Small Eos 5D IV comparison to Nikon, Sony, Fuji...

[Valvebounce]

Hi 9VIII.
I'm just wondering at what point you started playing the 'game' and why?
You have managed to incite several reasonable people to respond in somewhat different tone from their regular posts on the forum with this game.

Cheers, Graham.

it’s a game of “poke the bear” and behaving reasonably just ends the game.

 

[9VIII]

Hi 9VIII.
I'm just wondering at what point you started playing the 'game' and why?
You have managed to incite several reasonable people to respond in somewhat different tone from their regular posts on the forum with this game.

Cheers, Graham.

it’s a game of “poke the bear” and behaving reasonably just ends the game.

As soon as Neuro posted this:

I guarantee if Canon were to release two versions of the 7DMkIII, one APS-C, and one APS-H, with the same pixel density across both, charging $300 more for APS-H, no one would buy the APS-C version.

LOL. Right, everyone would spend $300 more for the body, then hundreds to thousands more for the EF lenses they'd need because APS-H isn't compatible with EF-S.

Must be some potent stuff you're drinking/smoking/snorting/popping.

I notice you ignored the statements from Canon about why they're developing ultra high MP APS-H sensors. I guess 'the good stuff' helps you avoid reality, too.

That's basically an invitation for a throwdown.

The really funny thing is I'm confident both Neuro and I have argued exact opposite stances before (maybe not in direct opposition in the same thread like this), that in itself made the argument amusing.

As soon as the forum resident "tough guy" starts then spectators join in expecting to score some easy points.

Neuro didn't actually try to argue anything beyond lens compatibility and the lack of current production, the caption with Gollum actually does a good job representing the way people feel about APS-H, much as this entire discussion is not really about APS-H.
That's where the confusion really comes from, but I hesitate to call it confusion because every opportunity given to make this about APS-C was totally ignored. People don't want to argue about APS-C, they want to argue about APS-H.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm just wondering at what point you started playing the 'game' and why?
You have managed to incite several reasonable people to respond in somewhat different tone from their regular posts on the forum with this game.

When you start 'guaranteeing' that everyone will make a particular choice, not coincidentally a choice in favor of the very thing you're proposing, you're asking for trouble (and making yourself look foolish in the process).

 

[Don Haines]

I kind of feel sorry that Don decided to throw himself into the pit, but I can't dictate the posting habits of other members.

I'm not sure what you mean about "throw himself into the pit".....

I pointed out that if you added an APS-H sensor into a 7D2, that you would need a larger mirror, that the files would be larger, and that this would slow down the burst speed of the camera.

I pointed out that if you put in an APS-H sensor, that you would no longer be able to use the less expensive APS-C lenses.

I pointed out that I can walk into B+H and come out with a 7D2 and 17-55F2.8 for $2300, or I could walk out with your APS-H 7D2 (If canon made it and if it was only $300 more) and a 24-70F2.8 for $3500. You then insulted me by saying that "I suck at buying lenses" because the 24-70F4 is much cheaper, and that "The 17-55f2.8 has a terrible T-stop value. You’re actually getting far superior light gathering out of the F4 lens on APS-H"

Well, I don't have an APS-H camera to test this out on, but I just happen to have both of those lenses, a 7D2, and a 6D2 here to play with. Testing on the 7D2 shows that the F4 lens is one stop slower than the F2.8 lens, and therefore it gathers 1 stop less light. Testing also confirms that there was no difference in exposure moving the F4 lens from crop to FF. There is no "crop equivalence factor" when it comes to exposure, and when you are spot metering at the centre of the lens, that vignetting in the edges of the frame has no effect on metering.

despite the fact that we were discussing exposure, you again insulted me by saying "You’re still fundamentally confused about how sensor noise works." My response was "Assuming the same level of technology, the major factor affecting noise is not the size of the sensor, it is the size of the photo site.... and for a fixed number of pixels on a chip, FF will beat APS-H. It changes nothing, people will go for crop if they are after lower cost, and if they are after higher quality they will go for FF...."

You then tried to change the discussion to "maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost" and insulted me yet again. I pointed out u4/3 cameras. (They have a much greater pixel density AND a lower cost than Canon DSLRs)

You then told me to go rethink my life.

You sir, owe me an apology!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

24MP APS-C has been standard across most of the industry for almost five years now, I just wish manufacturers would quit dragging their feet on pixel density and get to something with serious gains over long existing products (which even the 5DS is not).

Maybe they are "dragging their feet" because they would rather not put out a higher MP crop camera that has lower DR and more noise and needs a tripod to get a good pic that takes advantage of those extra pixels. Just maybe - because they understand the pros and cons of adding more MPs - they are reaching the practical limit of pixel density.

Actually, Camera phones with their tiny sensors have a much higher APS-C or FF equivalent MP count, and, noise per pixel is indeed higher, but they are turning out some pretty amazing images, considering the tiny sensor.

a 1/2.5 in 12 mp camera phone sensor with a area of 25mm sq where a APS-C has about 380mm sq or 15.2 times the area. Presumably, you could put 182+ MP on the sensor if you could make it work. A 864mm sq FF sensor has about 34.6X the area, or 415 MP

So, unless my reasoning is faulty, a 12 MP Galaxy S7 which is not the most dense phone sensor scales up to 415 FF MP.

