7D Guinea Pig

[AvTvM]

Just look at how many people have a 5D Mark II and 7D combination.

Makes lots of sense, but does not help the mass of people like myself who came up the ladder on APS-C and have purchased EF-S wide-angle glass + EF tele. The tele will be fine on a 5D II/X whatever ... BUT wait, on the 5D we want to use wide-angle, ricght? ;-)

So, it would require me to sell 10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro - lets assume for a total of 1500 Euro.

Now lets go and buy new 5D III/X capable glass:
* 100/2.8 Macro - yes, fine ... 800 Euro
* wide-angle? hmm ... 17-40 ... way too crappy. 16-35 II ... not good enough for the price tag. 14-24 ... yes, stellar - but oh no, this happens to be a Nikon lens. No such thing in Canon land. 24-70 - way to crappy. Sole contender the 24-70 II - IF the theoretical Canon-MTF curve bears any resemblance with real life performance. But 2300 Euro (!).
* plus of course the fantastic TS-E 17/4 ... IF I went FF that would be my first lens to buy actually ... so kiss goodbye to another 2200 Euro.

Total 5.3k Euro minus 1.5k Euro leaves a gap of 3800 Euro (not USD). Ah yes, and don't forget the body, of course. To get what ... 1 stop less noise than the 7D? Thanks, but no thanks! Lightroom and Topaz Denoise are working very nicely for me. Up to ISO 3200 ... no problem.

 

[JonJT]

I don't know about using the 7D as a guinea pig. It seems to me that plenty of pro wildlife/sports fotogs were happy with the 7D being a crop sensor as it gave them more reach. It could have been the case of canon marketing saying - we have the sensor, we have the AF system, why not. They only had a pro AF system on the 1D cameras. Putting it on a crop sensor camera is just a way to use what they already had without eroding too much the sales of the 1D system. How many sports fotogs do you see walking around with a 1D and a 7d strapped to their photography vests. I see lots.

APS-C works. Once upon a time, 4x5 film was the stuff. 35mm film killed it. Sure now, and 4x5 quality will always beat 35mm quality. However, there are qualities beyond sterile image quality. FF digital requires lenses which are more expensive. It requires a larger camera. It's lenses are shorter. APS-C has serious benefits.

Nikon knows this. see how much they have put into their DX lineup? If Canon boggles this, Nikon will gladly scoop up disgruntled photographers with a shiny new D400.

Push this argument further and you get little cameras with iPhone sensors

Let's be reasonable here. No one is trying to turn a relative argument into hyperbole. She's speaking within the framework of a DSLR system.

I'm a proponent of APS-C for some of the same reasons. I really like the fact that I can use ALL of the EF lenses with my crop camera but, I didn't have to pay the extra 1000 dollars, each, for the excellent wide angle and standard zooms I enjoy using.

So, the point is that I get to access fantastic DSLR lenses while using a system that gives me a fantastic performance to price ratio, so to speak. Spending the extra ~4k-4.5k on a FF system with good L lenses across the UWA zoom and standard zoom ranges is not going to give my photos any more affective powers, in most cases. And, considering that I web publish more often than not, the advantages of a FF sensor will be much, much, much harder to appreciate. All those noise problems Canon's APS-C sensor has are mitigated very effectively by downsizing my shots from the 60Ds native 18MP to, at most the 1.8MP resolution of my monitor. That 90% reduction really helps.

 

[briansquibb]

I think that it is a waste of time discussing comparative budgets, IQ etc as we all have difference budgets, IQ requirements etc.

Canon produce a wide range of equipment to suit everyone - lets thank them for that.

There will be no obligation to move to ff - infact I think 1.3 is the best allround compromise. APS-C will get left behind in the technology race, there moving it further down the price scale.

The good news is that as APS-C becomes just a consumer item then you will see the 7D equivalent become cheaper.

PS For those worried about their 10-22 and 17-55 should compare their prices with the 17-40 and 24-105, you will not find significant difference. I understand there will the the cry about the 17-55 being f/2.8 and the 24-105 being f/4 - however that is of little consequence in the field as the 1.3/ff will be one stop faster and the DOF will be about the same.

