Rest well Canon EOS 7D series [CR2]

[privatebydesign]

Important to note that the 1D used a CCD sensor, and after that Canon switched to and has remained with CMOS sensors. That CCD sensor is what made the faster shutter speed and Xsync possible, not the fact that it’s an APS-H sensor.

Sorry, but APS-H is in a coffin with plenty of nails.

CMOS sensors can do the high shutter speeds, the Sony A9 does 1/32,000. The specifics of the particular CCD used in the 1D allowed for the unique(?) 1/500 sync speed.

100% agree that APS-H is long dead, and good riddance, if only we had had the 11-24 when the 1D was current!

 

[c.d.embrey]

Sorry, but APS-H is in a coffin with plenty of nails.

Time marches on. The APS-H D1 was a halo product in 2001. Like all halo products it was expensive. Fast-forward to 2019, Canon now makes a 59.94P Full Frame (Approx. 20.8 megapixels-6062 x 3432) Digital Cinema camera. A Canon Full Frame 1Dx2 did 16 fps* in Live View mode, four years ago. A 12fps APS-H should be easy-peasy now. Does a Prosumer APS-H Sports/Wildlife camera still sound unreasonable?

 

[c.d.embrey]

CMOS sensors can do the high shutter speeds, the Sony A9 does 1/32,000. The specifics of the particular CCD used in the 1D allowed for the unique(?) 1/500 sync speed.

The inexpensive Nikon D70 (1974) used a DX CCD sensor that synced at 1/500.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Does a Prosumer APS-H Sports/Wildlife camera still sound unreasonable?

Unreasonable...no. Unlikely...absolutely.

 

[PRINZMETAL]

Canon needs to come out with a mirrorless sports camera that tracks well that competes with Sony's A9. Or Maybe even better with one that competes with Sony's A3iiiR that tracks well with around 43 meg. If one puts a S lens on this camera it will have around 18 mg image...not bad.

Now Canon ONLY needs to learn how (Sony's magic) to implement the fantastic tracking that Sony has developed over the last decade. Now that would be something!!!
What are the odds...I say slim or absolutely zero chance.
Bp

 

[degos]

And...while I agree that they need to provide a road map, there is no credibility in claiming Canon is losing customers. That's factually wrong.

No, your statement is factually wrong. Canon continue to sell cameras but the overall market is shrinking. A shrinking market means fewer customers.

Certainly on a anecdotal level many 7D2 owners I know have moved away from Canon since Nikon, Sony and Olympus all have interesting fast-shooting options and generally better AF. With most 7D-level users only owning a handful of lenses, often just a kit zoom + 150-600, changing systems is fairly straightforward.

I'm not investing a single penny more in Canon equipment until they give some indication on what's coming next.

 

[mb66energy]

As far as I have seen so far, DSLRs are able to have a spot AF that is smaller than that available on the various makes of mirrorless and so nail focus on a narrower area. What's the size of the AF spot on your R compared with your 1DX?

My experience with DSLR PDAF is that the visualization of the AF spot in the view finder is smaller than the "spot" on the PDAF sensor - the sensor needs some extension to sample data for the AF calculations.
If the object is not perpendicular to the optical axis of your lens AF chooses the closest focus setting the "spot" can gain. The center of the "spot" is no longer in the focal plane. Does not matter with e.g. 50mm @ f/11 and subject 5m away but affects the AF quality in opposite conditions (longer FL, wide open).

You can check it if you try to AF some closer tiny objects near the AF spot visualisation: AF finds the object, not the background.

With mirrorless they show the real AF area - the M50 gives a larger "spot" and a tiny spot. The latter helps if you want to AF small objects in a scene with high depth of objects - e.g. a special flower in a meadow. But there is a tradeoff: In low light/low contrast scenarios the PDAF doesn't find enough structure with the tiny spot - here the larger spot helps.
DSLR PDAF sensors were optimized to work under all circumstances so they have chosen larger "spots" - with DPAF where the full sensor is the AF sensor it's just a matter of programming how large the AF spot is and correct visualization is done in a breeze on the computer monitor called EVF.

