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

[Jopa]

I think we have a better chance to win by signing something more reasonable though... Like compile a list of sane features for the upcoming 5DsR2, otherwise it may sound like "Make Canon Great Again"

Canon needs a wall? ;D

Guys, it would really be nice if we could keep politics out of our threads. This has been one of the few forums on the net to get away from all that BS on both sides. Let's just keep it about cameras and gear.

I apologize, it was just a funny statement, which is probably an internet meme already. Really has nothing to do with politics. Canon may need a wall BTW - from Sony fanboys ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[Jopa]

The reason you’ll never see an APS-H sensor on a 7D is it would make the 1D obsolete for the vast majority of customers. In a sports body APS-H is too capable, Canon can’t risk it.
As a 4fps detail machine, that’s not threatening to the core market for their flagship body, so APS-H would be fine.

If they simply make a high-res (100Mpx+) FF body - you can easily crop to APS-H or APS-C, or even 1" and still have plenty of resolution.

 

[9VIII]

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.

EF-S lenses? Where? What lenses? You’re holding back the good stuff!

The only EF-S lens I have is the kit lens that I never wanted in the first place, and my Sigma 18-35A still worked best cropping a 35mm image down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Not quite the same as APS-H but close enough.

Canon can stick any sensor they want in any body they want, putting the 120MP APS-H sensor in a 6D2 would be a weekend project for them.

You’re still ignoring the point of memory speed, that’s why 120MP is ideal for now and why 250MP wouldn’t work in a consumer product right now.
That has always been the primary limitation, people don’t care about EF-S lenses, this wouldn’t be priced in Rebel territory to begin with. You’re acting like the 52MP sensor in the 5Ds is arleady in a $2,000 body.
As soon as that happens, fine, the market for high density APS-H would be mostly gone, but it’s not happening any time soon, if ever. APS-H is the best option.

The only thing that doesn’t work well with APS-H is your limited imagination.

 

[9VIII]

The reason you’ll never see an APS-H sensor on a 7D is it would make the 1D obsolete for the vast majority of customers. In a sports body APS-H is too capable, Canon can’t risk it.
As a 4fps detail machine, that’s not threatening to the core market for their flagship body, so APS-H would be fine.

If they simply make a high-res (100Mpx+) FF body - you can easily crop to APS-H or APS-C, or even 1" and still have plenty of resolution.

You’re missing the point. “Plenty of resolution” isn’t good enough, this is about maximizing density. Like I said before, 97MP APS-C would be the second best option, there just isn’t any good reason not to use the full APS-H prototype as it was demonstrated.

AND a 100MP Full Frame body would cost $5,000 USD “Because Marketing”.
Marketing is one of the biggest advantages of APS-H, they can do things with it that Canon would never allow with Full Frame.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I'm sure it won't happen but from my few months of extensive 1D4 shooting I fell in love with that camera but could not accept it's rather poor high ISO performance and lower MPs since I was shooting the 6D in parallel. I actually wouldn't consider the loss of 11mm at the wide end too critical. I liked the reduced field of view with my 300 X2 but the AF was not that good.

I griped about it at ISO 800 where now with the 1DX2 I'm often fairly happy at ISO 3200.

Jack

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only EF-S lens I have is the kit lens that I never wanted in the first place, and my Sigma 18-35A still worked best cropping a 35mm image down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Not quite the same as APS-H but close enough.

Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market? Lots of 17-55 and 15-85 lenses used on 7-series bodies. Why? Because they're the right range for a standard zoom. That range lens doesn't exist for APS-H.

Canon can stick any sensor they want in any body they want, putting the 120MP APS-H sensor in a 6D2 would be a weekend project for them.

Sure. So why haven't they? Because there's no market for it.

You’re still ignoring the point of memory speed, that’s why 120MP is ideal for now and why 250MP wouldn’t work in a consumer product right now.

You're still ignoring the fact that Canon themselves stated they're developing APS-H for surveillance cameras. Reality can be hard sometimes, but at least try to deal with it.

 

[9VIII]

The only EF-S lens I have is the kit lens that I never wanted in the first place, and my Sigma 18-35A still worked best cropping a 35mm image down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Not quite the same as APS-H but close enough.

Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market? Lots of 17-55 and 15-85 lenses used on 7-series bodies. Why? Because they're the right range for a standard zoom. That range lens doesn't exist for APS-H.

Both of the lenses you listed are $800-$900 lenses. You save practically nothing shooting EF-S, while at the same time IQ on the APS-H sensor will be 50% better.
24mm on APS-H is 31.2mm, 7mm difference from the widest EF-S Standard Zoom, big whoop. Your Standard Zoom EF lenses are much higher quality, not to mention if you want wide there’s the SPECTACULAR EF 16-35f/4LIS shooting 20mm equivalent on the wide end:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-16-35mm-USM-Lens/dp/B00K8942SO

And as long as we’ve got more resolution, you can easily crop the 35mm end to any framing size you want.
I suppose you think people should just “Crop Wider” on the EF-S lenses.

If we were talking Nikon or Fuji APS-C the argument might possibly hold some water, but this is Canon. Tell Canon to make a normal APS-C sensor in the first place.

Canon can stick any sensor they want in any body they want, putting the 120MP APS-H sensor in a 6D2 would be a weekend project for them.

Sure. So why haven't they? Because there's no market for it.

Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market?

Canon (and every other camera manufacturer) are charging a hefty premuim for higher resolution sensors, those products are incredibly popular, and any time you look at any forum for a dedicated crop system all you see is people asking for is bigger sensors.
You would have to be nearly brain-dead to think that “Bigger Sensor+Lots of Resolution=No Market”

Every time it comes up somewhere else the excuse not to use larger sensors is “x system doesn’t have the lenses”. Canon has the lenses, they’re the best lenses on the market, people are far better off using EF lenses than EF-S.

You’re still ignoring the point of memory speed, that’s why 120MP is ideal for now and why 250MP wouldn’t work in a consumer product right now.

You're still ignoring the fact that Canon themselves stated they're developing APS-H for surveillance cameras. Reality can be hard sometimes, but at least try to deal with it.

Canon isn’t held accountable to your opinion of the company. Reality is they can make anything they want, and consumer feedback is a thing, it’s what drives half of the design decisions Canon makes (e.g. Flippy Screen on the 6D2).

 

[Mikehit]

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.

Where do you get your number of $300 from? If you believe that they will take the additional production costs and pass that on at cost, you know zip about marketing. There is a $2,000 price difference between 7D3 and 5DIV so the price will be the north of half way between them.

A year before the APS-H was phased out, I was told about the upcoming announcement with the explanation that Canon wanted to reduce costs on running multiple formats now that high-performance FF had become financially affordable to the mass market. As his comments turned out to he true, I see no reason his explanation would not be either.
So tell me, why would they introduce a sensor size that they decided was a drag on production costs? Why do the marvellously innovative Sony and Nikon have a APS-H? Added to that I fail to see how much benefit APS-H would actually bring - it seems to me it is more nostalgia than any real-world practical advantage.

 

[scyrene]

The reason you’ll never see an APS-H sensor on a 7D is it would make the 1D obsolete for the vast majority of customers. In a sports body APS-H is too capable, Canon can’t risk it.
As a 4fps detail machine, that’s not threatening to the core market for their flagship body, so APS-H would be fine.

If they simply make a high-res (100Mpx+) FF body - you can easily crop to APS-H or APS-C, or even 1" and still have plenty of resolution.

You’re missing the point. “Plenty of resolution” isn’t good enough, this is about maximizing density. Like I said before, 97MP APS-C would be the second best option, there just isn’t any good reason not to use the full APS-H prototype as it was demonstrated.

AND a 100MP Full Frame body would cost $5,000 USD “Because Marketing”.
Marketing is one of the biggest advantages of APS-H, they can do things with it that Canon would never allow with Full Frame.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm genuinely perplexed by the whole discussion. What marketing advantages does APS-H have? How do you market that camera, especially to people who don't feel defined by, or care much about, sensor size?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Both of the lenses you listed are $800-$900 lenses. You save practically nothing shooting EF-S, while at the same time IQ on the APS-H sensor will be 50% better.

They are $800, so sure, the $900 difference to the 24-70/2.8 at $1700 is 'practically nothing'. :

24mm on APS-H is 31.2mm, 7mm difference from the widest EF-S Standard Zoom, big whoop.

