running the menu system...jrista said:
controlling the wifi link
interfacing the buttons/knobs/dials
communicating with the lens
all those program modes
controlling the flash
etc etc etc
Upvote
0
7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
- Thread starter flyingSquirrel
- Start date
controlling the wifi link
interfacing the buttons/knobs/dials
communicating with the lens
all those program modes
controlling the flash
etc etc etc
Don Haines said:
I honestly don't think those things consume a lot of horsepower. I don't think I've ever experienced any lag or other issues that might possibly be related to not having enough spare processing power in the DIGIC chip or chips to handle it in the past. The only time my flash ever lags is when it's recharging, which has nothing to do with how fast the processor is, and everything to do with how fast the batteries can supply power. I don't think anything related to the performance or experience of using a menu system or controlling flash or anything like that is enough to warrant moving entirely to a general purpose processor like ARM to control the entire camera in lieu of a DSP. I know Nikon has an Android Camera...in that case, a general purpose processor would be extremely useful, however I believe Nikon embedded an ARM within their EXPEED processor, and still use EXPEED for all the image processing stuff. I think that speaks to the power of these dedicated processors.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
Right. Plus, no matter what features it has, at least 50% of posts reacting to its release will complain that it doesn't have some feature that can be found on an entry-level Nikon but which hardly anyone cares about and makes no discernible difference to 99% of photos taken with it....
Upvote
0
agreed! I doubt that it would add up to a hundredth of what is needed to make that jpg that pops up on the display after you shoot a picture...jrista said:
Upvote
0
I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything.
The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.
The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.
Upvote
0
A high-end 7D mkII with better IQ and ISO performance will be aimed to replace the 1d MK IV imho. A pro APS-C has a place, especially for wildlife and sports. The only caveat is the performance, it needs to get close to the 1D MK IV to stand a chance. Otherwise it will just re-fill it's current position, which is not a negative! 
Upvote
0
mrsfotografie said:TexPhoto said:mrsfotografie said:Menace said:
True.
I personally don't care much about APS-C DSLR's anymore. When I get the chance I will get a full frame mirrorless too (at a budget price), but then, full frame is compatible with my type of photography.
Of course for the birders and such I wish the 7D2 will have an excellent aps-c sensor
If you shoot a variety of images, or even just a variety in one nitch, an APS-C camera is a nice compliment to a FF camera. Shooting sports I will often use a fisheye and my 400 with extenders in the same shoot. The difference in the look and reach of the 2 cameras can be nice. The 5DII + 7D combo because very popular for this reason.
I worked with that combination for a long time, but the image quality of the 7D was disappointing compared to the 5D MkII so in the end that's what caused me to sell the 7D in favor of a 5D MkIII. The Mk II and Mk III work much better together; but I prioritize the MkIII for low light and sports, obviously.
Last weekend I did a motorsports shoot with the 70-200 on the MkIII and my 35mm Sigma on the Mk II. The results were staggeringly good, and the bodies and lenses a seamless match, with matching sharpness and colors.
Cool. I have always been happy with the colors on my 7D.
IMG_5987 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr
Upvote
0
AprilForever said:
Sorry, but I completely disagree with the highlighted bit. Crop and FF both have their place, and there is no way crop is a better tool for "nearly everything". For that matter, it's debatable whether crop is better for even a slim majority of things. FF does better in almost every circumstance. It is larger, so gathers more total light. Usually has bigger pixels. Usually has more pixels. Allows thinner DOF with lenses of any given aperture. Allows for truly ultra wide field of view, much wider than anything available on APS-C (i.e. 8mm fisheye is only a true 180 degrees on FF...on APS-C, that true fisheye view is...cropped!), allows you to get closer with any lens when filling the frame (ideal for portraiture and macro photography, especially macro w/ extension), etc. etc.
The one primary case where crop is better is when you need reach and spatial resolution. Crop "gets you closer" when using longer lenses. That will remain true so long as crop sensors have smaller pixels than FF sensors. Someday, however, it is entirely possible that a larger sensor will come along with pixels just as small as crop, with just as high a frame rate. When that happens, the one true advantage of crop will evaporate, and there will be no reason to use it. The FF image would simply need to be...cropped.