An image of a DSLR PDAF sensor (1DX) is provided by the-digital-picture - it shows the real extension of the AF "SPOTS":

Canon EOS DSLR Autofocus Explained

Canon EOS DSLR Autofocus Explained

www.the-digital-picture.com

at 75% of the page or search for " diagonal crosses " in the page

 

[masterpix]

The 7D series was the best option for those looking for pro-body while reasonably priced in compare to the 1D series. In that aspect, the X0D series can not replace the 7D's. The idea for APS-C R system is a bit wired to me, for the whole idea of the R system is to be FF (the M system is an APS-C, so why duplicate it?), so if yo make a PRO-R system, why put a APS-C sensor in it? they already have the 30MP sensor of the 5D4 or even the 26MP of the 6D2, so why not place those in the R system (which they already did), and then, all they need to do is to enhance the electronics behind it, to reach the same level of the 7D. But guess what? they will get R system which is... YES! replacing the 1D system. So if Canon like to abandon the 7D, abandon it, not try to make a compromise R system to "fit" into it, for that is a drawback from the FF R. Invest in bringing a pro-R system and not downgrade the R to APS-C.

 

[AlanF]

My experience with DSLR PDAF is that the visualization of the AF spot in the view finder is smaller than the "spot" on the PDAF sensor - the sensor needs some extension to sample data for the AF calculations.
If the object is not perpendicular to the optical axis of your lens AF chooses the closest focus setting the "spot" can gain. The center of the "spot" is no longer in the focal plane. Does not matter with e.g. 50mm @ f/11 and subject 5m away but affects the AF quality in opposite conditions (longer FL, wide open).

You can check it if you try to AF some closer tiny objects near the AF spot visualisation: AF finds the object, not the background.

With mirrorless they show the real AF area - the M50 gives a larger "spot" and a tiny spot. The latter helps if you want to AF small objects in a scene with high depth of objects - e.g. a special flower in a meadow. But there is a tradeoff: In low light/low contrast scenarios the PDAF doesn't find enough structure with the tiny spot - here the larger spot helps.
DSLR PDAF sensors were optimized to work under all circumstances so they have chosen larger "spots" - with DPAF where the full sensor is the AF sensor it's just a matter of programming how large the AF spot is and correct visualization is done in a breeze on the computer monitor called EVF.

An image of a DSLR PDAF sensor (1DX) is provided by the-digital-picture - it shows the real extension of the AF "SPOTS":

Canon EOS DSLR Autofocus Explained

Canon EOS DSLR Autofocus Explained

www.the-digital-picture.com

at 75% of the page or search for " diagonal crosses " in the page

Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my question - I appeciate it. However, you had missed what I had written earlier.

Precisely, it's Spot AF, introduced in the 7D https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/focus_points/a_single_focusing_point.do "The EOS 7D introduced a new single AF point mode called Spot AF. On a normal autofocus sensor, the sensor for each point is actually larger than the AF point shown in the viewfinder. Spot AF uses the same AF point to perform focus but the area it uses is much smaller – only fractionally larger than the AF point displayed in the viewfinder."

I use Spot AF on my 5Div and 5DSR and it is much smaller than the smallest AF square on my M5, and I want to know whether Canon can do the equivalent on the R series.

 

[uri.raz]

Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a fifth mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.

The reason EF-S lenses can't be mounted on EF bodies is the lenses protrude deeper into the body, and might collide with the mirror. AFAIK, Nikon DX lenses don't protrude deeper than FX lenses, and therefore may be mounted on FX bodies, which auto crop the image. IIRC, I've read EOS R does the same with EF-S lenses mounted with the EF adapter. Canon could do the same - allow R crop lenses to be mounted on R FF bodies, and auto crop.

Then again, Canon might want to prevent that, e.g. so people couldn't cover one of the pins and make crop ultra wide lenses work on FF, at least for wider apertures.

 

[Otara]

If you forget EF/EF-S, going forward theres EF-M and RF. If I buy an EF-M Camera, there are no RF lenses I can buy, so going to fullframe means Im starting from scratch, ie might decide to go Sony instead or whatever. Either EF-M is going to be semi-orphaned, or the crop to full-frame transition as a concept is being abandoned. My bet is EF-M orphaned/standalone given its kind of been that from the getgo. Maybe both?

Given how well uncropped APS-C video and/or high framerate APS-C sports cameras would sell though, Id be surprised and vote for RF-S or whatever acronym results, unless massive breakthroughs are happening somewhere in cost/framerate whatever.

 

[blackcoffee17]

For me it's amazing how Canon is just dropping the wildlife market where they were the leader for so long and the first choice for most photographers.
They still have amazing lenses but no bodies i would buy. Outdated, 5 year old 7DII, 6fps 5D4 or a very expensive 1Dx. Even in the lens department they don't have anything affordable above 400mm.

