Small Eos 5D IV comparison to Nikon, Sony, Fuji...

[Don Haines]

F4 isn’t f2.8 you say? APS-H is 50% larger, so it’s only a half stop difference in light gathering, BUT THEN:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-24-70mm-F4L-IS-USM

The 17-55f2.8 has a terrible T-stop value. You’re actually getting far superior light gathering out of the F4 lens on APS-H.

Are you telling me that I can use the same ISO and shutter speed on both and get the same results if the format is different? That (as an example) shooting ISO100 and 1000th sec on a 7D2 with an F2.8 lens is the same as (as an example) shooting ISO100 and 1000sec on a 6D2 with a F4 lens because there is 1 stop difference in the lenses and (approximately) 1 stop difference in the total light gathered by the larger sensor?

 

[Mikehit]

You and everyone else are dead wrong about Canon not advertising APS-H in consumer photography applications.

Please point me to an advert.

 

[dak723]

The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.

 

[scottkinfw]

Paid comparisons like this one worth nothing. You folks will be surprised the 1DX2 produces even less details, no kidding! That's definitely a proof Canon is making crappy cameras.
Why not to compare to a proper camera - the 5DsR???

Ignorant comment

 

[Don Haines]

The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!

 

[Ozarker]

But that’s all totally beside the point, You guys are all running around screaming “APS-H is dead” when I don’t even think it’s necessary, it’s not the point ot the petition, the point is pixel density.

Forget APS-H exists and make this all about a 97MP APS-C sensor.

What are you on about. If your petition is about pixel density why the hell does it talk about a long-dead format?

Because that is the sensor that Canon has been demonstrating!

For their security cameras :

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/watch-canon-show-off-a-120mp-sensor-eos-5ds-in-photokina-tech-demo-95831

check out Canon’s tech demo with AP where they show off the sort of thing they hope to achieve in the future, in the shape of a Canon EOS 5DS kitted out with an impressive 120-million-pixel APS-H size imaging sensor.

And of course you forgot to quote the important bit:

They stress that this is not a camera in actual development, just an indication of where imaging technology could go

Absolutely no indication they are looking at APS-H for DSLR. It was demonstration of technology, not sensor size.

You and everyone else are dead wrong about Canon not advertising APS-H in consumer photography applications. Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

The statement that “this is not a camera in actual development” is not a direct statement on sensor format.
Could it be inferred that they are opposed to using APS-H in consumer products? Yes, but that’s still just your assumption, and even if they outright said “Everyone at Canon hates APS-H and we’re glad it’s dead”, that wouldn’t stop them from putting it in a camera if consumer demand were there.

Neuro is really the only one who brings up the only valid point, the petition is DOA, so the entire discussion is really moot, regardless of how good the 120MP APS-H sensor actually is.

I, for one, would like to know how you know an APS-H sensor would only be $300 more?

I really do think you've become unhinged, however, I'm sure that had you got to 100 petition signers that Canon would have been forced to capitulate, add APS-H production to the camera lines, add production capacity for a different body, develop lenses that could resolve 120mp, etc.

Yup. Lucky for Canon you didn't get to 100 signers. :

And you call us delusional.

It takes a big man to admit he ran down the wrong rabbit trail. It takes a small man to keep going down that trail, getting more and more lost and outlandish.

 

[Don Haines]

F4 isn’t f2.8 you say? APS-H is 50% larger, so it’s only a half stop difference in light gathering, BUT THEN:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF-S-17-55-f-2.8-IS-USM
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-24-70mm-F4L-IS-USM

The 17-55f2.8 has a terrible T-stop value. You’re actually getting far superior light gathering out of the F4 lens on APS-H.

Are you telling me that I can use the same ISO and shutter speed on both and get the same results if the format is different? That (as an example) shooting ISO100 and 1000th sec on a 7D2 with an F2.8 lens is the same as (as an example) shooting ISO100 and 1000sec on a 6D2 with a F4 lens because there is 1 stop difference in the lenses and (approximately) 1 stop difference in the total light gathered by the larger sensor?

So here I am at home now..... I have a 7D2 and a 6D2 on the table.... I have a 15-55F2.8 and a 27-70F4.0 as well...

