7DII and D400 Specs
- Thread starter unfocused
- Start date
- Status
What's the point in pondering the 7d2 and D400 pthhhh I hold it in good authority the D500 will absolutely rock but fall just short of the 7d3! Of course, the 5d4 and D900 will beat them both soundly, but to each their own.
Upvote
0
rs said:
Once again, this rhetoric keeps cropping up and it is completely incorrect! NEVER, in ANY CASE, is more megapixels bad because of diffraction!
That is so frequently quoted, and it is so frequently wrong. To quote myself:jrista said:
The 7D has frequently been the target of the mythical diffraction softening problem and the outresolves all lenses possible problem on internet forums. I never specifically understood why my 7D was soft until I got my hands on some rental EF 300mm f/2.8 L II, 500mm f/2.8 L II, and 600mm f/2.8 L II lenses. I've used the 300 with 1.4x and 2x TC III's, and the 500 with the 1.4x TC III. IS in all cases was stellar, very sharp and clear, with the one exception being a little bit of visible CA with the 300+2x III. Despite the CA, here is an example (full "crop" and 1:1 pixel peeper on the head) of the 7D with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II + EF 2x TC III. The aperture used was f/9, so diffraction has definitely "set in" and is visible given the 7D's f/6.9 DLA. The subject, in this case a Juvenile Baird's Sandpiper, comprised only the center 25% of the frame, and the 300 f/2.8 II w/ 2x TC STILL did a superb job resolving a LOT of detail:
Final crop (Center 25% of frame):
100% Zoom (1:1 pixel peeping):
The difference between the 7D with my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L and the Mark II generation telephoto lenses was night and day. It was completely clear to me that the "softness" was purely the ancient lens design (which, at this point, is over a decade for the 100-400), and that Canon's newest generation of lenses thoroughly outperform the 7D's already high-density sensor. In the case of the 100-400mm lens, the softness was not actually due to diffraction...wide open, it was due to optical aberrations, as at f/5.6 an ideal 100-400 should outresolve the sensor. The 100-400mm is just not a super-sharp lens wide open, and it only reaches ideal performance at f/7.1 (at the cost of additional noise and deeper DOF).
I have further examples of the resolving power of Canon's newest Mark II generation of lenses, at least the telephoto lengths. Given my experience with the 500mm @ 700mm with the 1.4x TC, I have no doubt that a 24mp APS-C 7D with any current-generation lens (such as the forthcoming EF 200-400mm, the new EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L, or a potential EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L replacement for the current 100-400) they will handily resolve enough detail for a 24mp sensor at apertures wider than f/6. A modernized 100-400 at f/5.6 that sports an MTF around 0.9 should be capable of very sharply resolving detail, even on a 24mp APS-C.
Upvote
0
rs said:
To quote myself again, simply to show a visual comparison between the 500mm f/4 L II and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L on the 7D:
jrista said:jrista said:
To put some images behind my claims. Below are two photos of House Finches. One is the normal red morph, the other an orange morph. Same bird, otherwise, same size (maybe a slight size benefit to the orange morph) with the same amount of base detail...feathers, beak, eye. Both of these were shot at pretty much the same distance (around 7 feet...red morph maybe a few inches farther), ISO, and aperture, although the red one was up in a tree so my focal plane was shifted a bit, thus slightly blurring the top of its head and the back of its right wing. The body feathers and beaks are in focus on both birds. Both birds were positioned within the same rough area of the lens...slightly off center towards the upper left corner. Both full-scene images below are cropped to roughly the same area (few pixels difference in width and height).
Both photos shot with my 7D, ISO 400, f/6.3, in my backyard. The red morph was shot with my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens with a full stop of additional light at twice the shutter speed (1/1600s, which should be an IQ advantage!) The orange morph was shot with a rented EF 500mm f/4 L IS II. Both lenses had AFMA adjustments for this body.
