EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]

[jrista]

Sure, of course the converse is true (I never stated otherwise). My point is that the fact that the 6D has a larger sensor than the 7D II will likely have does not intrinsically put it at a higher or lower ranking on any hypothetical scale.

So we actually agree. I said next several times, not above or below.

Sorry, guess I missed that (or maybe mistakenly attributed someone elses comment to you...apologies.) Glad we agree.

For those who need an APS-C sensor in a camera with high FPS and excellent AF, the 7D II would, for them, be the better choice than the 6D for sure, and in some cases even better than the 5D III, and certainly a far more accessible option than the 1D X (even at a price point of $2500!)

Not so sure about the AF. The 7D has more advanced but less accurate AF (aside from tracking and advanced capabilities) than the 5D2. Format differences play role here, too. In equivalent terms, the 7D's AF is f/4.5 (!).

I agree that the 7D's AF is advanced but inconsistent (even when tracking, even on slow mode, it still tends to jump around far too much). Its probably my biggest complaint with it, and why I sincerely hope the 7D II gets something much more like the 61pt AF of the 5D III/1D X. Accuracy, precision, and consistency would make the 7D II a much more viable "mini 1D X".

I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)

 

[Etienne]

To summarize:

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling feature that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.

As much as many folks on this forum believe there is a not-so-subtle attempt by Canon to push all 'gear spenders' into the FF column, isn't there also value in selling a very pricey rig that obviates the need to buy new glass?

So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy more expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do.

In some cases, the more expensive glass offsets the greater expense of going FF altogether. And in some cases, you can actually make do with a cheaper glass. For example, don't you think Canon can charge few hundred dollars more to the birder who can now make do with a 500mm instead of a 800mm? Of course, he will not get the same quality, DoF, precision, etc. in a 7D vs a 1Dx/5DIII- but he might not need it, or might not want it, or might not be able to afford it. Sure, he can use FF and crop, but even then he would be paying more anyway, wouldn't he? Given his situation, it might not be an option! So, in theory it is possible to up-sell an APS-C camera because it will reduce the overall cost. At the end of the day, going APS-C IS a compromise in IQ- whether for the sake of money, weight, frame rate, etc.
Each person's preferences are different- otherwise there would have been no landscape photographers in this forum, they would all be lugging medium format cameras in search of better IQ.

 

[schill]

To summarize:

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.

Yeah. I might as well just give up. Why in the world did I ever buy my 7D in the first place.

I guess I should dig up my Elan IIE.

 

[Pi]

I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)

It works at f/2.8, of course, but that is equivalent to f/4.5, even though some people do not want to hear about that. Assuming that it has the same precision: 1/3 of DOF or so, it is 1/3 (or whatever) of the f/4.5 eq. DOF. It is like shooting with FF at f/4.5, with 1/3 DOF precision. Well, that is 1/3 of the DOF at f/4.5 Even if f/4.5 is all you need as DOF, your precision is lower. Some empirical evidence on that can be found on the FoCal site.

 

[jrista]

I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)

It works at f/2.8, of course, but that is equivalent to f/4.5, even though some people do not want to hear about that. Assuming that it has the same precision: 1/3 of DOF or so, it is 1/3 (or whatever) of the f/4.5 eq. DOF. It is like shooting with FF at f/4.5, with 1/3 DOF precision. Well, that is 1/3 of the DOF at f/4.5 Even if f/4.5 is all you need as DOF, your precision is lower. Some empirical evidence on that can be found on the FoCal site.

Oh, your talking about DOF. Yeah, entirely agree, since you are cropping the field of view you may have to get farther back, so DOF would then increase. But that assumes you have to move back to frame your subject. Assuming you use a camera like the 7D II for its reach benefit, then its DOF would be the same as a FF with the same lens from the same distance. The only difference then would simply be that the 7D frame is cropped, resolved by a higher density sensor, and thus appears to be zoomed more. (There are CoC caveats, but that depends on output size, and there is no way to really nail that down....you could enlarge, reduce, crop, whatever.)

 

[ahsanford]

To summarize:

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.

My eyes are bleeding.

Would love to see a wildlife/sports comparison of 7D vs. 6D. I bet the 7D keeper rate and total number of keepers in an hour of shooting dwarfs the 6D.

- A (a FF guy!)