 

[AvTvM]

I think that it is a waste of time discussing comparative budgets, IQ etc as we all have difference budgets, IQ requirements etc.

Canon produce a wide range of equipment to suit everyone - lets thank them for that.

There will be no obligation to move to ff - infact I think 1.3 is the best allround compromise. APS-C will get left behind in the technology race, there moving it further down the price scale.

The good news is that as APS-C becomes just a consumer item then you will see the 7D equivalent become cheaper.

PS For those worried about their 10-22 and 17-55 should compare their prices with the 17-40 and 24-105, you will not find significant difference. I understand there will the the cry about the 17-55 being f/2.8 and the 24-105 being f/4 - however that is of little consequence in the field as the 1.3/ff will be one stop faster and the DOF will be about the same.

Money IS an object ... at least for most of us.

Not counting those who purchased (multiple) 7D for video-use only, I am sure there are many more amateur/enthusiast 7D users with EF-S (or lenses who "upgraded" on the APS-C ladder (from xxD and xxxD) as opposed to semi-pros/pros who bought a 7D as second body to an existing 5D / II and already had assorted FF-capable wide-angle lenses.

Anybody with an APS-C body (7D) and EF-S lenses (or third party APS-C) but no FF-capable ultra-wide/wide-angle lenses has to put quite a bundle of money on Canons table to switch to FF. It is NOT done with cost of a body. I therefore consider it higjhly relevant to point this out.

In my opinion, the potential gain in IQ / creative possibilities does not warrant the cost for most of them. Only a miniscule fraction of all pictures are printed "really large" to see the difference. Large prints aside, most of the APS-C vs FF difference is visible in pixel-peeping mode - if at all.

The current 17-40 on FF (5D II) is definitely no match in terms of IQ to the 10-22 on a 7D. The 16-35 II may be on par - but at 3 times the cost. The 24-105 on FF is also no match to the 17-55 on APS-C. The distortions of the 24-105 at the short end are quite massive. Yes, it can be reasonably fixed in post ... but why bother, if the 17-55 delivers the goods straight away?

But yes, everybodies mileage varies and everybody has to come to their own conclusions regarding APS-C vs. FF.

I totally disagree with your statement of APS-C being "technologically left behind" (any time soon) ... I find it much more likely that FF (DSLR-bodies and adequate glass) will be totally priced out of the (enthusiast) market and therefore become a small niche ... similar to where MF has ended up today.

To me, the technical future of photography is extremely likely to be in mirrorless systems with sensors sized between mFT and APS-C.

 

[JonJT]

I think that it is a waste of time discussing comparative budgets, IQ etc as we all have difference budgets, IQ requirements etc.

Agreed.

Canon produce a wide range of equipment to suit everyone - lets thank them for that.

There will be no obligation to move to ff - infact I think 1.3 is the best allround compromise. APS-C will get left behind in the technology race, there moving it further down the price scale.

The good news is that as APS-C becomes just a consumer item then you will see the 7D equivalent become cheaper.

Don't agree. Canon makes a lot of money off of these little sensors. It would behoove them to improve their performance. Sony certainly is....

PS For those worried about their 10-22 and 17-55 should compare their prices with the 17-40 and 24-105, you will not find significant difference. I understand there will the the cry about the 17-55 being f/2.8 and the 24-105 being f/4 - however that is of little consequence in the field as the 1.3/ff will be one stop faster and the DOF will be about the same.

For those like myself that have the 11-16 and the 17-55, better comparisons are made with the 16-35 II and the new 24-70. I think the 24-70 is generally a much better complement to the 17-55 on FF as, it provides the same FOV.

Both of those lenses are about twice as expensive as the lenses I bought.

Can you provide confirmation of your statement about FF being a stop faster? I'm pretty sure that, for a given scene and a given perspective and, ignoring transmission loss, the same aperture/shutter speed/ISO will yield the same exposure on crop as it will on FF. And so, even though the 24-105 has IS like the 17-55, it's never going to be more useful in low light as the IS is of an older design and, it has to stabilize a lens that is a full stop slower.