A 7mm difference from 24mm is a difference of ~30%. Personally, I find the difference between 24mm and 28mm to be very noticeable (for example, it was the main reason I upgraded from the PowerShot S95 to the S100). But that's just me, and unlike you I do understand that I am not representative of the overall market. However...Canon probably has a damn good idea of what the market wants, and consider that with the EOS M line, they updated their standard zoom from an 18-55mm to a 15-45mm. So it seems Canon believes the market wants their standard zoom to be wider. APS-H is pushing things the opposite direction.

...not to mention if you want wide there’s the SPECTACULAR EF 16-35f/4LIS shooting 20mm equivalent on the wide end

So you think people want to take a spectacular ultrawide lens and use it on a camera that makes it less wide. Again, look at the history of ultrawide lenses. The also spectacular 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens we have now began life as a 20-35/2.8L, then became a 17-35/2.8L. Trend is wider, APS-H is the opposite.

You would have to be nearly brain-dead to think that “Bigger Sensor+Lots of Resolution=No Market”

Indeed. But in your head it seems that Bigger Sensor + Lots of Resolution = APS-H, whereas out here in reality-land, the bigger sensor is FF.

Every time it comes up somewhere else the excuse not to use larger sensors is “x system doesn’t have the lenses”. Canon has the lenses, they’re the best lenses on the market, people are far better off using EF lenses than EF-S.

No, Canon doesn't have the lenses for APS-H. They have lenses for full frame, and lenses for APS-C. The prototypical standard 24-70mm translated to APS-H would be 18.5-53.8mm...which is essentially an 18-55mm lens. Except that Canon doesn't make one of those for APS-H or FF.

Canon isn’t held accountable to your opinion of the company. Reality is they can make anything they want, and consumer feedback is a thing, it’s what drives half of the design decisions Canon makes (e.g. Flippy Screen on the 6D2).

Of course Canon isn't held accountable to my opinion. But it's not my opinion that Canon is developing high MP APS-H sensors for surveillance application, and not for consumer photography applications...that is Canon's own statement.

You're absolutely correct that consumer feedback is a thing. You have absolutely no idea how much of Canon's design decisions it drives (nor do I, only Canon does). But certainly it matters to them.

So, in light of that, let's consider consumer feedback on APS-H. You launched your petition over 24 hours ago, and in that time well over 1,000 people have viewed this topic. So far, a grand total of four people have signed your petition. Four. Since you seem to like equations, try this one: Consumer Feedback + Four People = Canon Doesn't Give a Crap.

I think we're done here. At least, I am. If you want to go on living in a fantasy world and spouting ridiculous BS, that's your choice.

 

[9VIII]

The reason you’ll never see an APS-H sensor on a 7D is it would make the 1D obsolete for the vast majority of customers. In a sports body APS-H is too capable, Canon can’t risk it.
As a 4fps detail machine, that’s not threatening to the core market for their flagship body, so APS-H would be fine.

If they simply make a high-res (100Mpx+) FF body - you can easily crop to APS-H or APS-C, or even 1" and still have plenty of resolution.

You’re missing the point. “Plenty of resolution” isn’t good enough, this is about maximizing density. Like I said before, 97MP APS-C would be the second best option, there just isn’t any good reason not to use the full APS-H prototype as it was demonstrated.

AND a 100MP Full Frame body would cost $5,000 USD “Because Marketing”.
Marketing is one of the biggest advantages of APS-H, they can do things with it that Canon would never allow with Full Frame.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm genuinely perplexed by the whole discussion. What marketing advantages does APS-H have? How do you market that camera, especially to people who don't feel defined by, or care much about, sensor size?

Look at the 5Ds, now tell me what they’re going to charge for something with twice as much resolution.

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.

Where do you get your number of $300 from? If you believe that they will take the additional production costs and pass that on at cost, you know zip about marketing. There is a $2,000 price difference between 7D3 and 5DIV so the price will be the north of half way between them.

A year before the APS-H was phased out, I was told about the upcoming announcement with the explanation that Canon wanted to reduce costs on running multiple formats now that high-performance FF had become financially affordable to the mass market. As his comments turned out to he true, I see no reason his explanation would not be either.
So tell me, why would they introduce a sensor size that they decided was a drag on production costs? Why do the marvellously innovative Sony and Nikon have a APS-H? Added to that I fail to see how much benefit APS-H would actually bring - it seems to me it is more nostalgia than any real-world practical advantage.