Upvote
0
TexPhoto said:mrsfotografie said:TexPhoto said:mrsfotografie said:Menace said:
True.
I personally don't care much about APS-C DSLR's anymore. When I get the chance I will get a full frame mirrorless too (at a budget price), but then, full frame is compatible with my type of photography.
Of course for the birders and such I wish the 7D2 will have an excellent aps-c sensor
If you shoot a variety of images, or even just a variety in one nitch, an APS-C camera is a nice compliment to a FF camera. Shooting sports I will often use a fisheye and my 400 with extenders in the same shoot. The difference in the look and reach of the 2 cameras can be nice. The 5DII + 7D combo because very popular for this reason.
I worked with that combination for a long time, but the image quality of the 7D was disappointing compared to the 5D MkII so in the end that's what caused me to sell the 7D in favor of a 5D MkIII. The Mk II and Mk III work much better together; but I prioritize the MkIII for low light and sports, obviously.
Last weekend I did a motorsports shoot with the 70-200 on the MkIII and my 35mm Sigma on the Mk II. The results were staggeringly good, and the bodies and lenses a seamless match, with matching sharpness and colors.
Cool. I have always been happy with the colors on my 7D.
The 7D is a great camera especially when there is sufficient light. However if you shoot at iso 1600 and up, the image quality really lags behind a full frame camera.
Upvote
0
AprilForever said:
I agree that any 7D Mark II will be APS-C but to say that crop is better for nearly everything is wrong. It's not better for low-light and it's only good for reach and putting pixels on subject, when you are reach limited.
I hear a lot about how a FF/crop combo is the best for sports such as a 5D3/7D combo. While I agree it's convenient and useful, and ignoring price obviously, it would still be better to have a pair of 1Dx's with sufficient reach lenses. The 1Dx with the longer lens to make up for the 7D's crop factor will produce better IQ, at ALL ISO's. This is exactly why I ditched both of my 7D and 1D4 cameras in favor of a longer lens and another 1Dx. Again though, photography was helping fund a lot of that and had I been on my own, NO WAY I could have afforded that. So I agree with jrista and neuro regarding the cost factor regarding crop cameras. It really was the price difference between a 7D and 1D4 back in 2010 (even though technically the 1D4 is a "crop" camera).
With that being said, I really hope the 7D replacement is revolutionary and I think it will sell well and make a lot of people happy. I may consider it as a "3rd" camera if the specs are right and I have the funding.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
It's a cost factor, it's a weight factor, it's a mobility factor... These together display the impressive usefulness of APS-C... Hence, why the mirrorless crowd is cheering on their cameras, and saying things like "I'm so glad I ditched my full frame cameras". I've read that in several blogs. Full frame is too heavy. Larger cameras have their place, but it's a dwindling niche, if the camera companies will release full pro quality crop cameras. They have been holding out, because they want to push everyone to upgrade to full frame when they are done with their rebels, it seems.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
IMO this is exactly what Canon wants people to do. And it has succeeded. With out a good crop sensor camera the upgrade path is pretty well guaranteed with people that can afford it.
Same with Nikon.
The Nikon 810 FF is getting there. That camera just about does away with the crop sensor argument. I think the next 810 replacement will be the nail in the coffin for crop sensor cameras for Nikon users.
My problem is I have Canon gear. And I don't have a really good crop camera (except the aging IV). And I will not upgrade to the 600mm prime. Weight is my enemy. So what do I do? It is a real problem for me. The only thing holding me in the Canon camp now is the excellent 500mm glass.. Amazing build quality and sharpness.
If Nikon updates the 500mm lens. And Canon does not have a good answer to my particular problem and I expect thousands of others? I have a feeling many people will start to switch? I am just hoping Canon does not let this happen.
For birding 500mm is as big as I can go at my age.
