Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3]

[Loswr]

The way the d-pad works on the 60D is far less intuitive than the joystick. It would not translate into the 19 point system at all. The 8 positions on the d-pad are the outer spots and the inner is the "set" button. So you can select AF points directly (i.e. without scrolling with the wheel), but it takes some getting used to.

FWIW, the 6D has the d-pad, but with 10 peripheral points instead of 8, there's not a 1:1 correspondence between direction and a specific point. It still seems to work. I'm sure they could do it with a 19-pt AF, although I agree that a joystick would be better. But I bet we'll see the d-pad, and no joystick, on the 70D.

 

[whothafunk]

Wow really expensive, here in France we can buy a new one for 1100€...

I think he was saying the new 7D, meaning when they first came out...

New 7D had a price tag of 1699EUR in Slovenia

Note that he stated: "HAD" not has... But I can't be sure...

Yes, when it first came out. Still, vendors nowadays want approx. 1239 EUR for the 7D. If 5D Mark III were $2500 as it is in the US, I would have had it a long time ago. It's 2990 EUR ($3900).

 

[Loswr]

DxO measures the ability of a lens to deliver a quality image. To whit, the 50/1.8 can deliver a higher quality image for than the 600/4.0. Both lenses can be good lenses and deliver exceptional IQ but it is perfectly ok for one lens (even a cheaper lens) to be better than the other for a given purpose.

Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it is bad or low quality, similarly, just because something is expensive doesn't make it high quality.

If you believe that represents a general measure of image quality, you probably think a lens is a camera. Oh wait, you actually do think that...

I should point that I'm not bashing DxOMark - I find their measurements very useful (notwithstanding the few occasions where they've clearly gotten a bad copy of a lens and pretended that didn't happen).

Specifically, in the case of the 50/1.8 vs. 600/4 II comparison, if you actually look at the optical measurements, the 600/4 II is sharper, has less distortion, less vignetting, and less CA. The only metric on which the 50/1.8 outscores the 600/4 II is on transmission, and the way DxOMark weights the scores, that means the 50/1.8 gets a better overall score (and while their measurements are useful, their overall scores are totally useless, IMO).

People who just look at the top line number and make assumptions about what that means, with no attempt to understand the rationale behind that number, are unfortunately easily deceived (and maybe that's intentional on DxO's part?).

To say that the higher score of the 50/1.8 means it delivers 'better image quality' is ludicrous. The 50/1.8's higher score simply means it lets in more light...which is pretty obvious from the specified max aperture of the lens.

 

[Krob78]

DxO measures the ability of a lens to deliver a quality image. To whit, the 50/1.8 can deliver a higher quality image for than the 600/4.0. Both lenses can be good lenses and deliver exceptional IQ but it is perfectly ok for one lens (even a cheaper lens) to be better than the other for a given purpose.

Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it is bad or low quality, similarly, just because something is expensive doesn't make it high quality.

If you believe that represents a general measure of image quality, you probably think a lens is a camera. Oh wait, you actually do think that...

I should point that I'm not bashing DxOMark - I find their measurements very useful (notwithstanding the few occasions where they've clearly gotten a bad copy of a lens and pretended that didn't happen).

Specifically, in the case of the 50/1.8 vs. 600/4 II comparison, if you actually look at the optical measurements, the 600/4 II is sharper, has less distortion, less vignetting, and less CA. The only metric on which the 50/1.8 outscores the 600/4 II is on transmission, and the way DxOMark weights the scores, that means the 50/1.8 gets a better overall score (and while their measurements are useful, their overall scores are totally useless, IMO).

People who just look at the top line number and make assumptions about what that means, with no attempt to understand the rationale behind that number, are unfortunately easily deceived (and maybe that's intentional on DxO's part?).

To say that the higher score of the 50/1.8 means it delivers 'better image quality' is ludicrous. The 50/1.8's higher score simply means it lets in more light...which is pretty obvious from the specified max aperture of the lens.

