If Canon wants to kill off Nikon/Sony/Pentax drop APS-C and Go APS-H

[match14]

True but the point I was getting at is Bosman is saying replace APS-C with APS-H because a bigger sensor is better and he is right, therefore Fullframe is better than APS-H because it is bigger. I think the real problem here is that Canon should have put 36MP into the 5D Mark III then you would have the best of both, fullframe sensor with the ability to crop to APS-H or APS-C in post without the loss of pixel density.

A 7dII with a ff sensor would be a 5DIII

Yeah I already said that further up in reply #31
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8057.msg152769#msg152769

 

[felipey]

I have a simple solution for the OPs problem. Carry two 5D MKIII and tack on a 1.4X converter onto one for the extra reach. You'll get slightly more reach than the APS-H's 1.3X and a better sensor. As far as losing the one stop of light, you'd roughly lose that anyway with the slightly worse ISO performance of an APS-H. That way you'll have consistency between the two bodies and Canon won't have to develop a camera for such a niche market.

 

[Bosman]

I shoot sports too. A sports body like the 7d with a better sensor than what you can squeak out of an aps-c, plus the frame rate is a perfect matchup for what i do. The 7d sensor is seriously lacking but the focus system is tops. Some people don't understand dreamers, dreamers come up with ideas that may not fit but when something is done with those ideas companies like Apple become successful. I am not here to give stats, show evidence or make a case. For the reasons i have stated these are my dreams. I really am ok with people having their differing views. I encourage the discussion, but no one is going to demand or make me prove my idea lol. Who does that? I just don't appreciate that because i throw an idea or a concept out there that i need to prove its a good idea, i mean really, that doesn't encourage great discussion...
I realize the aps-h is probably done but i will say if it were my decision i'd either upgrade the 7d with better sensor tech beyond the limits of aps-c, possibly even FF or create a new camera model. If people say its a 1dx killer then its probably the perfect idea because we all know thru history with Canon and Nikon that there is plenty of market for both to exist no matter what people are saying about one killing the other. Every d series body should have a smaller cousin that has a few less features and are built well but obviously not a d series level of build i mean my camera has fallen to the concrete a few times thanks to my R Strap malfunctioning (by the way i don't use the Rapid strap anymore its all about the spiderpro holster) and i pick it up and it just works. I have shot in in rain for hours with my 1dm3 and the only issue really was a foggy eye piece. The D series gets the heavy duty parts for extreme environments. Canon knows what people buy and why. A person won't buy a 1d series unless they want it or their jobs require it be able to handle extreme environments. Everyone on a budget or just wants to work with lighter gear will buy the smaller alternatives. Now that they merged the lines there has to be a viable alternative to the 1dx. The 5dm3 doesn't have the frame rate required for that in my opinion, the 7d does its just that it is lacking sensor capability.

 

[pdirestajr]

Hey if we are gonna dream, how about we make that sensor square too?! Then we are really cooking

I'll buy that.

 

[Bosman]

Hey if we are gonna dream, how about we make that sensor square too?! Then we are really cooking

I'll buy that.

I like that idea as well. I would want it to frame like a normal camera in camera but on the computer the area that wasn't in the view finder is greyed out like what you see in photoshop or LR when you are cropping. That way your composition is what you see in camera but the file is recording the whole square allowing for diff crops to be made if so desired. Or you could just choose in camera what crop shape you want and have a square viewfinder allowing you to see everything but the greyed out area that you didn't choose to be in the composition.
I know i have taken photos where if only i could have gotten a little more in there you would see more of the story of the picture. I am curious how the lens situation would work. I would suppose you need to buy specialty lenses for that type sensor if you chose the whole image to be square format. Its fun to think about.
Back to 7d with larger sensor, make it a 7dx and have a 7dm2 with aps-c for those who don't want to give that up.

 

[Meh]

I like that idea as well. I would want it to frame like a normal camera in camera but on the computer the area that wasn't in the view finder is greyed out like what you see in photoshop or LR when you are cropping.

The other side of that coin is that when you wanted to shoot the square frame you wouldn't be able to see what you're including in your composition.

I am curious how the lens situation would work. I would suppose you need to buy specialty lenses for that type sensor if you chose the whole image to be square format. Its fun to think about.

The lenses are not the issue as they produce an image circle that could have a square sensor inside. And a square circumscribed inside the circle maximizes image/sensor area. The main issue with changing to a square sensor is the mirror... there isn't enough clearance inside the body for a square mirror.

