sure. Such a sensor would be a bit more expensive to be made, of course. The 7DII's phase detection AF performance improves substantially in bright sunshine, so obviously the shorter baseline isn't the limit, the technical limit is the light sensitivity of its AF sensor. To be more precise: I mean the average sensitivity of all of its AF points, not only the central one (which is in fact more light sensitive that the 5D3's central AF point).
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
460
271
Frankfurt, Germany
(I also wonder why no native English speaking web site - or forum dweller - seems to be able to find the α character in their machines. Well. here it is: α. Sony marketing people must be thrilled when nobody can spell their product names correctly.)
Product names quite often have a strange and sometimes funny afterlife that marketing people never intended. Canon is such an example: many people think that it comes from a fat weapon, only a few know that it goes back to a buddhist bodhisattva with the Japanese name "Kannon". Another famous and funny example was the Mitsubishi Pajero SUV, and you can google by yourself what "pajero" in Spanish language means, if you don't know.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,155
578
Well, as a physicist I know a bit about optics and triangulation (astronomy) - and basically you are right. But that's only one aspect. Another aspect is AF sensor technology. Today it could be made so light sensitive that it could detect much more subtle shifts between the two overlapping split images, I am pretty sure. Such a sensor would be a bit more expensive to be made, of course. The 7DII's phase detection AF performance improves substantially in bright sunshine, so obviously the shorter baseline isn't the limit, the technical limit is the light sensitivity of its AF sensor. To be more precise: I mean the average sensitivity of all of its AF points, not only the central one (which is in fact more light sensitive that the 5D3's central AF point).
Any "new" technology that can be put into an APS-C sized PDAF sensor can also be applied to a larger FF sized PDAF sensor, just as any "new" technology that can be applied to an APS-C main imaging sensor to improve its S/N ratio can also be applied to a FF sensor. When the new tech is applied to both, the wider baseline or the larger imaging sensor will still have the same advantage over the narrower baseline or smaller imaging sensor.

The 7D Mark II's AF is, at least in my experience, considerably more accurate and consistent from frame to frame than the 7D was, though not as good as the 5D Mark III. I've shot close to 100,000K frames, most of them sports/action, with the 7D II, about 80K with the 5D3 (mostly other than sports/action or wider angle sports/action where focus accuracy is not quite so critical), and put about 70K, mostly sports/action, on my old 7D.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,155
578
Situations that ‘tax a camera’s dynamic range’ are not uncommon. The subset of those situations where one stop more DR makes a meaningful difference in the output are very rare. I think something that makes a difference in ~1% of shooting situations is insignificant, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
For the times when I'm shooting at ISO 100, which admittedly isn't a significant percentage of my total output that is dominated by shooting sports/action under lights, I could use an extra stop of DR considerably more than 1% of the time. Probably more like 15-20%. YMMV.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
460
271
Frankfurt, Germany
Any "new" technology that can be put into an APS-C sized PDAF sensor can also be applied to a larger FF sized PDAF sensor, just as any "new" technology that can be applied to an APS-C main imaging sensor to improve its S/N ratio can also be applied to a FF sensor. When the new tech is applied to both, the wider baseline or the larger imaging sensor will still have the same advantage over the narrower baseline or smaller imaging sensor.
I simply stated that I am not satisfied with the phase detection AF of the 7D2, and of course a FF camera will always profit from new sensor tech and then be superior to a crop camera again. But that's not what I originally intended to say. I just wanted a 7D like camera with a substantially improved AF performance (on a 5D3's level) for wildlife shooting in real life. That's simply it. If Canon would achieve this with an active IR laser or radar system (caution: irony!), I wouldn't mind if it worked. So let's stop this discussion (in fact, I do that). Have always good light!
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,192
1,773
Canada
Total nonsense. I own both and if I take a crop body to the blind it will be the M5 not the 7D II. As you say you spend your time waiting, that translates in to very few shots and battery life is inconsequential. Case in point I set in the blind this last weekend, in four hours had shot a total of 8 frames. Personally I like the EVF and the tilt screen, it allows you to take pictures without your face against the camera which in turn helps reduces your profile by keeping more of you hid when the animal is close.

If you want to make a BIF argument then you have some legitimacy.
I sat in a bird blind last weekend for about two hours, trying to get pictures of chickadees in flight. I went through about 500 frames. Those little suckers move FAST and because of the small size and erratic flight patterns, they are hard to track. In my case, it didn't matter what the battery life was because I have 3 spares.

