I agree. It is best for static subjects. Which means the 7DII has some use after all!Indeed it does, but what it doesn't do is record the cropped frames at anywhere near the speed of the 7D Mark II - even when using crop mode.
Upvote
0
I agree. It is best for static subjects. Which means the 7DII has some use after all!Indeed it does, but what it doesn't do is record the cropped frames at anywhere near the speed of the 7D Mark II - even when using crop mode.
Don't forget to put a 500 or 600mm in front of your iphone to shoot birds!At what point does a phone become a better tool than a crop sensor SLR? I'd take the just released iPhone over a 7D2. More useful. If you want to use a small sensor, you may as well use a small sensor with a load of advantages.
I'm thinking that there won't be a 7d mark iii.
Mirrorless is obviously where canon is heading with its lens development, except for the big primes. And if one can afford a big prime, I think canon might be happy with them also having to buy a 1dx-class ef-mount body. How many people really need 10fps, and who don't have the money for a 1dx mark II? Many in the fps crowd also have a 500, 600 or 200-400mm lens.
At the moment the 7dii makes a lot of sense with the 100-400, but how much money is canon going to make from that segment in the next 5 years? My hunch is that a lot of people in that segment also use their camera for other photography, and might like to put their cash towards a mirrorless camera to take advantage of the new lenses, too.
At what point does a phone become a better tool than a crop sensor SLR? I'd take the just released iPhone over a 7D2. More useful. If you want to use a small sensor, you may as well use a small sensor with a load of advantages.
Question: Whilst I can't argue with those thoughts (don't know enough about it) would Canon be able to compensate for that lack of tech by throwing a stack of grunt into the camera? Even if they have to do a you get those extra fps's only with a battery pack which I wouldn't be averse too.
The question why does ANYONE want to use crop sensor cameras in 2018? Is it the lower IQ or sacrificed DOF ability that they love so much?
The question why does ANYONE want to use crop sensor cameras in 2018? Is it the lower IQ or sacrificed DOF ability that they love so much?
very simple. Me: EOS M + EF-M for size/weight and price/value.
Also got a 5D3 mirrorslapper and EF L glass, regret ever having purchased it. Too big, too fat, too heavy, too conspicuous ["cameras are not allowed here!"], way too expensive, way too noisy (classical music concerts/church etc.) , and "way too expensive" to risk damage on URBEX excursions or city trips.
EOS M has close to 50k shutter actuations. 5D3 has less than 5000. Any questions?
Yeah, if you’re going to talk about extreme use, sure. But it’s amazing that. I can now take 80% of my photos with my iPhone and have pretty good pictures. We know it’s not equal to a big camera, and that’s not the point.Don't forget to put a 500 or 600mm in front of your iphone to shoot birds!
iPhone costs more than many APS-C DSLR kits....Yeah, if you’re going to talk about extreme use, sure. But it’s amazing that. I can now take 80% of my photos with my iPhone and have pretty good pictures. We know it’s not equal to a big camera, and that’s not the point.
The question is why does ANYONE want to use a FF sensor in 2018. Crop sensors have become so good that there is virtually no difference in IQ when I print up to 8" x 12". And I can't get shots with FF that have enough DOF when shooting flowers and similar close up work.
Of course, I understand the advantages of FF, and am interested in the new R system, but the advantages of crop are many including greater reach, greater DOF, smaller size and weight (very important) and perhaps most important...COST.
The iPhone also does far more than a camera does, so it’s worth more to a lot of people.iPhone costs more than many APS-C DSLR kits....
Comparing Apples to Oranges maybe?The iPhone also does far more than a camera does, so it’s worth more to a lot of people.
Because there are people who print much larger than that small size.
I just don’t get why people think that’s what good for them is good for everyone else.
Something I just considered while reading through this post--it wasn't long ago that the Canon sports cameras were all 1.3x crop. What if the future mirrorless 7D is a 1.3x crop sports camera, with 1.6x digital crop mode as well? That would definitely be a bridge between 1.6x EF-M mirrorless and full-frame RF mirrorless.
My own disclaimer is, I never really particularly got the appeal of a 1.3x sensor, but it was obviously part of the business model for a while.
All that said, my biggest focus right now is on a pro EOS-R. I would love to have my long glass on my 1DX Mark II and have the 28-70mm f/2L on a dual-slot CFast /SD 7-10 FPS(with tracking) EOS-R. All of my photos end up at 2 mp by the time they make it into the newspaper's filing system, so the only real spec that matters to me is getting the photo in the first place, between FPS, autofocus, battery and weathersealing. At a bare minimum, I need the FPS with tracking to beat my 5DIII before I could make that plunge.
The 1.3 crop APS-H offered no advantages as far as I could tell other than a stop gap on the way to the first FF bodies - all lenses are EF so designed for FF sensors so there is no saving on APS-H specific lenses. Pixel density on the 7D2 and the 5DSR is the same and it is that that determines 'reach' (god, how I hate that word in this context) so beloved of wildlifers not sensor size.
It won't come back because there is no reason for it to exist.