 

[JonJT]

I think that it is a waste of time discussing comparative budgets, IQ etc as we all have difference budgets, IQ requirements etc.

Canon produce a wide range of equipment to suit everyone - lets thank them for that.

There will be no obligation to move to ff - infact I think 1.3 is the best allround compromise. APS-C will get left behind in the technology race, there moving it further down the price scale.

The good news is that as APS-C becomes just a consumer item then you will see the 7D equivalent become cheaper.

PS For those worried about their 10-22 and 17-55 should compare their prices with the 17-40 and 24-105, you will not find significant difference. I understand there will the the cry about the 17-55 being f/2.8 and the 24-105 being f/4 - however that is of little consequence in the field as the 1.3/ff will be one stop faster and the DOF will be about the same.

Money IS an object ... at least for most of us.

Not counting those who purchased (multiple) 7D for video-use only, I am sure there are many more amateur/enthusiast 7D users with EF-S (or lenses who "upgraded" on the APS-C ladder (from xxD and xxxD) as opposed to semi-pros/pros who bought a 7D as second body to an existing 5D / II and already had assorted FF-capable wide-angle lenses.

Anybody with an APS-C body (7D) and EF-S lenses (or third party APS-C) but no FF-capable ultra-wide/wide-angle lenses has to put quite a bundle of money on Canons table to switch to FF. It is NOT done with cost of a body. I therefore consider it higjhly relevant to point this out.

In my opinion, the potential gain in IQ / creative possibilities does not warrant the cost for most of them. Only a miniscule fraction of all pictures are printed "really large" to see the difference. Large prints aside, most of the APS-C vs FF difference is visible in pixel-peeping mode - if at all.

The current 17-40 on FF (5D II) is definitely no match in terms of IQ to the 10-22 on a 7D. The 16-35 II may be on par - but at 3 times the cost. The 24-105 on FF is also no match to the 17-55 on APS-C. The distortions of the 24-105 at the short end are quite massive. Yes, it can be reasonably fixed in post ... but why bother, if the 17-55 delivers the goods straight away?

But yes, everybodies mileage varies and everybody has to come to their own conclusions regarding APS-C vs. FF.

I totally disagree with your statement of APS-C being "technologically left behind" (any time soon) ... I find it much more likely that FF (DSLR-bodies and adequate glass) will be totally priced out of the (enthusiast) market and therefore become a small niche ... similar to where MF has ended up today.

To me, the technical future of photography is extremely likely to be in mirrorless systems with sensors sized between mFT and APS-C.

Quoted for truth. haha

 

[briansquibb]

Money IS an object ... at least for most of us.

I was talking about discussing budgets - my idea of expensive is likely to be very different than yours. Money is important to all, perhaps not in the same way though.

Not counting those who purchased (multiple) 7D for video-use only, I am sure there are many more amateur/enthusiast 7D users with EF-S (or lenses who "upgraded" on the APS-C ladder (from xxD and xxxD) as opposed to semi-pros/pros who bought a 7D as second body to an existing 5D / II and already had assorted FF-capable wide-angle lenses.

Anybody with an APS-C body (7D) and EF-S lenses (or third party APS-C) but no FF-capable ultra-wide/wide-angle lenses has to put quite a bundle of money on Canons table to switch to FF. It is NOT done with cost of a body. I therefore consider it higjhly relevant to point this out.

I went 40D, 50D, 7D and at the same time 5D, 5DII

I spotted there were only 3 decent APS-C lens (plus the 60mm macro) and that the ff equivalent were about the same price, so it was never an issue about going down the APS-C route - just a tactical purchase.

In my opinion, the potential gain in IQ / creative possibilities does not warrant the cost for most of them. Only a miniscule fraction of all pictures are printed "really large" to see the difference. Large prints aside, most of the APS-C vs FF difference is visible in pixel-peeping mode - if at all.

