Lee Jay said:
Yes, but diffraction softness at this pixel density starts to become a problem, get up to f/5.6 or higher and you start loosing sharpness.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but diffraction softness at this pixel density starts to become a problem, get up to f/5.6 or higher and you start loosing sharpness.
I agree with the others who have pointed out that people who are truly into photography don't give a rat's rear about what market segment their gear supposedly fits into.
before the 6D came along, the 5D Mark II was Canon's "entry-level" full frame camera. despite being "entry-level" in marketing-land, in photography-land the camera was a heavyweight champion and there are tons of working professionals who shot award-winning, top-flight work with that camera.
buying a camera should never come down to whether or not you want the top grade APS-C or the cheapest FF. it should be about what you want to shoot, how you want to do it, and which camera will do the most out of the things you want it to. if you're picking a camera because you're worried about how people will judge you for it, you need to work on your mental game and focus on what matters - the image.
before the 6D came along, the 5D Mark II was Canon's "entry-level" full frame camera. despite being "entry-level" in marketing-land, in photography-land the camera was a heavyweight champion and there are tons of working professionals who shot award-winning, top-flight work with that camera.
buying a camera should never come down to whether or not you want the top grade APS-C or the cheapest FF. it should be about what you want to shoot, how you want to do it, and which camera will do the most out of the things you want it to. if you're picking a camera because you're worried about how people will judge you for it, you need to work on your mental game and focus on what matters - the image.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
If I were to go heavily into landscape photography I'd get a 1Ds Mark III and try for one around $2500. While I agree the person behind the camera is very important, with digital the equipment does begin to matter, especially with lens improvements and sensor technology rapidly developing, as opposed to the film era. I shoot exactly the same way with my 1DX as I did with a 1D4, and my photos are much better than before, and I have more keepers. The only difference is the camera.
Upvote
0
BrandonKing96 said:If they made this FF this would be a 1DRienzphotoz said:
Copy all.
My point being, Nikon threw out a monster FF at a price point (D800) I would have stood in line for. I am more than happy with my 7D, but if they can make the follow-on 7D for $2100, then surely the tech know-how is out there to enlarge the sensor to FF and sell for $2,500-$2,600 with the same specs stated in the original post. It is not a far stretch to do it IMO.
Though if it is truely a simple issue of it being a 1D with a price of $6,000, they can keep it.
Upvote
0
Robert Welch said:
Diffraction is the most misunderstood concept in photography. The notion that diffraction is ever a "problem" is just flat out wrong. Just because diffraction starts earlier with smaller pixels does NOT mean you are resolving less detail. The amount of detail resolved by the lens is fixed, and independent of the sensor. Assuming a 24mp sensor outresolves the lens while an 18mp sensor does not, no matter how you slice it, even when diffraction blur starts, the 24mp is and always will be resolving more detail than the 18mp. If you scale the 24mp sensor image down to 18mp image size without any additional processing, the 24mp will always be sharper (assuming focus, aperture, etc. were all configured identically between the two cameras.)
Diffraction is the fault of the lens, not the sensor...both the 24mp and 18mp sensors are experiencing the exact same amount of softening due to diffraction...it is simply that the 18mp is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of actually demonstrating that fact, while the 24mp IS CAPABLE. A 22mp sensor would be somewhat capable of showing you that diffraction, however it would not be as good as the 24mp, and still, no matter how you slice it, the 24mp sensor (all other factors being equal) would STILL be resolving more detail, even if its slightly softer than the 22mp. Even if that additional detail just means the circumference of the blur circle is better defined.
I really have to emphasize this: In no way, ever, can diffraction produce worse results on a higher resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor. EVER. Even if, at 100% crop, the detail looks a little soft on the higher resolution image, it will in the worst case be just as good as the lower resolution sensor on a size-normal basis, and in the majority case normalizing size will always make the higher resolution image look better than one taken with a lower resolution sensor.
Upvote
0
gunship01 said:BrandonKing96 said:If they made this FF this would be a 1DRienzphotoz said:
Copy all.
My point being, Nikon threw out a monster FF at a price point (D800) I would have stood in line for. I am more than happy with my 7D, but if they can make the follow-on 7D for $2100, then surely the tech know-how is out there to enlarge the sensor to FF and sell for $2,500-$2,600 with the same specs stated in the original post. It is not a far stretch to do it IMO.
Though if it is truely a simple issue of it being a 1D with a price of $6,000, they can keep it.
It is not a tech/know how thing. The 7D is what it is because of the crop factor that is SO very useful. I own a 7D and 5d3 + 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 II that I use for the majority of my shooting. I effectively have 4 focal lengths (200 320 400 and 640) that I find VERY useful with 2 bodies and 2 lenses. A FF 7D MkII would remove this from my stable and force me to buy TC's I don't want to own, swap up to a 1DIV (big consideration) or buy a gently used 7D (which canon does not want) to maintain that 1.6 factor. If you want a FF 7D, buy a 5DMk3. The specs (other then the FPS.. which I bet will be limited to 8 with AF) are very similar.
Upvote
0
RMC33 said:gunship01 said:BrandonKing96 said:If they made this FF this would be a 1DRienzphotoz said:
Copy all.