Here are the full images, scaled down to 900 pixels. Even at this level, you can see the difference in quality between the two photos can be seen. The orange morph is sharper and clearer (probably thanks to better microcontrast.)
At 100% crop (1:1 zoom, PIXEL PEEPING for all you pixel peepers!), the difference in IQ is beyond clear. The 100-400mm lens produces far softer results (even ignoring the slightly out of focus crest on the red morph). This kind of softness is what I've come to expect from the 100-400mm lens at less than f/8, and beyond f/8 diffraction again softens the image. (There is roughly the same amount of noise in both photos. It is more apparent in the red morph due to the increased lens softness, which blurs detail but does NOT blur noise. Clear, sharp detail tends to trump noise.The background in the red morph also provides a greater area of <= 18% gray tone, where noise becomes most apparent...the orange morph has a greater area of pixels > 18% tone.)
Scaled down to web size, the red morph photo is good enough. Most people won't notice the slight softness. From a print standpoint, I probably would not print the red morph photo, however the orange morph photo is definitely printable. It is not only printable, it could also easily be blown up two, maybe three times larger, and still be high quality, even higher quality than the red morph photo printed at original size!
I think the visual evidence speaks to itself regarding the sharpness and quality of, say, the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II lens (or any Mark II telephoto lens from Canon.) Canon is not releasing new lenses for the bulk of their lens lineup just for the heck of it. They are releasing new lenses to support their DSLR business for the next decade or two! The addition of IS or throwing in a Fluorite element here and there in the past were only minor updates on decades-old lens designs, and the impact to MTF charts was always minor. This is the first time since Canon introduced the EF mount that they are radically redesigning their L-series lenses to not only be lighter and more ergonomically ideal, but to significantly improve the MTF (resolving power/IQ) of each, as well as improve the AF circuitry to support much more advanced AF units that have found their way into the 1D X and 5D III (and, hopefully, the 7D II). In the past, even some of Canon's best lenses were still only in the range of 0.7 to 0.8 at best, and a bare few ever approached the vaunted 1.0 (the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L comes to mind as the prime example). The lenses released over the last few years, as well as those yet to be released or updated, all produce or will most likely produce MTFs well above 0.9 at best, and the Mark II telephoto lenses all approach 1.0 from center to nearly the edge.
I have no doubt in my mind that Canon is paving the way for 24mp+ APS-C sensors and 60-70mp FF sensors down the road. An extensive lens-lineup upgrade like they are doing is not just on a whim...they NEED the improvements to support the future DSLR, and a 24mp 7D II is probably only the beginning. Personally, I'm very much looking forward to a 24mp APS-C pro-grade camera from Canon. If they manage to achieve similar ISO gains as the 1D X has, it will be an astonishing camera indeed. At 10fps w/ a 61pt AF system on the 7D II, Nikon...who as of yet has not shown much interest in updating the bulk of their lens lineup to support their 24mp APS-C sensors or 36mp FF sensors, won't have anything that will solidly compete with it!
Upvote
0
rs said:
Once again, resolution does not work like this. First, diffraction is not a hard limit. Second, even at extreme apertures where diffraction approximates a hard limit, a higher resolution sensor will still yield superior results. Why? Because the resolution of a system is not the weakest link in the chain. It is computed from a formula using all the links and is always less than the weakest one. Increasing any link results in a higher final resolution, but the final resolution is always less than the weakest component.
Practically speaking the increase may not matter outside of a lab. And for 18 vs. 24 MP I'm guessing it won't matter much outside of a lab test even at f/2.8. But putting a higher resolution component in the chain will never result in worse performance.
I hate the term DLA because it's inaccurate and it conveys the idea of a "hard limit" that goes down as the sensor resolution goes up. It is not at all consistent with the science of optics. And it plays off another issue in general conversation: the portrayal of resolution as a single number. It's not a single number. It's an MTF curve. Your comment "it's sill just blur" illustrates the problem. The 7D is "diffraction limited" at f/6.9. The way you describe this, f/8 produces "blur." The reality is that detail with X contrast at f/6.9 has some value <X contrast at f/8, and can be restored to X contrast with sharpening. I can make f/6.9, f/8, and f/11 24" prints all day long and you won't be able to tell me which is which.