The current 17-40 on FF (5D II) is definitely no match in terms of IQ to the 10-22 on a 7D. The 16-35 II may be on par - but at 3 times the cost. The 24-105 on FF is also no match to the 17-55 on APS-C. The distortions of the 24-105 at the short end are quite massive. Yes, it can be reasonably fixed in post ... but why bother, if the 17-55 delivers the goods straight away?

I expect your consideration of 'massive distortion' will be different to a lot of people as not everyone shoots wide open at the wa.

From the digital picture website "At close distances, the 17-40 had sharper corners and held its sharpness to a narrower focal length than the 17-55. Lower barrel distortion at the wide end is also in the 17-55's favor. Full-frame compatibility, better build quality and environmental sealing are in the 17-40 L's favor. I suspect the wider price discrepancy between these two lenses will keep sales of the 17-40 L going stronger than for the 16-35" - so not completely better then.

But yes, everybodies mileage varies and everybody has to come to their own conclusions regarding APS-C vs. FF.

I totally disagree with your statement of APS-C being "technologically left behind" (any time soon) ... I find it much more likely that FF (DSLR-bodies and adequate glass) will be totally priced out of the (enthusiast) market and therefore become a small niche ... similar to where MF has ended up today.

To me, the technical future of photography is extremely likely to be in mirrorless systems with sensors sized between mFT and APS-C.

I hardly think that the ff marketplace is a small one at the moment - however 'priced out' - no I dont think so as low end ef lens are not that different in price from the 4 better APS-C lens.

Larger sensors are the way ahead with APS-C catering for the cheap end - however the cheap end will be better than the current 7D

 

[briansquibb]

Can you provide confirmation of your statement about FF being a stop faster? I'm pretty sure that, for a given scene and a given perspective and, ignoring transmission loss, the same aperture/shutter speed/ISO will yield the same exposure on crop as it will on FF. And so, even though the 24-105 has IS like the 17-55, it's never going to be more useful in low light as the IS is of an older design and, it has to stabilize a lens that is a full stop slower.

I suggest you go to DxO or any of the test sites to see just how much better big sensors are for high iso than APS-C . That is without trick pp - straightout of the camera @iso 3200 my 1D4 is good, the 1Ds3 is excellent - and yes I compared it with my7Ds before I sold them.

I wonder how many time the high iso has to be explained:

iso 1600 @ f/2.8 is the same exposure as iso3200@f/4 at the SAME shutter speeds therefore the IS requirements will be the same for the 17-55 and the 24-105 as they are shooting at the SAME shutter speeds

 

[JonJT]

Can you provide confirmation of your statement about FF being a stop faster? I'm pretty sure that, for a given scene and a given perspective and, ignoring transmission loss, the same aperture/shutter speed/ISO will yield the same exposure on crop as it will on FF. And so, even though the 24-105 has IS like the 17-55, it's never going to be more useful in low light as the IS is of an older design and, it has to stabilize a lens that is a full stop slower.

I suggest you go to DxO or any of the test sites to see just how much better big sensors are for high iso than APS-C . That is without trick pp - straightout of the camera @iso 3200 my 1D4 is good, the 1Ds3 is excellent - and yes I compared it with my7Ds before I sold them.

I wonder how many time the high iso has to be explained:

iso 1600 @ f/2.8 is the same exposure as iso3200@f/4 at the SAME shutter speeds therefore the IS requirements will be the same for the 17-55 and the 24-105 as they are shooting at the SAME shutter speeds

I see now that by faster, you were talking about ISO performance, not exposure for a given aperture/shutter speed/ISO setting. By the way, I understand how ISO "works" perfectly well. No need to be aggressive.

I've already acknowledged the fact that the ISO performance of the 7D is not as good as it's FF counterparts. I've seen it while pixel peeping and, from tests that DXO has performed. I'm fully aware.