I think it could be done, expensive perhaps, and would require layered BSI sensors to get all the circuitry on it, but doable.

As far as the write time and FPS for such a camera, it might be slower than we'd like. But, people are capturing photos with those dense sensors all the time.

Experts are predicting much more dense sensors that we see today, we are not near the limit, but costs also rise, and practical limitations like processor power and memory keep the huge MP sensors from being a practical reality, at least for now. I expect a ~1000 MP sensor to appear in 5 years, it might only be a technology demonstration, but it could happen.

 

[9VIII]

I kind of feel sorry that Don decided to throw himself into the pit, but I can't dictate the posting habits of other members.

I'm not sure what you mean about "throw himself into the pit".....

I pointed out that if you added an APS-H sensor into a 7D2, that you would need a larger mirror, that the files would be larger, and that this would slow down the burst speed of the camera.

I pointed out that if you put in an APS-H sensor, that you would no longer be able to use the less expensive APS-C lenses.

I pointed out that I can walk into B+H and come out with a 7D2 and 17-55F2.8 for $2300, or I could walk out with your APS-H 7D2 (If canon made it and if it was only $300 more) and a 24-70F2.8 for $3500. You then insulted me by saying that "I suck at buying lenses" because the 24-70F4 is much cheaper, and that "The 17-55f2.8 has a terrible T-stop value. You’re actually getting far superior light gathering out of the F4 lens on APS-H"

Well, I don't have an APS-H camera to test this out on, but I just happen to have both of those lenses, a 7D2, and a 6D2 here to play with. Testing on the 7D2 shows that the F4 lens is one stop slower than the F2.8 lens, and therefore it gathers 1 stop less light. Testing also confirms that there was no difference in exposure moving the F4 lens from crop to FF. There is no "crop equivalence factor" when it comes to exposure, and when you are spot metering at the centre of the lens, that vignetting in the edges of the frame has no effect on metering.

despite the fact that we were discussing exposure, you again insulted me by saying "You’re still fundamentally confused about how sensor noise works." My response was "Assuming the same level of technology, the major factor affecting noise is not the size of the sensor, it is the size of the photo site.... and for a fixed number of pixels on a chip, FF will beat APS-H. It changes nothing, people will go for crop if they are after lower cost, and if they are after higher quality they will go for FF...."

You then tried to change the discussion to "maximum pixel density at a reasonable cost" and insulted me yet again. I pointed out u4/3 cameras. (They have a much greater pixel density AND a lower cost than Canon DSLRs)

You then told me to go rethink my life.

You sir, owe me an apology!

I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so bad.

Read the thread again.

 

[Mikehit]

...this entire discussion is not really about APS-H.
That's where the confusion really comes from, but I hesitate to call it confusion because every opportunity given to make this about APS-C was totally ignored. People don't want to argue about APS-C, they want to argue about APS-H.

Didn't you make it about APS-H when you told us to read your petition...?A petition where you tell Canon to make a 120mp APS-H camera?

 

[9VIII]

...this entire discussion is not really about APS-H.
That's where the confusion really comes from, but I hesitate to call it confusion because every opportunity given to make this about APS-C was totally ignored. People don't want to argue about APS-C, they want to argue about APS-H.

Didn't you make it about APS-H when you told us to read your petition...?A petition where you tell Canon to make a 120mp APS-H camera?

Read the petition.
APS-H is mentioned once in the body of the petition, the size of sensor is simply a matter of circumstance. APS-H is the only high resolution prototype Canon has ever shown.

It’s ironic that you can quote that post and pretend like the discussion constantly lingering on APS-H is anything but the will of the wider group.
Again, as soon as APS-H is mentioned the crowd here goes mad like a herd of of angry bulls charging down the streets in Spain.

 

[Mikehit]

...this entire discussion is not really about APS-H.
That's where the confusion really comes from, but I hesitate to call it confusion because every opportunity given to make this about APS-C was totally ignored. People don't want to argue about APS-C, they want to argue about APS-H.

Didn't you make it about APS-H when you told us to read your petition...?A petition where you tell Canon to make a 120mp APS-H camera?

Read the petition.
APS-H is mentioned once in the body of the petition, the size of sensor is simply a matter of circumstance. APS-H is the only high resolution prototype Canon has ever shown.

It’s ironic that you can quote that post and pretend like the discussion constantly lingering on APS-H is anything but the will of the wider group.
Again, as soon as APS-H is mentioned the crowd here goes mad like a herd of of angry bulls charging down the streets in Spain.

I did read the petition and you are asking Canon specifically to make a 120MP APS-H. You mentioned it in the title and in the body of the text with nothing about 'density' equivalence for other formats. End of. If that is not what you meant then why did you ask for it?

120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,

Written by you.
So tell me, how is that anything other than a call for a high-density APS-H camera?

Or are you the Cheshire cat in disguise where things mean what you want them to mean? Excuse me because I have a rabbit hole to jump down....

 

[neuroanatomist]

120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,

Written by you.

