Is a brand new 32.5mp APS-C sensor from Canon on the way? [CR1]

[Franklyok]

I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.

If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.

 

[Richard CR]

I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.

Yes.

If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.

Not necessarily. depends on whether or not they make the 90D physically bigger like the 7D, or simply drop the 7D and add a few features into the 90D and call it a day.
if they add a dual DIGIC, viewfinder, weathersealing,etc. - then it's a 7D Mark III, not the 90D that got killed. I think that's an important distinction to be made. I take that rumor as if they'll up the performance to "7D-like" and essentially leave the camera as is, and kill the 7D off. they aren't going to merge them back together, because you really can't without taking away what makes the 90D a 90D. Size and weight.

So in otherwords, if the 7D mark III is no more, then you can forget getting a high performance, solid camera body like the 7D Mark II was.

 

[3kramd5]

I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.

Without a surprising new sensor, it’s highly unlikely. To achieve the “zero blackout,” the A9’s sensor reads in something like 1/150s. Most sensors read in closer to 1/30s.

 

[stevelee]

I am sure there are a lot of people out there happily shooting their 24 mp aps-c cameras stopped down to f8.0 and beyond, not noticing the effect of diffraction limitations.

So much of the discussion about diffraction is confusing or misleading to those of us not so conversant on what various terms mean. "Diffraction limited" seems to be used as if there is some zone where there is no diffraction, and then suddenly you hit a wall where your image gets ruined. Some online calculators can reinforce that impression.

Of course there is diffraction at f/1.4, and even more at f/32. The effect becomes noticeable gradually. I would guess that the "limited" moment comes when diffraction starts to be the limiting factor more so than anything else. But I don't know for sure.

I've not done extensive tests in various contexts, but I did a series of shots at various apertures with my 100mm macro on the T3i at 1:1 magnification of a millimeter scale to see how much depth of field there was at each one. Diffraction was not that noticeable until the f/32 shot. There was just some softness to the image, a not particularly unpleasant effect. I can imagine circumstances where the extra depth of field might be worth that. (And maybe you'd be using focus stacking with wider openings more often.)

If that is the effect with tiny white tick marks on a black rule shot beyond f/16, I can easily imagine that with less contrasty and detailed subjects, then there is no reason for sudden panic at f/8 in an APS-C camera.

 

[mb66energy]

I wish 90 D would just leave mirror up and act as mirrorless, shooting 20 fps no black out, like Sony A9 ... would that be too much to ask.

If 90D is going to replace 7D, then we would expect dual digic 8 processors. We'll see about it.

20 fps is generally fine for sports and wildlife but using a TFT display for that purpose e.g. with a 4.0 600mm isn't that ergonomic.

My solution would be a EVF-active-during-mirror-up system which also helps for (1) e.g. f/5.6 optics with 2x TC, (2) composition by setting AF points everywhere and (3) video.

But I think that such a solution is too expensive for the mass market and contradictory to todays mainstream of "cameras have to be small". Maybe in a 7D miii @ 2000 EUR with 12 fps or 3500 EUR with 20 fps.

 

[AlanF]

So much of the discussion about diffraction is confusing or misleading to those of us not so conversant on what various terms mean. "Diffraction limited" seems to be used as if there is some zone where there is no diffraction, and then suddenly you hit a wall where your image gets ruined. Some online calculators can reinforce that impression.

Of course there is diffraction at f/1.4, and even more at f/32. The effect becomes noticeable gradually. I would guess that the "limited" moment comes when diffraction starts to be the limiting factor more so than anything else. But I don't know for sure.

I've not done extensive tests in various contexts, but I did a series of shots at various apertures with my 100mm macro on the T3i at 1:1 magnification of a millimeter scale to see how much depth of field there was at each one. Diffraction was not that noticeable until the f/32 shot. There was just some softness to the image, a not particularly unpleasant effect. I can imagine circumstances where the extra depth of field might be worth that. (And maybe you'd be using focus stacking with wider openings more often.)

If that is the effect with tiny white tick marks on a black rule shot beyond f/16, I can easily imagine that with less contrasty and detailed subjects, then there is no reason for sudden panic at f/8 in an APS-C camera.

I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212

 

[degos]

There was just some softness to the image, a not particularly unpleasant effect. I can imagine circumstances where the extra depth of field might be worth that. (And maybe you'd be using focus stacking with wider openings more often.)

It is totally unpleasant and work-ruining when the subject needs to be tack-sharp, for publishing or whatever. Which leads to the use of ND filters in order to keep the f-stop below f/8 which in turn slightly degrades the image but hopefully less than diffraction will etc

I'm not surprised that the 1D series topped-out at about 2.5 MP/cm2, that gave just enough leeway with diffraction for it not to be too much of a nuisance when trying to get The Shot.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

Can you name a MILC without a mechanical shutter?

You might have noticed that I used the future tense in my statement. It is not now yet, but will happen in 2 to 4 years I think. What is required is sensors with many more channels of parallel processing. And more processing power. This is only a matter of time before Sony has that, and I would say short rather short amount of time, as the rewards are huge and technologically this is not insurmountable. The current Sony sensors have up to16 independent channels and the processing chips do the processing in 16 channels. But in the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) world there are already chips doing 2,048 independent channels, albeit currently at a higher power consumption level.

 

[Kit.]