I still have the mark IV and it is a great camera. But in a couple of years I will be ready for a new body. And I will look around at my options then and decide my best path.
Upvote
0
135 film cameras using the little button cells were just powering a TTL meter. The shutter was spring-driven, and the shutter was cocked by advancing the film with the thumb lever. Speaketh the user of a beloved all-manual Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000. It could be used without the battery. The meter gave out after many years, but all the camera functions worked.
I wouldn't mind if the 7D2 battery was upgraded to a higher voltage, but I imagine that that would mean more bulk or less capacity. The ability to drive a supertelephoto AF motor faster would be handy. My existing 400mm f/5.6L has very fast AF, but then again, not that much weight of glass is being moved. Different story with f/4 or f/2.8.
I wouldn't mind if the 7D2 battery was upgraded to a higher voltage, but I imagine that that would mean more bulk or less capacity. The ability to drive a supertelephoto AF motor faster would be handy. My existing 400mm f/5.6L has very fast AF, but then again, not that much weight of glass is being moved. Different story with f/4 or f/2.8.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Aye. There is that too! That is probably the single most important factor for crop...reach would be secondary, although still very important. (Heh, I rarely take cost into account...only time I really have is the 1D X...so I usually don't care about cost.)
Upvote
0
AprilForever said:
So, better for everything... except image quality. For smallish, lightish and cheap, APS-C can certainly do a great job if you're not after the ultimate in dslr image quality (during the past year I bought a SL1 for c. $450, the Canon 10-18 for $300 and the Sigma 18-250mm macro for $260; together they don't weigh much and, for the price, the image quality is very impressive - in many circumstances it could be all anyone needs).
But you're not going to gain much, if anything, if you choose the "pro" route, unless manufacturers change their notions of what "pro" lenses can be for APS-C, or unless you consider APS-C lenses to be pro quality already (for many purposes they probably are). Professional quality long zooms and telephoto lenses are all designed for FF, and attaching them to a smaller body doesn't make much difference in weight. At present, if you really want smaller, lighter lenses, M43 is the best solution, though even at their best they may not qualify as "pro" quality (though there are pros that use M43).
On the other hand, FF needn't be big and heavy or even that expensive: depending on what you shoot, Sony A7/A7r/A7s and a few primes (the native ones are light), may be enough. Plus, the A7 costs barely more, if at all, than its top-tier mirrorless m43 and APS-C mirrorless rivals and, I expect, less than the 7DII will cost.
So, who knows?
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
I think that would be mirrorless vs. DSLR argument. My 7D is roughly the same size as my 5D III. Slightly thinner, slightly taller. Overall they weigh about the same, feel about the same, work mostly the same, the major differences are the AF system, frame rate, and frame size. I wouldn't say the 7D is more portable than the 5D III, though.
Upvote
0
I would love to see a 7D mkII with better AF (like 5DmkIII or 1Dx with better battery) and less noise compared the 7D. However, as I'm going to Zimbabwe and Victoria Falls in October, I yesterday pulled the trigger.
My new baby is called 1Dx. A new love for wildlife and sports. I keep the 5Diii as backup and for portrait and landscape.
So, a new 7D mk II is only in planning if it is a real good body with excellent AF and a good noise performance. Only then the extra reach of the crop would drive me to invest in a 7D mk II.
My new baby is called 1Dx. A new love for wildlife and sports. I keep the 5Diii as backup and for portrait and landscape.
So, a new 7D mk II is only in planning if it is a real good body with excellent AF and a good noise performance. Only then the extra reach of the crop would drive me to invest in a 7D mk II.
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
Either way, the mirrorless cameras get about a third the battery life (~150 photos per 6.3 Wh charge) of DSLRs (~1000 photos per 12.96 Wh charge), because the power cost of lighting an LCD panel while shooting completely dwarfs the mechanical cost of flipping the mirror and moving the shutter.
Factor that into your portability equation. If I shot mirrorless, I'd burn through an average of five or six batteries per day while on vacation, versus one on my 6D. That pretty much balances out the weight difference by itself.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