Anyway, upping the ISO might not be acceptable to everyone in every circumstance. I like having the freedom to NOT have to up the ISO by one full stop when shooting in low light. Perhaps I don't want to/can't deal with the extra noise or, perhaps I can't increase the sensitivity of the sensor any further. I've been in both situations when shooting indoors on many occasions. I always prefer a faster lens and, as you said, it's pointless to discuss particulars in this case because it's so personal.

 

[briansquibb]

Can you provide confirmation of your statement about FF being a stop faster? I'm pretty sure that, for a given scene and a given perspective and, ignoring transmission loss, the same aperture/shutter speed/ISO will yield the same exposure on crop as it will on FF. And so, even though the 24-105 has IS like the 17-55, it's never going to be more useful in low light as the IS is of an older design and, it has to stabilize a lens that is a full stop slower.

I suggest you go to DxO or any of the test sites to see just how much better big sensors are for high iso than APS-C . That is without trick pp - straightout of the camera @iso 3200 my 1D4 is good, the 1Ds3 is excellent - and yes I compared it with my7Ds before I sold them.

I wonder how many time the high iso has to be explained:

iso 1600 @ f/2.8 is the same exposure as iso3200@f/4 at the SAME shutter speeds therefore the IS requirements will be the same for the 17-55 and the 24-105 as they are shooting at the SAME shutter speeds

I see now that by faster, you were talking about ISO performance, not exposure for a given aperture/shutter speed/ISO setting. By the way, I understand how ISO "works" perfectly well. No need to be aggressive.

Anyway, upping the ISO might not be acceptable to everyone in every circumstance. I like having the freedom to NOT have to up the ISO by one full stop when shooting in low light. Perhaps I don't want to/can't deal with the extra noise or, perhaps I can't increase the sensitivity of the sensor any further. I've been in both situations when shooting indoors on many occasions. I always prefer a faster lens and, as you said, it's pointless to discuss particulars in this case because it's so personal.

I suggest you re-read my original post

 

[Marsu42]

Hopefully, this discussion doesn't turn into yet another "bash the 7D" thread.

One year ago, a 7D was just overpriced for having the same sensor - imho it took a "top of the aps-c line" premium. Now, as the priced has droppe so much I'd get a 7D anytime instead of my 60D *if* it would run magic lantern ... which it doesn't ... yet.

Now lets go and buy new 5D III/X capable glass:
* 100/2.8 Macro - yes, fine ... 800 Euro

... no, a third of that on ebay for the non-L - since you were talking of "glass", it's as sharp as the red ring version.

I wouldn't say that the 7D AF system is all that great. On paper sure, but I've had my fair share of erratic behavior with it.

Could you explain when the 7D af craps out? I got a 60D which practically has no reliable working af at all, I'd call it a "focus helper". I tried the 7D in a shop some time ago, and the af seemed to be amazing - but if you got any real-world experiences I'd be interested in them.

 

[JonJT]

Can you provide confirmation of your statement about FF being a stop faster? I'm pretty sure that, for a given scene and a given perspective and, ignoring transmission loss, the same aperture/shutter speed/ISO will yield the same exposure on crop as it will on FF. And so, even though the 24-105 has IS like the 17-55, it's never going to be more useful in low light as the IS is of an older design and, it has to stabilize a lens that is a full stop slower.

I suggest you go to DxO or any of the test sites to see just how much better big sensors are for high iso than APS-C . That is without trick pp - straightout of the camera @iso 3200 my 1D4 is good, the 1Ds3 is excellent - and yes I compared it with my7Ds before I sold them.

I wonder how many time the high iso has to be explained:

iso 1600 @ f/2.8 is the same exposure as iso3200@f/4 at the SAME shutter speeds therefore the IS requirements will be the same for the 17-55 and the 24-105 as they are shooting at the SAME shutter speeds

I see now that by faster, you were talking about ISO performance, not exposure for a given aperture/shutter speed/ISO setting. By the way, I understand how ISO "works" perfectly well. No need to be aggressive.