 

[Meh]

I have a simple solution for the OPs problem. Carry two 5D MKIII and tack on a 1.4X converter onto one for the extra reach. You'll get slightly more reach than the APS-H's 1.3X and a better sensor. As far as losing the one stop of light, you'd roughly lose that anyway with the slightly worse ISO performance of an APS-H. That way you'll have consistency between the two bodies and Canon won't have to develop a camera for such a niche market.

Yes and no... what your suggesting is more about convenience of switching lenses or adding a TC. The issue with reach is situations when you're focal length limited meaning you don't have a lens or lens/TC that allows you to fill your frame with the subject (i.e. wildlife photogs). In those situations, the higher pixel density of an APS-H (16MP in the 1D4) or APS-C (18MP in the 7D) gives you high resolution on your subject when your subject is not filling the frame of a FF sensor. And that is a key point to keep in mind in these discussions... the so-called "extra reach" of a crop sensor is a function of the higher pixel density NOT the fact that the sensor is smaller.

 

[Kit.]

Isn't 7D-like pixel density sensor actually diffraction-limited at f/5.6+?

 

[funkboy]

I think the real problem here is that Canon should have put 36MP into the 5D Mark III then you would have the best of both, fullframe sensor with the ability to crop to APS-H or APS-C in post without the loss of pixel density.

It would be even better if they had used a high-MP sensor that could be set to pixel-bin 1x2 or 2x2 so that the folks that want 36mp can have it, and the folks like me that are fine with 9 very very clean megapickels out-of-camera (or maybe 18mp as well if they could do 1x2) could have that as well. I'm not talking about sraw/mraw here but true pixel-binning. Maybe even add Fuji-esque dynamic range enhancement as well.

But as it is the 22mp 5DIII is an excellent camera & selling faster than they can make them, so no worries there.

The square sensor concept makes a ton of sense as well, but unfortunately there are a lot of EF lenses (esp. wide-angles) that have a metal shade on the back that restricts the frame to 24x36 (presumably to lower reflections & control what gets to the metering system).

 

[dtaylor]

No APS-C has AF at f/8 which the 1D4 does

The statement was "longest reach of all Canon bodies", not "longest reach of all Canon bodies with AF at f/8." APS-C has longer reach than APS-H, period. If AF comes into play, then for 99.9% of applications (i.e. everyone not stacking two teleconverters on a 600mm lens) APS-C has greater reach than APS-H.

And the sensor size has nothing to do with AF at f/8, so AF at f/8 is not an argument for keeping APS-H around.

From experience the 1D4 has 2 stops of usable iso - 1600 for the 7D, 6400 for the 1D4

The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.

In fact the 7D is fine at 3200, as is the 1D4 at 6400. The difference is 1 stop. Admirable, but nothing to keep APS-H in the market. FF does even better in low light, and sensor evolution will take APS-C beyond the 1D4, probably with the next generation.

The IQ of a cropped 7D picture soon gets ugly, whereas it doesn't on the 1D4

I don't see that producing 20" prints from 9 MP crops of 7D files. They look fantastic.

 

[canon816]

Here's a quick response in support of H format:

It could be a great sensor to bridge the price gap between C sensors and FF sensors. You would get superior image quality to the C sensor coupled with prosumer features and nail down a price point of $2-2.5K. Jumping from the 7D at $1500 to the 5DIII at $3500 then 1DX at $6800 leaves a few price point holes to potentially be plugged.

The additional reach of the 1.3 is welcome over FF, and the larger sensor takes (presumably) higher quality images then the C sensor.

I have owned a Rebel 450D, 7D and currently own a 5DII and a 1DIV. While the 1DIV is a higher priced camera and the latest with the H sensor in the line.... with technology advances and trickle down the next H camera might not need to be at that same price point and could fall into the $2k range. (It doesnt need all the pro features of the 1DIV to be a successful selling body)

I love my 1DIV with it's H-sensor... and I'm not the only one. There is a huge difference in image quality from the C sensors and the 1.3x crop factor over full frame is very noticeable especially when pairing with long glass.

I would definitely not agree with the OP about dropping APS-C. It's a huge market and has a huge following.

 

[briansquibb]

The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.

As this is based on personal experience in the field then I will just have to agree to disagree - perhaps this experience is based on the quality of noise.

