Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon

[scyrene]

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me. I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality... and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

If you buy that £100k 1200mm f/5.6 and stick a 1.4x on, you can get 1680 f/8!

 

[jrista]

One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV. Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.

It depends on what your shooting. As I said, my primary use case for 1200mm is not full body birds...it's bird headshots. The distance doesn't increase, only the amount of detail you are resolving on a smaller area of your subject. Similarly, when it comes to the smaller shorebirds, like a Least Sandpiper. Were I could get away with using 840mm for larger ones, 1200mm is useful for smaller ones. Again, distance does not increase.

Therefor, atmospheric effects are not an issue. The primary issue is getting pixels on target, for a subject that is filling a good portion of the frame. The 7D II will put more pixels (and hopefully BETTER pixels, at least than any other crop camera) on a bird headshot at 840mm f/5.6 than the 5D III at 1200mm f/8. I'd expect the IQ to INCREASE with the 7D II, assuming Canon isn't just playing games, and their high ISO has really improved by about a stop.

 

[skoobey]

Once you learn the lighting and poses, and start working with really great MUAs, models, set designers, assistants, retouchers etc, the resolution really becomes the last thing you think about. I think that 36mpix is really all you need. And if you want to go crazy higher, the lenses and AF systems must follow.

I don't think 100mpix can be resolved with current line up, so I'd rather see them work on wi fi transfer, high and low ISO grain(less), camera and lens weight, battery life, video auto focus, tethered shooting, video tethered shooting, support for stereo external mics, 4k video, video RAW, flash speed sync, going from motor mirror to electronic shutter (going from mirror to transparent using micro current), image stabilization, multiple JPEG creation at the moment of capture, better controls...

So there is A LOT room for improvement, mpix is just one of them.

 

[scyrene]

One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV. Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.

It depends on what your shooting. As I said, my primary use case for 1200mm is not full body birds...it's bird headshots. The distance doesn't increase, only the amount of detail you are resolving on a smaller area of your subject. Similarly, when it comes to the smaller shorebirds, like a Least Sandpiper. Were I could get away with using 840mm for larger ones, 1200mm is useful for smaller ones. Again, distance does not increase.

Therefor, atmospheric effects are not an issue. The primary issue is getting pixels on target, for a subject that is filling a good portion of the frame. The 7D II will put more pixels (and hopefully BETTER pixels, at least than any other crop camera) on a bird headshot at 840mm f/5.6 than the 5D III at 1200mm f/8. I'd expect the IQ to INCREASE with the 7D II, assuming Canon isn't just playing games, and their high ISO has really improved by about a stop.

Don't forget songbirds! Little sparrow-sized passerines need a lot of focal length, even at moderate distances. It's rare they'll let you get close - especially the best-looking ones (in my experience).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV. Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.

birds are often very small so the distance even at 800mm and more are not always all that great and atmospherics don't always play much of a part in things

 

[Lee Jay]

One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV. Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.

birds are often very small so the distance even at 800mm and more are not always all that great and atmospherics don't always play much of a part in things

Yes, to demonstrate the point, this (rare and exotic) bird was less than 50 feet away, and this was taken at 1,900mm on 1.6-crop.

 

[roby17269]

I do fashion photography mostly in studio (hobby) and it is often a high-contrast affair with plenty of latitude. I could certainly use better shadow recovery at ISO 100 than what my 1D X offers.

It's true that the 1dx doesn't have superior iso 100 performance, actually the data says that the infamous read noise problem produces even *more* dr at iso 200: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html

The newer 6d has a bit better dr and (even) less pattern noise, but nevertheless, to really get into trouble with 11+ stops even after proper postprocessing and best exposure you have to have really difficult conditions like shooting wedding dresses?

Edit: Saw your website, your post crossed mine. Your shots are definitely tricky, at what print/view size are you getting problems with shadow noise? Or is it realyl that your in-studio lighting exceeds the sensor's dynamic range? I'm not trying to contradict you, just out of curiosity.

Didn't know about ISO 200 having higher DR (although 1/10th of a stop is prolly not something that would change my life). In any case using ISO 200 would have other effects on the exposure settings that might or might not work.

Some of my photos have been printed in mags to A4 size more or less. No one has complained about noise.
I usually see on screen - there was a shoot where the model had a black skirt made of plastic that was particularly bad in post when I was trying to give it more pop. I had to use noise ninja at max. It worked because it was smooth plastic. With different textures it would have been a problem. The second shooter had a D800 and his files were way way cleaner for the skirt at the same exposure. So his files needed much less time in post. Simple as that.

 

[roby17269]

I am not patronising you, I am giving you a kick up the butt, there is no more than seven stops of DR in your opening page, if you are reaching into shadows to recover detail there is something wrong with your technique, that is just a fact. Take it from me anonymously or learn it in time from somebody in person, I don't care. You have 100% control over everything, hell even your beach shots have so much flash power you can control the blacks and contrast to 1/10 stop.

If you got me to "assist" I'd have you shooting tethered into Capture One and have you dialed in with limitless shadow detail in under an hour, for life.

And don't think I am acting like some internet hero, I am not, I am sure I could learn as much if not more from you, than you could from me, but that doesn't mean either of us will ever know enough.

"give me a kick up my butt". Yes that didn't sound patronising at all...
Oh well. I'll reveal a secret. The second shot on the site, a beach one, is pure natural light. No flashes, not even reflectors. Ok ok I had a CPL on my lens.
You are judging heavily processed images, do you realise that? They look like that because I wanted the final product to look like that.
You also seem to assume that every time I shoot for my hobby, I have limitless heads with limitless power. That's not usually the case.

Do I know everything? Nope. I keep learning all the time and I keep challenging myself. But, since I do value my butt, I will have to progress without your wise advice

 

[Marsu42]

The second shooter had a D800 and his files were way way cleaner for the skirt at the same exposure. So his files needed much less time in post. Simple as that.

Yes, I remember a sports photog on CR doing beach volleyball switching to Nikon right after the d800 was released because for him, the performance was way superior to the 5d3. I imagine many pro photogs with high dr requirements left in the meantime, and the there's no indication the situation is about to change. So for these types of shots, the 1dx is simply not your best bet.

 

[Don Haines]

One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV. Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.

birds are often very small so the distance even at 800mm and more are not always all that great and atmospherics don't always play much of a part in things

Yes, to demonstrate the point, this (rare and exotic) bird was less than 50 feet away, and this was taken at 1,900mm on 1.6-crop.

You might need an equipment upgrade for pictures of rare and exotic birds.... Might I suggest black oil sunflower seeds The trick is to focus on the sunflower seed and wait for a bird to materialize around it..

Seriously though, I shoot birds from dozens of centimeters to hundreds of meters. Usually (although obliviously not always) getting close is a big problem and more pixels on the target is usually a good thing.

 

[roby17269]

The second shooter had a D800 and his files were way way cleaner for the skirt at the same exposure. So his files needed much less time in post. Simple as that.

Yes, I remember a sports photog on CR doing beach volleyball switching to Nikon right after the d800 was released because for him, the performance was way superior to the 5d3. I imagine many pro photogs with high dr requirements left in the meantime, and the there's no indication the situation is about to change. So for these types of shots, the 1dx is simply not your best bet.

Don't get me wrong I like my camera - there is a lot to love about the 1D X. I do think that it has the best ergonomics ever and the best viewfinder (bar MF bodies) and the responsiveness is something and battery life is awesome... and of course at high ISO is great. But I could use more MPs and more DR and less noise in the shadows at ISO 100 anytime

 

[alberto1232]

good