Both cameras are at ISO100... I shoot the crop lens at 35mm, and I shoot the FF lens at 55mm so the framing is the same... both cameras are in AV mode..... I am shooting at a evenly lit wall with the exposure mode set to centre weighted on both cameras....

7D2 and 17-55 at F2.8 - 1/200 sec
7D2 and 17-55 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
7D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
6D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec

WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera! OMG! Optical properties of a lens do not change when you put it a different body! And this is despite DXO claiming that the T stop for both are almost the same...... but then again, the T top of the 17-55 changes all over the place when DXO moves it between various canon crop bodies..... perhaps DXO is wrong? ? ? Perhaps DXO is right and that the 17-55 has a T-stop of 4.0 when you put it on a 1200D, and when you mount it on a 550D, the lens somehow magically becomes brighter by 2/3 of a stop with a T-stop of 3.3 .....

Here is a good hint for you..... DXO is a "somewhat less than reliable" source of information..... but what do you expect from a company that rates Canon's cheapest lens, the 50F1.8 (the old version) with a score of 27 on the 1DX, while their second most expensive lens (and just redesigned), the 600F4, scores a mere 25.....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here is a good hint for you..... DXO is a "somewhat less than reliable" source of information..... but what do you expect from a company that rates Canon's cheapest lens, the 50F1.8 (the old version) with a score of 27 on the 1DX, while their second most expensive lens (and just redesigned), the 600F4, scores a mere 25.....

Don't forget that base ISO dynamic range is a significant contributor to DxOMark's Lens Score.

 

[Don Haines]

Here is a good hint for you..... DXO is a "somewhat less than reliable" source of information..... but what do you expect from a company that rates Canon's cheapest lens, the 50F1.8 (the old version) with a score of 27 on the 1DX, while their second most expensive lens (and just redesigned), the 600F4, scores a mere 25.....

Don't forget that base ISO dynamic range is a significant contributor to DxOMark's Lens Score.

You are just jealous that my crappy 50F1.8 is a better leans than your 600F4

 

[SecureGSM]

Don,

these can be due to the fact that corners of a crop sensor are less vignetting affected than corners of FF sensor wide open or near wide open. exposure values may well end up being 1 stop apart depending on metering mode used of course. I hope it makes sense.

7D2 and 17-55 at F2.8 - 1/200 sec
7D2 and 17-55 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
7D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
6D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec

WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera! OMG! Optical properties of a lens do not change when you put it a different body! And this is despite DXO claiming that the T stop for both are almost the same......

 

[Don Haines]

Don,

these can be due to the fact that corners of a crop sensor are less vignetting affected than corners of FF sensor wide open or near wide open. exposure values may well end up being 1 stop apart depending on metering mode used of course. I hope it makes sense.

7D2 and 17-55 at F2.8 - 1/200 sec
7D2 and 17-55 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
7D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
6D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec

WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera! OMG! Optical properties of a lens do not change when you put it a different body! And this is despite DXO claiming that the T stop for both are almost the same......

Nope.

Both cameras were set for centre weighted. Plus, I set both to centre spot metered and it made no difference.

Yes, at a given aperture a FF sensor collects more light, but the greater amount of light is spread over a wider area. At any given aperture, at any distance from the centre of the lens (vignetting) the density of light per unit area is the same for whatever format sensor you have. If you are metering your exposure at the same distance from the centre, the results are the same. Of course, distance from the centre does not matter in either of these cameras since they both meter based on the centre of the frame. Neither camera has the ability to link exposure to an AF point (such as the 1DX2 can) so there is no way to shift the exposure calculations to a part of a lens where there would be noticeable vignetting.

There is no exposure equivalence between various formats, the exposure is the same for crop and FF, and in the very unlikely possibility that Canon would ever make an APS-H dslr, the same for it.

For a lens to do otherwise, it would have to detect what sensor was in use, and somehow magically change the optical properties of the lens.

 

[SecureGSM]

if you have, then I am running out of ideas here... hopefully an incident light meter can provide you with a better reading consistency across your cameras and lens set.