 

[docsmith]

Thinking on this a bit more. Most on this forum have maintained Canon will continue to make cameras that sell. Most also seem to think the 7D series has sold well and were/are "popular."

So, if this rumor is correct, why the shift in thinking from Canon? On the positive side, Canon thinks they have something that will capture the 7D market better than a 7D, so there is no sense in releasing this new 7D beater and a new 7D. I like that idea. On the negative side, maybe the 7D did not, or is not projected too, sell comparatively well enough to survive in a contracting market.

I am thinking it is actually the former, if Canon is getting rid of the 7D series, they have something better that they will be releasing.

 

[Otara]

I think the obvious answer is 'things have changed'. A new 7D is caught up in the EF/RF transition and while it might have been a good seller it may not have been so great its worth getting in the way of their current transition strategy.

 

[Adrianf]

Like many others, I feel betrayed by Canon over the 7D3. I remain to be convinced that DPAF actually works with long lenses and small subjects. My M50 struggles to focus consistently with my 500mm F4 L IS ii on small birds

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you forget EF/EF-S, going forward theres EF-M and RF. If I buy an EF-M Camera, there are no RF lenses I can buy, so going to fullframe means Im starting from scratch, ie might decide to go Sony instead or whatever. Either EF-M is going to be semi-orphaned, or the crop to full-frame transition as a concept is being abandoned. My bet is EF-M orphaned/standalone given its kind of been that from the getgo. Maybe both?

I agree conceptually, if not semantically. I was surprised by the elimination of the ‘upgrade path’ of users buying FF lenses while using an APS-C camera, facilitating their eventually buying a FF camera. But Canon has years of data with millions of data points (i.e., product registrations) to inform on just how common that is...and decided to make RF lenses incompatible with the M-series body anyway.

The did decide to make the M series separate from the R series, but ‘orphaned’ is the wrong connotation. It’s like saying the 50 year old billionaire who’s parents just died was ‘orphaned’. The APS-C market remains far larger than the FF market.

 

[Don Haines]

What is missing from the debate is an example of a high end R body. None of us knows how an R camera with sufficient computing power will behave, nor do we know what features Canon will introduce with such a body.

It is possible that the 7D2 will be the first of the higher performance bodies to go over to R, but we don’t know.

 

[mb66energy]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my question - I appeciate it. However, you had missed what I had written earlier.

I use Spot AF on my 5Div and 5DSR and it is much smaller than the smallest AF square on my M5, and I want to know whether Canon can do the equivalent on the R series.

Thanks for clarification: I do not have one of these wonderful cameras so I had to learn about that feature today
If the Spot AF in these cameras is bound by the larger "AF point squares" of the view finder it's around 3.5 % of sensor width. If it's bound by the tiny squares/dots in their middle it is roughly 1% of sensor width.

Because I do not own the M5 I do not know if you can reduce the size of the AF area - the M50 has smaller frames available and they have around 5% size of the full sensor width.

About R series: I think they can do that maybe with higher resolution (70MPix = 1.6 x 24MPix) models where the resolution of the DPAF array is better: It would come in at 3% of sensor width (5% / 1.6).

One drawback of DPAF is that it evaluates only horizontal patterns - with quad pixel AF I see an improvement of spot size by a factor of 2 or 3 because you can evaluate vertical patterns so one can get down to maybe 1.5 or 1 % of sensor width. But QPAF with 70 000 000 x 4 pixels makes me nut by its sheer numbers!

Hopefully this is a little bit more "spot on" - and thinking about this is important for me too because I get dramatically improved hit rates in terms of AF with those tiny AF points compared to these AF guestimators in xxD and xxxD cameras.

EDIT: Similar discussion here:

Question about the EOS R focus system

www.fredmiranda.com

the smaller point is too roughly 5% from image width like M50 - both cameras have similar resolution so DPAF needs maybe at least 5 % = approx. 300 pixels to compare patterns for AF fast and reliable enough.

 

[uri.raz]

I do wish they would change their crop from 1.6 to 1.5 with this move.

I wish they would change it to 1.4

 

[PRINZMETAL]

I wish they would change it to 1.4

One thing about all of the 7d2/7d3 discussion which has not been discussed is the following: That is, Sony and their great tracking cameras at all levels of interchangeable lenses cameras. I have a feeling many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2 or moved to a higher end full frame canon that tracks well. Those still using their 7d2 are not a large market no matter what some say about them buying new glass.