Anyone who gets a mirrorless camera should realize that they will take a battery life hit, but in the bigger picture, so what? buy a spare (or enough to do you) and it isn't a problem.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
I sat in a bird blind last weekend for about two hours, trying to get pictures of chickadees in flight. I went through about 500 frames. Those little suckers move FAST and because of the small size and erratic flight patterns, they are hard to track. In my case, it didn't matter what the battery life was because I have 3 spares.

Anyone who gets a mirrorless camera should realize that they will take a battery life hit, but in the bigger picture, so what? buy a spare (or enough to do you) and it isn't a problem.
But if you buy extra batteries, then you have nothing to COMPLAIN about!!
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,192
1,773
Canada
But if you buy extra batteries, then you have nothing to COMPLAIN about!!
Exactly!

The math is simple, no matter which camera you have. How many photos you expect to take, divided by the expected capacity of the battery for the type of shooting you do, is the MINIMUM number of batteries you need. And then add in an extra battery or two......
 

Valvebounce

EOS 5D SR
Apr 3, 2013
4,269
215
52
Isle of Wight
Hi Folks.
Just looking at all these comments on battery life of a mirrorless whilst sitting in a hide or other wildlife shooting examples, my thoughts are that the IS and AF motors are probably the largest drain on a battery? Yes I know the EVF will be an additional unavoidable drain. I think the best plan is for all photographers to have spare batteries and memory cards available at all times! ;)
Having played with the R for 20-30 mins during a hands on day (thanks LCE) using a variety of lenses including my own 100-400 L II and including going out of the store and trying it on seagulls and lamp posts I just didn’t like the EVF (it seems better than the Sony that I used for a couple of hours (thanks LCE)) though I can foresee a point when it will be good enough to make the advantages* that EVF does have over OVF enough to convince me to change.
For now I hope that if my 7DII dies I can get a 7DIII that is not knobled down to XXD ergonomics, leave me a joystick and a rear wheel not the thumb disc thingy!

*What you see is what you get, far more customisable information, MF assistance and more

Cheers, Graham.
 

Chuckmet

I'm New Here
Jan 18, 2019
23
12
I agree with you that a 7DMKII, needs to be a Great Nikon D500 competitor, and the message to Canon after over 4 years of the MKII if the new MKIII isn't what a birder like me wants, I will go to either Nikon or Sony (when they have real telephoto lenses)

Eye tracking on the Sony A9 is hugely impressive, and look at what they just pre announced.
If Canon chooses not to release a 7D3 I may have my Sigma 150-600 & 100-400 refitted with a Nikon mount and purchase a D500. That's sad as I have been a loyal Canon shooter since 1975.
 

Chuckmet

I'm New Here
Jan 18, 2019
23
12
I sat in a bird blind last weekend for about two hours, trying to get pictures of chickadees in flight. I went through about 500 frames. Those little suckers move FAST and because of the small size and erratic flight patterns, they are hard to track. In my case, it didn't matter what the battery life was because I have 3 spares.

Anyone who gets a mirrorless camera should realize that they will take a battery life hit, but in the bigger picture, so what? buy a spare (or enough to do you) and it isn't a problem.
Doesn't matter unless your in the middle of changing batteries when a great oportunity presents itself then it's gone!
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,192
1,773
Canada
Any "new" technology that can be put into an APS-C sized PDAF sensor can also be applied to a larger FF sized PDAF sensor, just as any "new" technology that can be applied to an APS-C main imaging sensor to improve its S/N ratio can also be applied to a FF sensor. When the new tech is applied to both, the wider baseline or the larger imaging sensor will still have the same advantage over the narrower baseline or smaller imaging sensor.

The 7D Mark II's AF is, at least in my experience, considerably more accurate and consistent from frame to frame than the 7D was, though not as good as the 5D Mark III. I've shot close to 100,000K frames, most of them sports/action, with the 7D II, about 80K with the 5D3 (mostly other than sports/action or wider angle sports/action where focus accuracy is not quite so critical), and put about 70K, mostly sports/action, on my old 7D.
My comparisons are with the 5D2, 6D2, and 7D2.

I find the 7D2 AF system beats the 5D2 in every way. I find that the 7D2 beats the 6D2, except in live view, where the 6D2 beats the 7D2.

I assume that any replacement to the 7D2 will put it back on top for both.