Rocky said:
jdramirez said:
Rocky said:
tiger82 said:
Rocky said:
If Canon bring back the APS-H, It must be in the niche market and meet the following requirement.
1. Smaller than the 6D for portability
2. Same pixel density(or even smaller) than the 1Dx for low light/high ISO performance.
3. Very fast FPS for sports photographer due to lower MP.
4. At least half of the price of 1Dx
Question is at this day of age, how many photographer can live with a 10 to 12 mp camera as a general purpose camera?
Why does it have to be smaller than the 6D when you're going to be hanging big whites off it?
I think a 7D size 24+MP APS-H body would be attractive since the 1D4 is 16MP and $3500 complements the current line alongside the 5D3
Why it has to be paired with the Big White. It can also pair with the shorty 40 To be carried around as "king of low light" for family event.
I think someone is confusing what they would like it to be versus where it should fall in regards to performance within the lineup.
I don't see a aps-c/h having better low light performance than the current full frame models for at least 10 years... but maybe I'm being pessimistic...
APS-H Does not fit the existing line up either. You already have 6D as low cost FF, 5DIII as mid range FF then the 1DX at the top, 7D as top APS-C. Where does the APS-H fit in??? So if I want a APS-H I need to think outside of the box and propose what I WANT. I agree that my proposal does not fit the existing line up. So is a general APS-H proposal without any substance.
At least my proposed APS-H have a chance to beat or equal to the 1DX in terms of low light and frame rate with the portability of the 6D. What more can I ask for? Only draw back is that it has a low MP count. But Sony has just done that. There must be someone out there want such type of camera. The existing APS-C cannot match the FF in low light is due to the MP race. With the same technology and same pixel density( read it as pixel size), the APS-C will equal the FF in low light.
Sorry, but that isn't quite how it works. Pixel size isn't actually what matters when it comes to noise performance. Total sensor area is really, ultimately what matters. When it comes to equal framing, larger SENSOR will win every time. Assuming a reduced output size, if comparing on a normalized basic, pixel count, then, doesn't really matter. Two full-frame sensors with equivalent technology will gather the same amount of light for an equally framed subject. A full-frame sensor and an APS-H sensor with equivalent technology will NOT gather the same amount of light
for an equally framed subject.
This is where equivalence comes into play. To produce identical output (same framing, same image size, same overall noise), which is possible when comparing FF with APS-H, assuming equal sensor/pixel technology and equal pixel counts, the FF sensor would need a 2/3rd stop
higher ISO setting. The fact that the FF sensor would require a 2/3rds stop HIGHER ISO setting to become equivalent to the APS-H is indicative of it's superiority...as at the SAME ISO, the FF sensor's noise would be lower. Ignoring pixel size, assuming you downsample to the same output image size, pixel size becomes irrelevant as far as noise is concerned...the only thing that really matters is total sensor area, which affects the total amount of light gathered.
The big thing that changes from generation to generation of sensors with the same sensor size is Quantum Efficiency. For generation of sensors now, Q.E. consistently improves. With higher Q.E., more light is gathered in any unit time by any given sensor area. Two FF sensors of differing generations will not perform the same. Usually, the newer generation will gather more light in a given amount of time, therefor performing better. This is another key factor for high ISO performance...higher Q.E. means more REAL sensitivity, allowing a lower gain setting to be used, which results in less noise. Other technological changes can affect read noise (which only affects the deep shadows), color noise (again, deep shadows), dark current (again, mostly deep shadows except for very long exposures in very dim light...i.e. astrophotography), etc. But for the most part, these sources of noise are trivial in comparison to photon shot noise, which is primarily affected by total sensor area and quantum efficiency.
Smaller pixels are still meaningful in the big picture. Smaller pixels means more spatial resolution...more detail. If you are reach-limited, then you are, by definition, incapable of achieving the same framing with the same camera and lens with a larger sensor. At that point, then pixel size becomes a truly significant factor. As smaller sensors tend to have smaller pixels, this is the area where APS-H and APS-C sensors have a practical, and practiced, advantage over FF. They resolve more detail, for a given area of sensor, than FF. Since it's the same total sensor area, regardless of total sensor size, that is involved here, the total amount of noise for the area of interest in the frame (regardless of frame size) will have the same general levels of noise (all else being equal...i.e. same sensor technology, same generation.) Crop the same physical area (say 7mmx5mm) from any sensor frame regardless of the total size, sample to the same image dimensions, and smaller pixels will resolve more detail at the same noise levels.