However you wont catch me using iso3200 on my 7D - especially when cropped - as it is downright ugly

 

[briansquibb]

No APS-C has AF at f/8 which the 1D4 does

The statement was "longest reach of all Canon bodies", not "longest reach of all Canon bodies with AF at f/8." APS-C has longer reach than APS-H, period. If AF comes into play, then for 99.9% of applications (i.e. everyone not stacking two teleconverters on a 600mm lens) APS-C has greater reach than APS-H.

If you re-read my post you will realize that what I said was correct - the APS-H sensored 1 series bodies do have the longest reach of all Canon bodies.

Also a 600 only needs a 2x to get to F/8 - I often use this with my 1DS3

 

[nicku]

An APS-H senor on 7Dmk2 will certainly kill all the competition in the segment and a very good backup body for 1DX. Regarding the 10 million EF-S lenses .... move 70D up the line ( like all rumors suggest ). Is very simple

I said before, a APS-H 7D2 will be something unique on the market, and in this days the most powerful marketing advertising solution is: something new unique or low prices (at canon lately the low price is not a strong point).

I understand perfectly why canon has used APS-H sensor in the past ( easily and cheaper to produce than FF) but today is all about marketing . Canon is more interested in maximising sales/profit, not really in providing the world perfect cameras/ lenses. This is the only reason i see for canon reintroducing the APS-H sensor.

 

[briansquibb]

APS-H was originally bought from Kodak in the days when Canon didn't make their own sensors

Leica also use the APS-H sensor

 

[nicku]

Has anyone thought that Nikon could use a APS-H like sensor in the new D400??? IF they will do so certainly they will kill Canon in terms of camera bodies. Don,t mention the ability to use all their lenses on all the bodies regardless the sensor format

 

[swrightgfx]

Hey if we are gonna dream, how about we make that sensor square too?! Then we are really cooking

I'll buy that.

While the EF mount can accommodate a much larger image circle than most EF lenses currently provide, using a square sensor would indeed only be possible with APS-H and not full-frame, without users having to invest in new glass. The image circle for "APS-H" 28x28 would equate to ~40mm, while square "full frame" 36x36 would require ~50mm (which would only allow for TS-E lenses to be used without severe vignette).

The key point, though, is that both would most likely need to be mirrorless to provide enough lens clearance and maintain infinity.

What about a "Square APS-H" rangefinder targeted to plug the mirrorless gap for professionals?

 

[AprilForever]

The next 7D with an aps-h sensor like the 1dm4 would kill! I'd buy it. Sensor size has always been one of the largest points of any camera. Bigger sensored cameras have more photo-site space and with gapless lens technology on the 1DX and 5DM3 its a big win over the Nikons non-D series sports cameras. Its also a win over Sony and others that are 1.5 or 1.6 crop. This would separate the 7d from the two digit series cameras like the 60d. It would kind of take the old helm of the sports camera but in the middle spot the 1dm2/3/4 held.

No.

 

[canon816]

The 7D at 3200 looks the same as the 1D4 at 6400. Online samples show this (i.e. Imaging Resource) and direct numeric measurements of both JPEG and RAW confirm it (DPReview). The 7D is actually slightly better at 3200 than the 1D4 at 6400, so if the 7D is unacceptable at 3200 then the 1D4 is unacceptable at 6400.

In fact the 7D is fine at 3200, as is the 1D4 at 6400. The difference is 1 stop. Admirable, but nothing to keep APS-H in the market. FF does even better in low light, and sensor evolution will take APS-C beyond the 1D4, probably with the next generation.

I would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. I owned the 7D and currently shoot with the 1DIV. They are not even close to only 1 stop apart with high ISO image quality when you actually get out and use them in the field. The 7D is great through ISO 400 and really starts to fall apart at ISO 800. From 800 and up there is lots of visible noise but more importantly detail starts to fall off and images begin to look soft. The 1DIV retains detail well up through ISO 3200 and I have even had acceptable shots at ISO 6400 and for smaller prints ISO 12,800.

In my opinion there is a full three stop advantage in IQ and Noise between the 7D and the 1DIV. It may not appear this way in "lab tested shots" seen on all the big reviews.... but with real hands on field experience the differences are monumental... (giving credibility to H sensor production over the C sensor)

Also, I would expect the difference to be dramatic between these two cameras. One is $1500 and one is $5000... Canon delivered on the 1DIV, and despite all the fanfare surrounding the 7D... Canon fell short on this one. IMO the 7D has a lousy sensor and delivers disappointing results.

 

[sandymandy]

They can drop APS-C when they can deliver a Fullframe in the price Range of the rebels.