 

[Pi]

The only difference then would simply be that the 7D frame is cropped, resolved by a higher density sensor, and thus appears to be zoomed more.

And that decreases the DOF and magnifies the AF errors (just another way to say the same thing).

 

[Loswr]

I find the shallow DoF on FF to be a frustration and not an advantage. And if you understand bokeh, you understand why there will be little to no difference in background blur in many situations. (Hint: for detail well outside the plane of focus the physical aperture size is the driving factor, not the format or DoF.)

Perhaps, if you have good physical separation between subject and background. We don't always have that luxury. In terms of DoF, the crop sensor has NO advantage (except cost). If you have FF and want deeper DoF, you just stop down. The larger sensor offsets any need to raise ISO to maintain shutter speed. If you have APS-C and want shallower DoF, too bad for you.

For most uses crop is cheaper overall with equal performance, though there are areas where FF clearly has an IQ advantage.

Let me guess - you have a summer home in northern Alaska and a 'winter' home in Patagonia (where you live like a king), both with glass ceilings. Where I live, we have this thing called night...and in winter, night is long. Indoors often means at least ISO 3200, and I wouldn't say APS-C offers 'equal performance' then.

 

[schill]

Not that I have a whole lot of faith in this rumor anyway (it just doesn't make sense to me), but why is all of the discussion for this rumor about FF vs. crop now?

Why? Because that always happens anyway.

Does anyone seriously think that if there is a 7DII, it will be FF?

I can understand a discussion about whether Canon can get better IQ out of a new cropped sensor than they do out of the current sensors, but I don't really see the point about discussing FF (although I have been reading the posts so I guess I can't complain too much).

Maybe there should be a thread specifically about why you should buy a 5DIII now instead of waiting for a 7DII (that's meant to be tongue-in-cheek - I think there are already quite a few of those threads spread across the internet).

 

[sagittariansrock]

To summarize:

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.

While that is a fact, it does not summarize the original thread. In fact, it does not even relate to the original thread!
People (including some of CR's more illustrious contributors) keep posting in this thread how FF is better than Crop. We get it! Why whip this dead horse? If someone disagrees, be magnanimous and quietly laugh at their ignorance or denial.
This thread is about the "hopes and dreams" of people who cannot upgrade to FF or choose not to. Let's discuss this particular thread within that purview, yeah?

 

[unfocused]

For most uses crop is cheaper overall with equal performance, though there are areas where FF clearly has an IQ advantage.

Let me guess - you have a summer home in northern Alaska and a 'winter' home in Patagonia (where you live like a king), both with glass ceilings. Where I live, we have this thing called night...and in winter, night is long. Indoors often means at least ISO 3200, and I wouldn't say APS-C offers 'equal performance' then.

Jeez, could you distort that quote a little more? What about "most uses" is hard to understand. And, by the way, dumping a little "winky" emoticon doesn't make an insult any less insulting.

It's great that you can afford a 1DX to play with, but for the 99.9% of the population that can't afford a $6,500 camera there are limitations they have to live with.

To summarize:

Full-Frame is better at everything, Crop is cheaper.

While that is a fact, it does not summarize the original thread. In fact, it does not even relate to the original thread!
People (including some of CR's more illustrious contributors) keep posting in this thread how FF is better than Crop. We get it! Why whip this dead horse? If someone disagrees, be magnanimous and quietly laugh at their ignorance or denial.
This thread is about the "hopes and dreams" of people who cannot upgrade to FF or choose not to. Let's discuss this particular thread within that purview, yeah?

Yes! This comment came in as I was typing.

The truth is, in 95% of cases, the results from a Rebel T3 and a 1DX will be indistinguishable in the hands of a decent photographer.

Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII. There are limits to all equipment and the real skill comes in knowing those limits and knowing how to play to the strengths rather than just sitting around gloating about how your big equipment gives you so much more satisfaction. If you know how to use it, you can get and give great satisfaction from little equipment.

 

[Pi]

Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII.

I assign very low probability for your "probably" to be close to the truth. I have enough experience with both crop and FF of the same class (excluding the 1D series), and I would say that in 99% of cases (probably ), there is very clear difference when I pp, and in the final result. As I said before, maybe that difference would not matter to most, and that is OK; but it is there, and it matters to me.