Has someone posted the price of the 7D3?
The D500 is $1,900, not ~$1,500 like the (discontinued) 7D2. It’s a $1,400 difference between the 5D4 and its nearest crop body competitor.
Fine, make it $500 difference, APS-H in a 7D body would be the hottest thing since autofocus was invented.

What Canon said 10 years ago is going to have almost no relevance to the market today. The moment Canon thinks they need an edge, they can push out APS-H and the world will call it genius move. They CANNOT move to Full Frame or the 1D would become totally pointless.
Same thing with a high MP crop body and the 5Ds, the 5Ds would be totally pointless if they gave another Full Frame body more resolution and sold it for less. That’s a marketing principle even someone who’s half brain-dead can understand.


But that’s all totally beside the point, You guys are all running around screaming “APS-H is dead” when I don’t even think it’s necessary, it’s not the point ot the petition, the point is pixel density.

Forget APS-H exists and make this all about a 97MP APS-C sensor.

Neuro really just hates the idea of high resolution sensors and he’s using APS-H as a straw man to say this is all a bad idea.

 

[9VIII]

Both of the lenses you listed are $800-$900 lenses. You save practically nothing shooting EF-S, while at the same time IQ on the APS-H sensor will be 50% better.

They are $800, so sure, the $900 difference to the 24-70/2.8 at $1700 is 'practically nothing'. :

Neuro, you’re embarrassing yourself, quit while you have some dignity left.

$769 https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Zoom-Lens/dp/B000B84KAW/
$899 https://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-4-0L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B00A2BVAN8/

And again, the 16-35 only costs $999.

24mm on APS-H is 31.2mm, 7mm difference from the widest EF-S Standard Zoom, big whoop.

A 7mm difference from 24mm is a difference of ~30%. Personally...

Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market?

...not to mention if you want wide there’s the SPECTACULAR EF 16-35f/4LIS shooting 20mm equivalent on the wide end

So you think people want to take a spectacular ultrawide lens and use it on a camera that makes it less wide. Again, look at the history of ultrawide lenses. The also spectacular 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens we have now began life as a 20-35/2.8L, then became a 17-35/2.8L. Trend is wider, APS-H is the opposite.

Practically every picture captured today is cropped in post.
Using APS-H there would actually be no loss in quality from cropping until you go past 56mm, which is the same sensor area as APS-C.

20-56mm with vastly improved IQ is a way better deal than any EF-S Standard Zoom lens.

You would have to be nearly brain-dead to think that “Bigger Sensor+Lots of Resolution=No Market”

Indeed. But in your head it seems that Bigger Sensor + Lots of Resolution = APS-H, whereas out here in reality-land, the bigger sensor is FF.

Out in Reality-Land a 150MP Full Frame body would sell for $8,000 because Canon has already demonstrated with the 5Ds that they will charge a hefty premium for high resolution Full Frame sensors.
APS-H avoids that dilemma.

You’ve purposefully ignored that point through the entire thread and your credibility is falling like a rock.

Every time it comes up somewhere else the excuse not to use larger sensors is “x system doesn’t have the lenses”. Canon has the lenses, they’re the best lenses on the market, people are far better off using EF lenses than EF-S.

No, Canon doesn't have the lenses for APS-H. They have lenses for full frame, and lenses for APS-C. The prototypical standard 24-70mm translated to APS-H would be 18.5-53.8mm...which is essentially an 18-55mm lens. Except that Canon doesn't make one of those for APS-H or FF.

EF lenses are infinitely superior on APS-H compared to EF-S lenses on APS-C. Your fetish with lenses fitting an exact range doens’t apply to the market in general.

Been taking lessons from AvTvM on your own importance in the market?

Canon isn’t held accountable to your opinion of the company. Reality is they can make anything they want, and consumer feedback is a thing, it’s what drives half of the design decisions Canon makes (e.g. Flippy Screen on the 6D2).

Of course Canon isn't held accountable to my opinion. But it's not my opinion that Canon is developing high MP APS-H sensors for surveillance application, and not for consumer photography applications...that is Canon's own statement.