To say that the higher score of the 50/1.8 means it delivers 'better image quality' is ludicrous. The 50/1.8's higher score simply means it lets in more light...which is pretty obvious from the specified max aperture of the lens.

Indeed, that is pretty obvious... As well, your remarks regarding purpose, quite pivotal with regard to the context of this discussion...

 

[Marsu42]

60D AF ----> Rebel.
7D AF ----> 70D

The base af is the same, but they do some tuning - for the 70d it'd be paramount that it's more precise than the 7d1 af (even 60d is better) and can use the enhanced precision of the latest Canon lenses like 70-300L & 24-70L2 ... the 5d3/1dx can, the 5d2-copy af 6d cannot, let's hope for the best concerning new crop releases.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Wow really expensive, here in France we can buy a new one for 1100€...

I think he was saying the new 7D, meaning when they first came out...

New 7D had a price tag of 1699EUR in Slovenia

Note that he stated: "HAD" not has... But I can't be sure...

Yes, when it first came out. Still, vendors nowadays want approx. 1239 EUR for the 7D. If 5D Mark III were $2500 as it is in the US, I would have had it a long time ago. It's 2990 EUR ($3900).

$2500 in the US? I am seriously wondering how people come up with this -- yeah you get your once in a while super sales through ebay, but the new price of the 5d3 is still above 3k. Even used and refurbs are all selling above $2600 (before buying my 6d I was hunting for the fabled $2500 mk3, and in 2 months of seaching the best i found was refurb for $2700)

 

[Krob78]

Wow really expensive, here in France we can buy a new one for 1100€...

I think he was saying the new 7D, meaning when they first came out...

New 7D had a price tag of 1699EUR in Slovenia

Note that he stated: "HAD" not has... But I can't be sure...

Yes, when it first came out. Still, vendors nowadays want approx. 1239 EUR for the 7D. If 5D Mark III were $2500 as it is in the US, I would have had it a long time ago. It's 2990 EUR ($3900).

$2500 in the US? I am seriously wondering how people come up with this -- yeah you get your once in a while super sales through ebay, but the new price of the 5d3 is still above 3k. Even used and refurbs are all selling above $2600 (before buying my 6d I was hunting for the fabled $2500 mk3, and in 2 months of seaching the best i found was refurb for $2700)

You're right Chuck! I got really lucky and got mine brand new for $2700 due to a friend wanting a 24-105mm kit lens and already owning a 5d3. I just let him know that I was buying a 5d3 and could order the kit if he wanted to pay for the lens... He bought it from me for just a little under the going retail at the time, leaving me with an excellent deal on my 5d MkIII.

That scenario worked out well for me and if someone puts an ad on in some of the forums, suggesting what they are trying to do, it can work out as a win-win for both parties, like it did for me!

 

[whothafunk]

Sorry, I could have sworn I see prices around 2500-2600 for the 5DIII here on CR every once in a while. Apologies

Either way, you still get it a LOT cheaper

 

[vlim]

Wow really expensive, here in France we can buy a new one for 1100€...
I think he was saying the new 7D, meaning when they first came out...
Quote
New 7D had a price tag of 1699EUR in Slovenia
Note that he stated: "HAD" not has... But I can't be sure...
Yes, when it first came out. Still, vendors nowadays want approx. 1239 EUR for the 7D. If 5D Mark III were $2500 as it is in the US, I would have had it a long time ago. It's 2990 EUR ($3900).

Sorry i misunderstood it, you're right

 

[Aglet]

Won't be surprised if 70d's sensor-system is only marginally improved over best recent 18MP unit for read noise performance. Canon will count on Digic 5's improved processing to get cleaner jpgs out of camera and maybe even DPP's algorithms will be able to pull a bit more from its raw files.
I doubt there is any major sensor improvement in this model but, even if it's a little bit better than the 60d, it'll be a welcome benefit. Combined with more AF points and the really handy articulating display, I might even buy one to replace my last 60d if DxOmark shows improved SNR at low ISO.