 

[JM Photography]

The truth is, in 95% of cases, the results from a Rebel T3 and a 1DX will be indistinguishable in the hands of a decent photographer.

Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII.

Indistinguishable in what sense? You certainly can't mean image quality.

 

[Loswr]

I'm curious about the f/4.5 bit...how exactly does that work? Is that only for the outer points? (I believe the center AF point is still f/2.8 compatible like with most Canon AF systems.)

It works at f/2.8, of course, but that is equivalent to f/4.5, even though some people do not want to hear about that. Assuming that it has the same precision: 1/3 of DOF or so, it is 1/3 (or whatever) of the f/4.5 eq. DOF. It is like shooting with FF at f/4.5, with 1/3 DOF precision. Well, that is 1/3 of the DOF at f/4.5 Even if f/4.5 is all you need as DOF, your precision is lower. Some empirical evidence on that can be found on the FoCal site.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The precision of the AF points at a given aperture isn't specified in terms of DoF. Well, ok, maybe it is...but in that case, you keep using the letter F in the abbreviation, and I do not think it means what you think it means.

The AF sensor precision spec is 'within one depth of focus' for a standard precision point, and 'within 1/3 the depth of focus' for high precision (f/2.8, usually) points. Depth of focus is in 'image space' and is measured in micrometer distances at the AF (and/or image) sensor. It is related to, but distinct from, depth of field, which is measured in larger distances in 'object space'.

Depth of field is determined by aperture, subject distance, and focal length (and CoC, but since that is related to sensor size, let's leave that out). When we discuss 'shallower DoF on FF', that's a function of either subject distance (with APS-C you're further away for the same framing) or focal length (with APS-C, you need a shorter focal length for the same framing).

However, depth of focus is relatively insensitive to subject distance (once you're out of true macro range) and focal length. Thus, depth of focus is primarily determined by aperture, and that doesn't change with sensor size.

OTOH, aa stated, from a practical standpoint the APS-C sensor does have a deeper depth of field. So, even though the specified AF sensor precision is the same, the manufacturing tolerances for APS-C could, in theory, be looser. Users of 1-series bodies have long known their AF is' better' than consumer cameras. I wonder if part of the recent improvements in measured precision of AF with the 5DIII and 6D derive at least in part from Canon tightening up the manufacturing tolerances.

 

[Loswr]

The truth is, in 95% of cases, the results from a Rebel T3 and a 1DX will be indistinguishable in the hands of a decent photographer.

Probably 99% of the cases when it comes to the 7D vs. the 5DIII.

That's just asinine. (Note the lack of a winky emoticon.)

 

[schill]

100% of the pictures I take with my 7D are better than the pictures I take with the 5DIII that I do not own.

 

[Pi]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The precision of the AF points at a given aperture isn't specified in terms of DoF. Well, ok, maybe it is...but in that case, you keep using the letter F in the abbreviation, and I do not think it means what you think it means.

The AF sensor precision spec is 'within one depth of focus' for a standard precision point, and 'within 1/3 the depth of focus' for high precision (f/2.8, usually) points. Depth of focus is in 'image space' and is measured in micrometer distances at the AF (and/or image) sensor. It is related to, but distinct from, depth of field, which is measured in larger distances in 'object space'.

I believe I was correct. While DOF and depth of focus are different, 1 D-O-focus is defined as the distance at which you get an image blurred by "1 DOF" (with a fixed COC), so 1/3 D-O-focus corresponds approximately to 1/3 DOF blur.

Another way to look at this: an f/2.8 eq. lens on crop is a f/1.75 one. The crop AF sensor cannot see rays coming from the periphery of such a lens. It has to somehow compensate this by judging the phase difference of f/4.5 (eq.) rays. Of course, those are rays of a shorter FL, so this is not exactly a proof without knowing how the AF system exactly works.

 

[Don Haines]

We seem to have two groups of people arguing....

One group says that FF has the best image quality.
The other group says that APS-C has the best image quality that they can afford.

Both sides are right.

 

[pj1974]

We seem to have two groups of people arguing....

One group says that FF has the best image quality.
The other group says that APS-C has the best image quality that they can afford.

Both sides are right.

Great summary.....

... though there is (at least now) a third group of people that say "option C please, both the above are true!"

And you (& I) are in that group, Don!