Anyway, upping the ISO might not be acceptable to everyone in every circumstance. I like having the freedom to NOT have to up the ISO by one full stop when shooting in low light. Perhaps I don't want to/can't deal with the extra noise or, perhaps I can't increase the sensitivity of the sensor any further. I've been in both situations when shooting indoors on many occasions. I always prefer a faster lens and, as you said, it's pointless to discuss particulars in this case because it's so personal.

I suggest you re-read my original post

Nevermind.... *sigh*

 

[AprilForever]

I don't know about using the 7D as a guinea pig. It seems to me that plenty of pro wildlife/sports fotogs were happy with the 7D being a crop sensor as it gave them more reach. It could have been the case of canon marketing saying - we have the sensor, we have the AF system, why not. They only had a pro AF system on the 1D cameras. Putting it on a crop sensor camera is just a way to use what they already had without eroding too much the sales of the 1D system. How many sports fotogs do you see walking around with a 1D and a 7d strapped to their photography vests. I see lots.

APS-C works. Once upon a time, 4x5 film was the stuff. 35mm film killed it. Sure now, and 4x5 quality will always beat 35mm quality. However, there are qualities beyond sterile image quality. FF digital requires lenses which are more expensive. It requires a larger camera. It's lenses are shorter. APS-C has serious benefits.

Nikon knows this. see how much they have put into their DX lineup? If Canon boggles this, Nikon will gladly scoop up disgruntled photographers with a shiny new D400.

Push this argument further and you get little cameras with iPhone sensors

Push it the other way, and buy Phase 1 digital backs. You will have all the quality you could ever want, and everything you've been missing out on with your FF sensor.

APS-C has major benefits over FF for portable wildlife photography. For what I do, even a 1Ds MK III would not suffice. It would require a bigger more expensive lens, and a lot more lugging. FF and APS-C are two different solutions to two different problems. And they both do their job well in their realms. But to nix APS-C in the 7D for full frame has far more drawbacks than benefits.

 

[x-vision]

Here's my thoughts on the current situation, especially with the rumour of no 7Dmk2

'Guinea Pig' is a bit too strong of an expression but overall your point is valid, IMO.

Ever since the 7D was released, it's been obvious that the 7D 'platform' will be shared with a FF model.
From that perspective, the 7D was/is the testbed for this shared 'platform'.

This bodes very well for future 5DIII/X buyers, since they will be getting a camera that's been in field testing for two-three years ;D.

I think Canon originally thought that the 7D and its FF brother will happily coexist together.
The way things are going, though, 7D might just get a FF replacement instead of a FF brother.

The Nikon's D7000 and Sony's Nex-7 lowered too much the price of the 'enthusiast' models.

To be competitive with these models, Canon needs to lower the price of the 7DII or beef-up the the specs of the 70D.

The first option is not good for business.
But if Canon beefs up the specs of the 70D, then the 70D will kill 7DII sales - just like the D7000 killed the D300s sales.

So, the rumor that there will be no 7DII makes quite a lot of sense actually.

 

[AmbientLight]

Your argument regarding the current market situation and Canon's intention to sell for higher prices instead of selling for lower prices makes sense to me. Take the new 24 and 28 lenses for example. They are upgraded with IS to be sold at higher prices instead of trying to sell them low on price. This makes sense to me. Selling for low prices hurts not only in terms of company reputation, but also in terms of profit and right there it hurts a lot.

 

[Astro]

APS-C has major benefits over FF for portable wildlife photography. For what I do, even a 1Ds MK III would not suffice. It would require a bigger more expensive lens, and a lot more lugging. FF and APS-C are two different solutions to two different problems.

well to qoute a well known m*r*n of the web:

with the D800 and alike cameras you don´t need supertelephoto lenses anymore.
you can just crop from a 70mm lens instead.


not my words...

 

[Marsu42]

with the D800 and alike cameras you don´t need supertelephoto lenses anymore.
you can just crop from a 70mm lens instead.

super-high mp count doesn't equal super-low iso noise - and I don't know the D800 noise levels. And of course your lens has to be very sharp to make good use of the sensor resolution - and I guess only good primes or very good, current zooms are able to to that.