My point being, Nikon threw out a monster FF at a price point (D800) I would have stood in line for. I am more than happy with my 7D, but if they can make the follow-on 7D for $2100, then surely the tech know-how is out there to enlarge the sensor to FF and sell for $2,500-$2,600 with the same specs stated in the original post. It is not a far stretch to do it IMO.
Though if it is truely a simple issue of it being a 1D with a price of $6,000, they can keep it.
It is not a tech/know how thing. The 7D is what it is because of the crop factor that is SO very useful. I own a 7D and 5d3 + 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 II that I use for the majority of my shooting. I effectively have 4 focal lengths (200 320 400 and 640) that I find VERY useful with 2 bodies and 2 lenses. A FF 7D MkII would remove this from my stable and force me to buy TC's I don't want to own, swap up to a 1DIV (big consideration) or buy a gently used 7D (which canon does not want) to maintain that 1.6 factor. If you want a FF 7D, buy a 5DMk3. The specs (other then the FPS.. which I bet will be limited to 8 with AF) are very similar.
maybe the ideal solution is to one day get rid of aps-c altogether and just have more compact cheaper long lenses that mortals can afford. cuts out a whole industry lol but would make things more focused.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I still doubt that 24 MPixel will deliver higher resolution at f/8 and smaller apertures than 18 MPixel. But I agree, it won't be worse either.
The biggest advantage of high MPixel sensors is IMO that they deliver more information that can be used for denoising and getting cleaner images at high ISO.
Upvote
0
jimjamesjimmy said:
Doesn't sound too sound. Business is business. I bet that if Canon wanted to, it could sell FF bodies for less. Selling APS-C bodies as the cheap alternative is a great way to make additional money out of FF bodies. Focusing purely on larger sensors could actually lower profits. Most cash is surely made with the cheap stuff anyway.
Upvote
0
As Don stated:
APS-C has saved me about $15000 in not having to buy a 300 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 to fill those gaps on FF, made my gear bag two lenses lighter while working and been a solid workhorse/survive all the stupid things I do on a daily basis.
Edit: Until last weak when my 7D died.
Don Haines said:jimjamesjimmy said:
But that's the reason for APS-C in the first place....
APS-C has saved me about $15000 in not having to buy a 300 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 to fill those gaps on FF, made my gear bag two lenses lighter while working and been a solid workhorse/survive all the stupid things I do on a daily basis.
Edit: Until last weak when my 7D died.
Upvote
0
tortilla said:
Once you are below the DLA of the lower-resolution sensor, you won't get any more "resolution", however the detail resolved should still look better on the higher resolution sensor, as it will be more finely delinted. Beyond the DLA, you experience diminishing returns...that means things could still look better, however as you approach the minimum aperture of the lens, the improvements of the higher resolution sensor over the lower resolution sensor will diminish (not disappear, just diminish).
All of the current APS-C sensors are diffraction-limited by f/8, however diffraction is still so low at that point that it rarely matters unless you really need to resolve something with obscenely fine detail (i.e. you want to resolve the individual barbules on each barb of a birds feathers at a distance of a few feet...you are going to need something closer to a PERFECT f/4 or wider lens along with the highest resolution sensor you can possibly get your hands on...24.1mp would be pretty excellent in that situation.)
Upvote
0
gunship01 said:
If it has GPS and WiFi won't part of it have to be plastic - so surely build quality would be more like 6D ?
If it does and the plastic proportion is more subtle then the intent with the 6D becomes more clear
Personally if it was an APS 5D mk3, all alloy with no Horrible cheap weak plastic pop up flash I'd be very tempted !
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:gunship01 said:
If it has GPS and WiFi won't part of it have to be plastic - so surely build quality would be more like 6D ?
If it does and the plastic proportion is more subtle then the intent with the 6D becomes more clear
Personally if it was an APS 5D mk3, all alloy with no Horrible cheap weak plastic pop up flash I'd be very tempted !
It is also possible to just stick the antennas outside of the metal body, with the rest of the electronics that support GPS and WiFi inside the body. The build quality need not suffer to include GPS and WiFi.
Upvote
0
jrista said:Sporgon said:gunship01 said:
If it has GPS and WiFi won't part of it have to be plastic - so surely build quality would be more like 6D ?
If it does and the plastic proportion is more subtle then the intent with the 6D becomes more clear
Personally if it was an APS 5D mk3, all alloy with no Horrible cheap weak plastic pop up flash I'd be very tempted !
It is also possible to just stick the antennas outside of the metal body, with the rest of the electronics that support GPS and WiFi inside the body. The build quality need not suffer to include GPS and WiFi.
Canon already does this with their GPS transmitters. GP-E1/2 sit outside the body and work just great.
Upvote
0
saltabilar said:
CanonRumors is the best place, really. Anything with a CR2 is pretty good information. The only time you will get better information is when CR starts posting CR3 rated rumors, which are, for all intents and purposes, fact.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
The build quality would definitely suffer if built that way. Having fragile parts that are not protected does not sound like something I'd personally want as it somewhat makes the durable body pointless. External transmitters are for that kind of purposes and if they break, you don't necessarily need to get your camera body fixed.
Upvote
0
- Status