...I set both to centre spot metered and it made no difference...

 

[Aglet]

Don,

these can be due to the fact that corners of a crop sensor are less vignetting affected than corners of FF sensor wide open or near wide open. exposure values may well end up being 1 stop apart depending on metering mode used of course. I hope it makes sense.

7D2 and 17-55 at F2.8 - 1/200 sec
7D2 and 17-55 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
7D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec
6D2 and 24-70 at F4.0 - 1/100 sec

WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera! OMG! Optical properties of a lens do not change when you put it a different body! And this is despite DXO claiming that the T stop for both are almost the same......

microlens optimization for peripheral illumination can vary the effect as well.

CWA metering pattern for crop vs FF isn't necessarily equivalent for the border areas.

various vague variables.

 

[SecureGSM]

unlikely being the case. please note: Don used centre AF point spot metering method.

microlens optimization for peripheral illumination can vary the effect as well.

CWA metering pattern for crop vs FF isn't necessarily equivalent for the border areas.

various vague variables.

 

[9VIII]

It takes a big man to admit he ran down the wrong rabbit trail. It takes a small man to keep going down that trail, getting more and more lost and outlandish.

Irony.

 

[9VIII]

The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!

No, you have another recommendation for a $5,000+ 100MP Full Frame Body.
Full Frame is NOT compatible with the concept of giving people maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost. Not even remotely close.

 

[9VIII]

WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera!

You’re still fundamentally confused about how sensor noise works.

Your 7D2 has twice the sensor noise at the same exposure settings. You must use 1 stop lower ISO on APS-C to achieve the same noise performance as Full Frame (actually it’s still slightly more especially with Canon’s 1.6x crop).
A comparison of high ISO noise with both cameras would reveal the true light gathering performance of both lens/sensor combinations.

Also that EF-S 17-55 has HORRID vignetting: https://www.lenstip.com/10.8-Lens_review-Canon_EF-S_17-55_mm_f_2.8_IS_USM_Vignetting.html

I have to wonder if Vignetting isn’t the primary cause of worse T-stop ratings.
Edit: I guess vignetting on the EF 24-70 is just as bad, so it’s odd that it would have comparatively better transmission ratings if Vignetting were the cause.
On that subject, one of the best things about APS-H is it just cuts out the worst part of most Full Frame lenses.
In many cases it’s actually the ideal sensor to use because lens designers so often don’t do enough correction for various flaws on Full Frame.

 

[Don Haines]

The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!

No, you have another recommendation for a $5,000+ 100MP Full Frame Body.
Full Frame is NOT compatible with the concept of giving people maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost. Not even remotely close.

So now we are after maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost? Have you heard of Olympus and u4/3?

 

[Don Haines]

WAIT A MINUTE! A 1 stop faster lens on a crop camera is one stop faster than a 1 stop slower lens of a FF camera!

You’re still fundamentally confused about how sensor noise works.

Oh, so now we are talking about sensor noise? Assuming the same level of technology, the major factor affecting noise is not the size of the sensor, it is the size of the photo site.... and for a fixed number of pixels on a chip, FF will beat APS-H. It changes nothing, people will go for crop if they are after lower cost, and if they are after higher quality they will go for FF....

 

[9VIII]

The simple truth is that for anyone looking to get improved performance if moving up from crop - they will go to FF. Why get APS-H when FF does everything better and has lenses made for it? The answer is again - simple. There is no reason. I would never consider it. If I am unhappy with my crop APS-C, I will get a FF camera. I believe the vast majority of folks feel the same.

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!

No, you have another recommendation for a $5,000+ 100MP Full Frame Body.
Full Frame is NOT compatible with the concept of giving people maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost. Not even remotely close.

So now we are after maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost? Have you heard of Olympus and u4/3?

I’m convinced no one actually read either the petittion or anything else I wrote.
This is the third or fourth time I’ve made the focus on Pixel Density abundandtly clear.

Don, here’s your turn with the Cap of Shame.

SHAME ON YOU! For being so willfully ignorant and blatantly antagonsitic toward a basic photographic principle that even YOU would benefit from.

SHAME ON YOU!!!