At some point detail is truly lost, i.e. contrast of 0%. But the point is not immediately past the DLA.
I've seen convincing arguments for 100-200 MP FF sensors, assuming technology allows you to hold the line on noise/DR. Why? Because of another point that's not reflected in simple DLA numbers tossed around on the web: the impact of diffraction is different for different wavelengths of light. And if your sensor design + RAW software takes this into consideration, it can maximize the detail recovered. We will eventually see that point in digital camera design.
Which counterparts are you thinking of?
I'll agree that 18 vs. 24 MP is not a very big deal and is driven by marketing. But sensor resolution is not limited by diffraction in the way you think it is. And we will see even higher resolutions in the future. If a jump could be made today to 35 or 40 MP while holding the line on noise/DR, it would produce observably better prints.
Upvote
0
Nice pics and you made some very compelling/interesting points ... thanks for sharing.jrista said:rs said:
To quote myself again, simply to show a visual comparison between the 500mm f/4 L II and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L on the 7D:
jrista said:jrista said:
To put some images behind my claims. Below are two photos of House Finches. One is the normal red morph, the other an orange morph. Same bird, otherwise, same size (maybe a slight size benefit to the orange morph) with the same amount of base detail...feathers, beak, eye. Both of these were shot at pretty much the same distance (around 7 feet...red morph maybe a few inches farther), ISO, and aperture, although the red one was up in a tree so my focal plane was shifted a bit, thus slightly blurring the top of its head and the back of its right wing. The body feathers and beaks are in focus on both birds. Both birds were positioned within the same rough area of the lens...slightly off center towards the upper left corner. Both full-scene images below are cropped to roughly the same area (few pixels difference in width and height).
Both photos shot with my 7D, ISO 400, f/6.3, in my backyard. The red morph was shot with my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens with a full stop of additional light at twice the shutter speed (1/1600s, which should be an IQ advantage!) The orange morph was shot with a rented EF 500mm f/4 L IS II. Both lenses had AFMA adjustments for this body.
Here are the full images, scaled down to 900 pixels. Even at this level, you can see the difference in quality between the two photos can be seen. The orange morph is sharper and clearer (probably thanks to better microcontrast.)
At 100% crop (1:1 zoom, PIXEL PEEPING for all you pixel peepers!), the difference in IQ is beyond clear. The 100-400mm lens produces far softer results (even ignoring the slightly out of focus crest on the red morph). This kind of softness is what I've come to expect from the 100-400mm lens at less than f/8, and beyond f/8 diffraction again softens the image. (There is roughly the same amount of noise in both photos. It is more apparent in the red morph due to the increased lens softness, which blurs detail but does NOT blur noise. Clear, sharp detail tends to trump noise.
Scaled down to web size, the red morph photo is good enough. Most people won't notice the slight softness. From a print standpoint, I probably would not print the red morph photo, however the orange morph photo is definitely printable. It is not only printable, it could also easily be blown up two, maybe three times larger, and still be high quality, even higher quality than the red morph photo printed at original size!
I think the visual evidence speaks to itself regarding the sharpness and quality of, say, the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II lens (or any Mark II telephoto lens from Canon.) Canon is not releasing new lenses for the bulk of their lens lineup just for the heck of it. They are releasing new lenses to support their DSLR business for the next decade or two! The addition of IS or throwing in a Fluorite element here and there in the past were only minor updates on decades-old lens designs, and the impact to MTF charts was always minor. This is the first time since Canon introduced the EF mount that they are radically redesigning their L-series lenses to not only be lighter and more ergonomically ideal, but to significantly improve the MTF (resolving power/IQ) of each, as well as improve the AF circuitry to support much more advanced AF units that have found their way into the 1D X and 5D III (and, hopefully, the 7D II). In the past, even some of Canon's best lenses were still only in the range of 0.7 to 0.8 at best, and a bare few ever approached the vaunted 1.0 (the original EF 300mm f/2.8 L comes to mind as the prime example). The lenses released over the last few years, as well as those yet to be released or updated, all produce or will most likely produce MTFs well above 0.9 at best, and the Mark II telephoto lenses all approach 1.0 from center to nearly the edge.