You might have noticed that I used the future tense in my statement. It is not now yet, but will happen in 2 to 4 years I think. What is required is sensors with many more channels of parallel processing. And more processing power. This is only a matter of time before Sony has that, and I would say short rather short amount of time, as the rewards are huge and technologically this is not insurmountable. The current Sony sensors have up to16 independent channels and the processing chips do the processing in 16 channels. But in the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) world there are already chips doing 2,048 independent channels, albeit currently at a higher power consumption level.

If Moore's law still works, then what you want will happen in 15-20 years from now.

Not sure if ILCs would still sell in noticeable amounts by that time.

 

[Xavitxaung]

Why not a Canon EOS 80D Mark II? Why not a Canon EOS 8D for full frame DSLR? Canon sold to many 5D bodies; 5D, 5D Mk II, 5D Mk III, 5D Mk IV, 5Ds and 5Ds R. I'm thinking about it is time for a new DSLR name, like a EOS 3D or 3 twice (8).

A new Canon EOS 7D Mk III? Why? It is a better option an 80D Mk II for APS-C sensors and to replace the 5D Mk IV, and EOS 8D it sounds much better, perfect connection between APS-C and FF series.

What about the new EOS 1Dx Mk III? It is going to be the last professional DSLR camera? Maybe it is going to be the last DSLR camera with an EF mount (and RF adaptor), with a twice viewfinder, mirror and mirror less, the perfect body for Pro photographers. What about resolution? Most probably a 30 mp, but, why not a brand new 42 mp sensor?

 

[neonlight]

Well, I like the features and build of the 7DII. I hope that this is for the 7DIII without AA filter, (but 24 MP will do) which probably means it will be a 90D instead.

 

[Lee Jay]

As a 7DII user, that is what I would like too. 24MP is enough if it were sharp. Many have said that the softness of the 7DII is due to the AA filter. I've written to Canon too to ask for noAAF, I'd really be pleased if it competed with the N**** D500, but I've got too much Canon glass to change.

If the 7DII replacement has no AA filter, then I'm out, and I'll keep my 7DII.

No AA filter = images you can't trust. If I'm going without one, I have to be diffraction limited at all apertures, and that means gigapixel sensors.

 

[stevelee]

I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212

Yes, that was very helpful. You'll note that I responded to the thread at the time. All of our settings involve compromise, and the better we understand the factors, the better we can choose.

 

[AlanF]

If the 7DII replacement has no AA filter, then I'm out, and I'll keep my 7DII.

No AA filter = images you can't trust. If I'm going without one, I have to be diffraction limited at all apertures, and that means gigapixel sensors.

Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?

 

[stevelee]

It is totally unpleasant and work-ruining when the subject needs to be tack-sharp, for publishing or whatever. Which leads to the use of ND filters in order to keep the f-stop below f/8 which in turn slightly degrades the image but hopefully less than diffraction will etc

Yes, one needs to decide what is important in making the compromises. Obviously the choices will be different in shooting a misty woodland scene from doing product photography.

For the 2017 total solar eclipse, I was shooting with my T3i. My only telephoto lens at the time was the rather bad 75-300mm that has a lot of chromatic aberration, among other faults. I was concerned about diffraction, but also needed focusing leeway from depth of field, since I didn't dare look through the OVF, and focusing on the screen, even shaded was rather difficult. I also presumed that stopping down would help minimize the CA. Graphs I saw on line suggested that f/11 was the best choice at 300mm on that lens. Days before, I put the filter on the lens and practiced shooting the sun. Even keeping the sun in the picture was a challenge, even through I had swung the floppy screen into the shadow of the camera itself. It turned out that f/11 gave sharp looking pictures with that less than optimal lens. Sunspots showed up very clearly. My eclipse pictures turned out about as well as those by people using superior equipment.

 

[stevelee]

I started a thread on what DLA means https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...and-implications.36639/&view=date#post-761212

I have added some JPEGs I had made from the shots from f/11 to f/32 on that thread. I still haven't got around to trying the test with my 6D2 to see how sensor size might affect the result.

 

[Lee Jay]

Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?

By definition.

 

[AlanF]

I have added some JPEGs I had made from the shots from f/11 to f/32 on that thread. I still haven't got around to trying the test with my 6D2 to see how sensor size might affect the result.

Great. I have added some as well.

 

[degos]

Our Bird Portrait thread is highly populated with images from the 5DSR, which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter. Untrustworthy are they?

For a start the 5DsR does have an AA filter, plus an attempted-cancellation filter. So it's not a bare sensor.

But a lot of the 'detail' allegedly seen in non-AA photos is actually not real detail, it is the hard contrast boundary between photosites on the sensor. With an AA filter the transitions are softened.

 

[AlanF]

For a start the 5DsR does have an AA filter, plus an attempted-cancellation filter. So it's not a bare sensor.

But a lot of the 'detail' allegedly seen in non-AA photos is actually not real detail, it is the hard contrast boundary between photosites on the sensor. With an AA filter the transitions are softened.

I know full well that there is always a nitpicker who tries to be clever by saying that the 5DSR has a self-cancelling AA-filter system as if I didn't know that and I thought that the 5DSR doesn't have one. Which is precisely why I wrote "which equates to a 7DII without an AA-filter". "Equates to" means "consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another" or "(of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another)." or *cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value". Just google "equates to" + meaning.