Maybe that's what he said. But what he meant was, "120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature four people really want."

 

[Deleted member 91053]

120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,

Written by you.

Maybe that's what he said. But what he meant was, "120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature four people really want."

;D

 

[SecureGSM]

nuh, just 3 people. Jopa wasn't serious about it ;D

 

[OSOK]

The D850 with a Battery Grip shooting 45MP at 9fps (that better be 14bit) is really the story of the year,

Yeah, when adding $1,000 worth of grip, battery and charger....

No doubt in my mind there will be a percentage of users who buy this thing thinking just a grip (any grip) will get 9fps. Then there will be another group who will think just $350 for the Nikon grip will suffice. Not digging deeper to see the price of the battery and the outrageous price of the charger. There will be some disappointed people who will kick themselves for not reading further. Once stuck paying that much, they'll just add themselves to the ranks of Nikon online apologists and make excuses on the web.


I think the speed hype of the D850 would be slightly diminished if next to the 9fps spec, they write @ $4,400.

Now, 45mp @ 7fps is 2 better than the 5DSR and this is something significant. But....

Uncompressed, full resolution images from the D850 are 93mb give or take a couple. Anyone with dreams of using this as an occasional sports camera will be churning out 7 to 9 frames per second at nearly 100mb per image. That's disgusting.

A typical buffer sized burst of 3-4 seconds will chew up about 3GB of card space. And...given the high prices of XQD...

This is why the Nikon people are parading the equality of lossless compressed across the web. Which of course, makes zero sense. If it truly, 100% is the same as uncompressed 14 bit NEF - why even offer an uncompressed option in the menu? Force lossless compressed and save people the wasted space. They are trying to counter the backlash of complaints about the massive file size.

All I can say is, if you want to be shooting sports with that thing -- better get used to JPG. And better get used to learning to actually expose correctly and not be one of these Sony sensor +5 shadow lifters.

 

[Don Haines]

No doubt in my mind there will be a percentage of users who buy this thing thinking just a grip (any grip) will get 9fps. Then there will be another group who will think just $350 for the Nikon grip will suffice. Not digging deeper to see the price of the battery and the outrageous price of the charger. There will be some disappointed people who will kick themselves for not reading further. Once stuck paying that much, they'll just add themselves to the ranks of Nikon online apologists and make excuses on the web.

I think the speed hype of the D850 would be slightly diminished if next to the 9fps spec, they write @ $4,400.

Now, 45mp @ 7fps is 2 better than the 5DSR and this is something significant. But....

Uncompressed, full resolution images from the D850 are 93mb give or take a couple. Anyone with dreams of using this as an occasional sports camera will be churning out 7 to 9 frames per second at nearly 100mb per image. That's disgusting.

A typical buffer sized burst of 3-4 seconds will chew up about 3GB of card space. And...given the high prices of XQD...

This is why the Nikon people are parading the equality of lossless compressed across the web. Which of course, makes zero sense. If it truly, 100% is the same as uncompressed 14 bit NEF - why even offer an uncompressed option in the menu? Force lossless compressed and save people the wasted space. They are trying to counter the backlash of complaints about the massive file size.

All I can say is, if you want to be shooting sports with that thing -- better get used to JPG. And better get used to learning to actually expose correctly and not be one of these Sony sensor +5 shadow lifters.

Compression takes time.... with slow cards, it is quite likely that the time spent doing compression is more than compensated for by the time it takes to write the image, but this may not hold true for really fast memory cards.

It is quite possible that in order to get the burst speed, they are just reading the sensor and dumping to memory with minimal processing involved, and that if they were to compress the image, that it could slow down the burst rate.....

 

[9VIII]

120 Megapixel APS-H Sensor is a feature people really want,

Written by you.
So tell me, how is that anything other than a call for a high-density APS-H camera?

Or are you the Cheshire cat in disguise where things mean what you want them to mean? Excuse me because I have a rabbit hole to jump down....

It is a call for 120MP APS-H, that’s the most logical format to use, but the sensor format is not the main focus of the petition, resolution and pixel density are mentioned more than twice as much as APS-H.
This just happens to be the only format Canon has demonstrated for this type of product, and given that it does have many advantages it only benefits the idea to keep the APS-H sensor in the concept.
The next best thing to ask for would probably be a 50MP APS-C “Mini 5DS” but that’s underperforming compared to what the APS-H concept accomplishes.

 

[Mikehit]

It is a call for 120MP APS-H, that’s the most logical format to use, but the sensor format is not the main focus of the petition, resolution and pixel density are mentioned more than twice as much as APS-H.
This just happens to be the only format Canon has demonstrated for this type of product, and given that it does have many advantages it only benefits the idea to keep the APS-H sensor in the concept.
The next best thing to ask for would probably be a 50MP APS-C “Mini 5DS” but that’s underperforming compared to what the APS-H concept accomplishes.

Well, your call for APS-H may be why you had such a poor response. Either that or people are not clamouring for 180MP FF sensor (or equivalent).
My guess is the latter.

Note to self: When raising a petition, make sure the title and main thrust of the petition text actually describes what I am after.