 

[Don Haines]

DxO measures the ability of a lens to deliver a quality image. To whit, the 50/1.8 can deliver a higher quality image for than the 600/4.0. Both lenses can be good lenses and deliver exceptional IQ but it is perfectly ok for one lens (even a cheaper lens) to be better than the other for a given purpose.

Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it is bad or low quality, similarly, just because something is expensive doesn't make it high quality.

If you believe that represents a general measure of image quality, you probably think a lens is a camera. Oh wait, you actually do think that...

I should point that I'm not bashing DxOMark - I find their measurements very useful (notwithstanding the few occasions where they've clearly gotten a bad copy of a lens and pretended that didn't happen).

Specifically, in the case of the 50/1.8 vs. 600/4 II comparison, if you actually look at the optical measurements, the 600/4 II is sharper, has less distortion, less vignetting, and less CA. The only metric on which the 50/1.8 outscores the 600/4 II is on transmission, and the way DxOMark weights the scores, that means the 50/1.8 gets a better overall score (and while their measurements are useful, their overall scores are totally useless, IMO).

People who just look at the top line number and make assumptions about what that means, with no attempt to understand the rationale behind that number, are unfortunately easily deceived (and maybe that's intentional on DxO's part?).

To say that the higher score of the 50/1.8 means it delivers 'better image quality' is ludicrous. The 50/1.8's higher score simply means it lets in more light...which is pretty obvious from the specified max aperture of the lens.

To say that the higher score of the 50/1.8 means it delivers 'better image quality' is ludicrous. The 50/1.8's higher score simply means it lets in more light...which is pretty obvious from the specified max aperture of the lens.

Indeed, that is pretty obvious... As well, your remarks regarding purpose, quite pivotal with regard to the context of this discussion...

And my original point was that it is flawed to use a single number to rate lenses.... We all rate the metrics differently because we have different constraints/needs. And I never said "better image quality", I said "better lens".... there is a big difference. If I want to take a picture of Fluffy the cat rubbing her head on my ankles, a 50F1.8 is the better lens. If I want to take a picture of a distant animal, the 600F4.0 is a better lens. Intended use is a far more important metric than the rated ones, but how can you put that metric into a table for everyone when the intended use differs so much? There is a limit to how much you can "dumb down" the information before it becomes useless... and a single ratings number is past that point.

In the 50F1.8 vs 600F4.0 comparison, the 600F4.0 lens beats the 50F1.8 in every metric except transmission... The way DXO chooses to weight the metrics gives a better score for the 50F1.8. The weighting that they have chosen biases the results so that a fast lens beats a slower lens... they obviously put great store on how fast a lens is.... this is thier bias... my bias is sharpness.... for someone else it might be weight... or cost.... or focusing distance.... or AF speed.... there is no easy answer and a single number rating is doomed to failure.

 

[pj1974]

The 70D will hopefully provide a lot of bang for the buck... which will hopefully help fuel a healthy and continuing competition between major DSLR manufacturers for a decently priced 7DmkII eventually.

I bought a 7D quite soon after it came out. I paid a premium for that (ie didn't wait for half a year to a year, till the price dropped)- but the photos I captured with it (and still do!) are worth every Aussie cent!

Oh yes, a quick PS... Please, people who think the 7DmkII will be an APS-H..... THAT SENSOR SIZE IS DEAD ALREADY!

Regards

Paul

 

[GmwDarkroom]

FWIW, the 6D has the d-pad, but with 10 peripheral points instead of 8, there's not a 1:1 correspondence between direction and a specific point. It still seems to work. I'm sure they could do it with a 19-pt AF, although I agree that a joystick would be better. But I bet we'll see the d-pad, and no joystick, on the 70D.

I haven't used the 6D, but I know the 60D would be more intuitive if the d-pad moved the selection -- which I assume is how they deal with more than 9 AF points -- instead of made the selection. Then, as if to complicate things with the mushy pad, toggle that point between all points and that point. When trying to jamb your thumb between your face and the camera while selecting through the viewfinder, it's really not great. Fortunately for my personal use, I am nearly always using the center point or all points, so it's an easy toggle using the set button.