I have no doubt in my mind that Canon is paving the way for 24mp+ APS-C sensors and 60-70mp FF sensors down the road. An extensive lens-lineup upgrade like they are doing is not just on a whim...they NEED the improvements to support the future DSLR, and a 24mp 7D II is probably only the beginning. Personally, I'm very much looking forward to a 24mp APS-C pro-grade camera from Canon. If they manage to achieve similar ISO gains as the 1D X has, it will be an astonishing camera indeed. At 10fps w/ a 61pt AF system on the 7D II, Nikon...who as of yet has not shown much interest in updating the bulk of their lens lineup to support their 24mp APS-C sensors or 36mp FF sensors, won't have anything that will solidly compete with it!
Upvote
0
I'm not saying its worse, its just the extra MP don't make any difference to the resolving power once diffraction has set in. Take another example - scan a photo which was a bit blurry - if a 600dpi scan looks blurry on screen at 100%, you wouldn't then think 'let's find out if anyone makes a 10,000dpi scanner so I can make this look sharper?' You'd know it would offer no advantages - at that point you're resolving more detail than is available - weakest link in the chain and all that...jrista said:Once again, this rhetoric keeps cropping up and it is completely incorrect! NEVER, in ANY CASE, is more megapixels bad because of diffraction!
You've got some great shots there, very impressivejrista said:
- and it clearly does show the difference between good glass and great glass. But the f9 300 II + 2x shot isn't 100% pixel sharp like your native 500/4 shot is. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the shot - it's great, and the detail there is still great. Its just not 18MP of perfection great. A 15MP sensor wouldn't have resolved any less detail behind that lens, but that wouldn't have made a 15MP shot any better. This thread is clearly going off on a tangent here, as pixel peeping is rarely anything to do with what makes a great photo - its just we are debating whether the extra MP are worth it. And just to re-iterate, great shots jrista 
While sharpening has the potential to be OK in moderation, just don't take it too far. Its all down to personal taste of course, but I can't stand the output of compact cameras which are way beyond their diffraction limits and have the sharpness cranked all the way up to 11 to try to retain something, but instead they just create ugly halos around edges. Sharpening isn't perfect for recovering detail which isn't there. Something like this offers a glimpse of what might be possible in the future.dtaylor said:
However, back to the meaning of my original point, do we really need all these MP? Do you need 24MP from your crop camera? Its not like the early days of digital photography when there were real advantages of increasing the MP - going from the Canon D30 to the Canon D60 represented a very real improvement in quality - going from 3 to 6MP is a very real difference. Going from 18 to 36 MP isn't. We're at the point of diminishing returns now - especially as lenses and physics are now becoming limiting factors, and virtually no-one needs to print anything that big and that detailed. If you really do, a larger format than APS-C will yield more real life improvements at such high MP counts. Marketing is leading this drive into the unneeded.
10-22 and 17-55. Admittedly, the 10-22 does have the 17-40 beaten when it comes to detail at larger apertures in the corners, so to call the cheaper L lens comparable is debatable. But the 17-55/24-105 comparison is a good one. The 24-105 when used on FF goes wider, longer, offers more detail, is brighter (f2.8 on crop = f4.5 on FF), and (at least in the UK) cheaper. OK, its vaguely bigger and heavier, but you can't have everything...dtaylor said:
Upvote
0
rs said:
I've pointed out twice now that it actually does. This is not opinion, it's science that was worked out a long time ago. Optical resolution does not work the way the majority of people assume it works, with the weakest link "capping" or "limiting" the entire system to its resolution. The resolution of the total system is always lower than the weakest link. And increasing any component in the chain...not just the weakest...will increase total resolution. Whether the increase is practical and observable is another question entirely, but to wrap your mind around some questions in photography you have to understand how resolution actually works.
