7D mark 2 crop vs full frame

[Sporgon]

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.

That's a good point. I've just returned from a trip (trying) to get a shot of the Giant's Causeway in Ireland. I'd been down the evening before when it was deserted but light was really poor. Went the next day and there were hundreds of people there from many coaches. Seemed to be mostly American and Japanese tourists, everyone taking pictures on either a smartphone or Nikon DSLR. Didn't see a single mirrorless. (Didn't see a single Canon DSLR either ! )

Using a prism and mirror to see through the lens doesn't require any energy does it ? What a clever idea !

 

[AprilForever]

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.

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.

Agreed. IMO, the main thing at which a crop sensor is better is being in a more affordable camera body.

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.)

and portability.... I must confess to being tempted by the M for portability.....

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.

The lenses are more portable... Or, could be, if canon would actually make anything beyond 18-xmm zooms... Mirrorless is seriously catching up here...

And as far an 7D lacking IQ, the answer is exposure to the right. With good exposure practices, the 7D performs quite well at 3200... At 6400, things get sketchy, b ut are rescuable with care. Compared to the 5D MK III the 7D will surely look bad, but it is merely showing its age.

And, I love 7D color! I almost never change it, and I always use AWB. I may occassionally tweak shadow color, or selectively saturate a color, but overall, it does great!

 

[bdunbar79]

Speaking from a sports shooter only:

The frustrating thing about the 7D is that Canon said it was for sports shooters and...The 7D pretty much sucks at ISO 800 and higher. I would know because I tried to shoot in the trenches with it for indoor basketball and volleyball for 2 years with a 1D4 as the main camera. The 1D4 kicked it's a$$ but I needed the reach. I guess my standards were high but it was awful. Shooting to the right doesn't always work. If you're at f/2.8, or worse, f/2.2, 1/500s, and still at ISO 3200 or 6400, there's nothing you can do. You can shoot to the right or whatever you call it but the only option is to slow down your shutter speed and now you have blurry athletes. Since I pretty much always shoot indoor sports wide open or close to wide open (depending on lens f/2.2 or f/2.8 ) at 1/500s and EC +2/3EV with CWA or spot metering, this was a real pain with the 7D. It wasn't as bad with a 1D4 and not nearly as good as FF.

When you went to FF, all of the problems were solved. That's what was so great. We could blow up action shots at ISO 6400 for the universities and print them, no problem. The 7D replacement really needs an improved sensor. In the collegiate scene I rarely see any cropped cameras anymore; it's all 1D4 (cropped), 5D3, and 1Dx. In fact, I did all three each of the D1, D2, D3 NCAA Track Meets this year and it was unusual in that most shooters had either a 5D3 or 1Dx. In years past that wasn't true as I saw plenty of 50D's, 7D's, 1D4's. Oddly, not this year.

Mirrorless will really have to improve to appeal to action shooters too. The AF is so erratic and slow it's just well, plain awful. I think the concept has potential though for other things. Just not for me.

Due to all of this, I will be watching the 7D's replacement very anxiously to see how it performs. If it performs decently with a better AF system, I will buy one and use it outdoors, for sure. I still don't think (my opinion) that it's going to match FF though.

On the other hand, I agree with the frustrations FF brings, meaning now you need longer lenses and a more expensive camera. It can be quite cost prohibitive.