Assuming I don't buy a 6D, I'm definitely going to have to change my ways for the next camera.

 

[pedro]

Wow really expensive, here in France we can buy a new one for 1100€...

I think he was saying the new 7D, meaning when they first came out...

New 7D had a price tag of 1699EUR in Slovenia

Note that he stated: "HAD" not has... But I can't be sure...

Yes, when it first came out. Still, vendors nowadays want approx. 1239 EUR for the 7D. If 5D Mark III were $2500 as it is in the US, I would have had it a long time ago. It's 2990 EUR ($3900).

$2500 in the US? I am seriously wondering how people come up with this -- yeah you get your once in a while super sales through ebay, but the new price of the 5d3 is still above 3k. Even used and refurbs are all selling above $2600 (before buying my 6d I was hunting for the fabled $2500 mk3, and in 2 months of seaching the best i found was refurb for $2700)

The 5D3's price tag should be considerably lower about 5 month from now, I also wonder what price tag a 7DII will get. Bought my 5D3 at a brick and mortar store, still paying CHF 3.5k. But there's no regrets. At USD 2.5k a 7DII must be an outstanding cam, as the FF 6D is even lower priced.

 

[pedro]

Sorry, I could have sworn I see prices around 2500-2600 for the 5DIII here on CR every once in a while. Apologies

Either way, you still get it a LOT cheaper

There was a rebate program, and I guess they did it on e-bay as well.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List

Semi-random thoughts:

Obviously Canon was B.S.ing when they said they couldn't have both a pop up flash and wi-fi on the 6D.

I don't remember reading that. I read that the reason was because of the larger pentaprism needed for the full frame.

I could be wrong. Can you cite where Canon said that Wifi was the reason for no flash on the 6D?

 

[marinien]

I predicted this like a year ago.

60D AF ----> Rebel.

7D AF ----> 70D

5D3 AF ----> 7D2

Everything got an upgrade to a better older system.

Well, the last one at least is impossible to my understanding. You can't take a FF AF system and put it in a crop body. Or can you?

I'd say it's not impossible. The 1Ds series and 1D series had the AF coverage surface of 8x15mm. The 1D X has the AF coverage of 8x19mm. It's still smaller than the Canon APS-C sensor size, but not much.

I hope someone could enlighten us on this question.

 

[Marsu42]

Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List

I could be wrong. Can you cite where Canon said that Wifi was the reason for no flash on the 6D?

I don't have a source either, but I suspect that gps is more of a reason than wifi because the chip needs to look up for obvious reasons ... for the same reason the 70d seems to have a flash, but lacks gps.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List

I don't have a source either, but I suspect that gps is more of a reason than wifi because the chip needs to look up for obvious reasons ... for the same reason the 70d seems to have a flash, but lacks gps.

I don't see any reason antennae for both GPS and WiFi could not be run outside the magnesium alloy chassis but under the plastic/rubberized covering of that metal chassis.

IMO, this is all feature differentiation (and profiteering) by Canon - i.e. if you want GPS with this model, pay us for a GP-E2; we included it as a feature in that model to appeal to that particular market segment.

 

[Marsu42]

Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List

IMO, this is all feature differentiation (and profiteering) by Canon - i.e. if you want GPS with this model, pay us for a GP-E2; we included it as a feature in that model to appeal to that particular market segment.

As usual, you might be correct - marketing is about squeezing as much money out of people but only up to the point when they'd feel ripped off or made fools of - but if there is any seemingly compelling reason for cut specs will be readily accepted by the crowd, as just proven by me :-o

The 70D will hopefully provide a lot of bang for the buck... which will hopefully help fuel a healthy and continuing competition between major DSLR manufacturers for a decently priced 7DmkII eventually.

Don't hold your breath - Even if the 70d has an updated sensor+wifi over the 7d1 it will have a hard time competing against the 24mp/51pt-af Nikon d7100, even more than the "low light king" 6d vs d600... but of course that depends what price tag Canon has in mind.