False analogy. Here you are changing the target resolution rather than the resolution of a component in the optical system.
I don't "need" it. But it's not going to hurt anything, and it's a step towards higher resolutions that will show noticeable improvements in the large prints I make. Under the best conditions, it might just improve my prints today.
Go ahead and compare 36" landscape prints from the 7D (or 5D2/3) and the D800 and say that.
As jrista points out, Canon is revamping their entire lens line because they know where this is heading. Moore's Law isn't going to stop because a few people claim they don't "need" higher resolutions. Granted there are ultimate physical limits, but the end of this road is probably 200 MP FF sensors and the equivalent APS-C sensors. The camera may pre process these images to smaller pixel dimensions for better file sizes, but it will use every pixel in doing so, and the resulting output will be stellar, a match for today's MFDBs.
Back when I bought my first DSLR, a 10D, you could have said a larger format would serve me better then incremental DSLR improvements. Except that those incremental improvements added up to a 7D that produces 24" prints to rival anything I've ever made or seen with 645 film. I say keep the improvements coming.
The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 really has the 17-40L beat, and is cheaper.
f/2.8 != f/4.5 on FF. I cannot shoot a crop body at f/2.8 and a FF body at f/4.5 and hold the same shutter and ISO. I realize what you're getting at (i.e. FF noise or shallow DoF), but it's still not the same. And I would argue the detail claim as well.
That said, they're basically the same price at B&H.
Upvote
0
rs said:I'm not saying its worse, its just the extra MP don't make any difference to the resolving power once diffraction has set in. Take another example - scan a photo which was a bit blurry - if a 600dpi scan looks blurry on screen at 100%, you wouldn't then think 'let's find out if anyone makes a 10,000dpi scanner so I can make this look sharper?' You'd know it would offer no advantages - at that point you're resolving more detail than is available - weakest link in the chain and all that...jrista said:Once again, this rhetoric keeps cropping up and it is completely incorrect! NEVER, in ANY CASE, is more megapixels bad because of diffraction!
dtaylor said:
I've explained with some math why what dtaylor is saying is correct. In order to avoid derailing this topic off the 7D vs. D400 specs discussion, lets move the discussion on diffraction and resolution in cameras like the 7D and 7D II to this thread (just follow the link for the quote):
jrista said:
Upvote
0
Regarding crop camera wide angle zooms, as I have said in other threads...the Canon 10-22 lens I rented was terrible in the outer 2/3 of the image at the wider end. No doubt there's a lot of sample variation.
I currently own the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (generation 1). It seems to have more CA than the one I rented in 2011. Again, sample variation.
As I have said before, they may be able to achieve supreme sharpness with $13,000 super telephoto lenses (although that puts an exponentially higher burden on the already compromised autofocus accuracy of a crop camera, in order to make use full use of that higher sharpness...for extreme cropped bird pics, etc.). But when it comes time to shoot a wide angle image with a 24 MP or higher crop sensor, good luck ever getting sharpness on the level that you could from the same pixel count via a full frame sensor and lens, taking in the same angle of view Never going to happen...not ever. If it did, the lens would cost more than full frame wide angle lenses, and yet not be designed for them. Again, never going to happen. We'll never see a wide angle zoom rectilinear lens, that goes to 10mm for a crop sensor camera, that will be sharp to the corners wide open, with no CA, and zero "decentering"...and somehow rival the best 14 or 15 mm wide angle full frame zoom. Not going to happen. If it did, it would cost $3500 or more. Who would pay that when it wouldn't even work on a full frame camera? Not many. Maybe some of the same people who buy high end micro 4/3 gear, or compact Panasonic cameras that get branded "Leica".
I currently own the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (generation 1). It seems to have more CA than the one I rented in 2011. Again, sample variation.
As I have said before, they may be able to achieve supreme sharpness with $13,000 super telephoto lenses (although that puts an exponentially higher burden on the already compromised autofocus accuracy of a crop camera, in order to make use full use of that higher sharpness...for extreme cropped bird pics, etc.). But when it comes time to shoot a wide angle image with a 24 MP or higher crop sensor, good luck ever getting sharpness on the level that you could from the same pixel count via a full frame sensor and lens, taking in the same angle of view Never going to happen...not ever. If it did, the lens would cost more than full frame wide angle lenses, and yet not be designed for them. Again, never going to happen. We'll never see a wide angle zoom rectilinear lens, that goes to 10mm for a crop sensor camera, that will be sharp to the corners wide open, with no CA, and zero "decentering"...and somehow rival the best 14 or 15 mm wide angle full frame zoom. Not going to happen. If it did, it would cost $3500 or more. Who would pay that when it wouldn't even work on a full frame camera? Not many. Maybe some of the same people who buy high end micro 4/3 gear, or compact Panasonic cameras that get branded "Leica".
Upvote
0
CarlTN said:
Oh please. jrista's point about Canon updating their lenses is well taken. But there are plenty of lenses which can produce tack sharp results on crop without a $13k price tag. Canon is updating cheaper lenses as well. As sharp as I thought my 70-200 f/4L was, the 70-200 f/4L IS takes it up a notch, just like jrista's experience with mark II L super telephotos. And it's not $13k.
Except that it already happens with Sony/Nikon 24 MP sensors, top notch glass, and a little USM.
I'll gladly pit a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (good sample) against a Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (good sample).
You keep using that word 'never'. I don't think it means what you think it means ;D
For people who think crop will 'never' do this or 'never' do that, you better spend some time looking at the world of biology. Because eyeballs, both human and animal, routinely do things that you say much larger crop sensors should 'never' be able to do. If our eyes do it, then it's physically possible, and you're a fool to bet against the march of technology and Moore's Law when it comes to the physically possible.
When DSLRs first hit the scene I heard repeatedly that a DSLR would 'never' out resolve 35mm film (happened at 12-15 MP); 'never' produce large prints that could rival MF film (happened with the 5D2, and then the 16/18 MP generation of crop sensors); and 'never' have DR like neg film (today's FF has more DR then all but a couple emulsions). When the 5D was popular I heard that crop would 'never' out resolve it or have better noise (again, happened with the 16/18 crop generation).
Unless a manufacturing break through renders crop obsolete by making FF just as cheap to build (doubtful, but never say never), we will see crop bodies in the future that out perform today's D800. And we will see even smaller sensors in P&S super zooms that rival today's DSLRs. Not if. When. I guarantee you that designers will exploit every advantage they can get as time goes on, including lenses that change shape, liquid lenses that can alter their characteristics like an LCD can alter its display, super dense sensors, custom in camera processors that put today's best graphics cards to shame, etc, etc. We may even see biologically grown sensors, at which point MF might be as cheap as today's Rebels, shattering another 'never'.
So tell me again what's 'never' going to happen. It amuses me.
Upvote
0
dtaylor said:
What amuses me is people who shoot their mouth off but offer no proof. Put up pics you've shot with both lenses, and with a Sony Nex, or whatever you're using...that "proves" it's as sharp as say, a 15mm Zeiss f/2.8 on a D600.
As for the 70-200 IS being sharper than the non IS, I have the non-IS, and it's awfully sharp. I'll put mine up against yours any day of the week young lad. Whoever's lens loses, has to buy the winner a chess set made of all the Nikon and Canon supertelephoto lenses...oh, and we exchange wives and/or girlfriends...and mistresses, for a month...yours won't be coming home after they've played chess with me! If I lose...well...I keep my harem chained in an underground lair out in the woods...they aren't really allowed to leave...but I'll send you my neighbor's wife.
Upvote
0
??? :-\- Status