You're absolutely correct that consumer feedback is a thing. You have absolutely no idea how much of Canon's design decisions it drives (nor do I, only Canon does). But certainly it matters to them.

It is still nothing but your opinion because people change their mind all the time.

So, in light of that, let's consider consumer feedback on APS-H. You launched your petition over 24 hours ago, and in that time well over 1,000 people have viewed this topic. So far, a grand total of four people have signed your petition. Four. Since you seem to like equations, try this one: Consumer Feedback + Four People = Canon Doesn't Give a Crap.

I think we're done here. At least, I am. If you want to go on living in a fantasy world and spouting ridiculous BS, that's your choice.

The other 996 people have just been scared off by your incessant belligerent ignorance.

Now everyone probably thinks of you as the “anti-innovation” man.

 

[9VIII]

I’ll say it again, the moment Canon puts the 5Ds sensor on a $2,000 body, the market for a high resolution APS-H sensor disappears.
Until that point, APS-H is fully relevant to the current market situation as a way to up-sell existing crop shooters but not cannibalize the premium that Canon currently gives to Full Frame.

 

[Ozarker]

I think we have a better chance to win by signing something more reasonable though... Like compile a list of sane features for the upcoming 5DsR2, otherwise it may sound like "Make Canon Great Again"

Canon needs a wall? ;D

Guys, it would really be nice if we could keep politics out of our threads. This has been one of the few forums on the net to get away from all that BS on both sides. Let's just keep it about cameras and gear.

I apologize, it was just a funny statement, which is probably an internet meme already. Really has nothing to do with politics. Canon may need a wall BTW - from Sony fanboys ;D

;D

 

[Ozarker]

I sit up all night dreaming about a 120mp APS-H sensor and a steel I-beam tripod to keep away the camera shake (anchored in concrete). I have a commission to make a billboard to cover Mt. Rushmore. : I wonder if lenses will also be released to go along with that?

A 120 mega pixel hand held camera would be like driving a monster truck: Terrible road manners and only good for running things over. Not pretty at all. Worse than that: It's like the guy who'll never take his 4x4 off road. He bought it just in case and for hoots.

The great thing is that I don't have to properly frame anything. That is enough mp that I can just shoot away and worry about composition in post.

The never ending drive for more and more mp goes on and on, whether we need them or not. I can think of dozens of other things other than megapixels that would be far more useful.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm genuinely perplexed by the whole discussion. What marketing advantages does APS-H have? How do you market that camera, especially to people who don't feel defined by, or care much about, sensor size?

You don't. Based on their sales records, Canon clearly knows their market, and Canon clearly has the ability to make such a camera, but they abandoned the format half a decade ago.

But who knows, perhaps if the number of petition signers grows to the point where 9VIII needs to use his toes in addition to his fingers to count them, maybe Canon will take notice. Of course, if they do take notice…they'll do so by posting it over the company water cooler so everyone can have a good laugh.

 

[Mikehit]

But that’s all totally beside the point, You guys are all running around screaming “APS-H is dead” when I don’t even think it’s necessary, it’s not the point ot the petition, the point is pixel density.

Forget APS-H exists and make this all about a 97MP APS-C sensor.

What are you on about. If your petition is about pixel density why the hell does it talk about a long-dead format?
And if it is about pixel density, a 97MP APS-C is not the same density as 100MP APS-H. Why not a 100MP FF sensor?

Do you have any idea what you are on about?

The D500 is $1,900, not ~$1,500 like the (discontinued) 7D2. It’s a $1,400 difference between the 5D4 and its nearest crop body competitor.

Is the 7D2 discontinued? News to me
At B&H the 7D2 is 1,400, the 5DIV is $3,500 - difference is $2,000, Do you use different maths in your universe? Or do you think it reasonable that a Canon buyer looks at the price of Nikon cameras to see how much an upgrade costs? Weird to say the least...

 

[9VIII]

At B&H the 7D2 is 1,400...

And of course the 7D3 will be more expensive at launch, both because Canon will equip it better, and just because prices always go up on new models.

 

[9VIII]

But that’s all totally beside the point, You guys are all running around screaming “APS-H is dead” when I don’t even think it’s necessary, it’s not the point ot the petition, the point is pixel density.

Forget APS-H exists and make this all about a 97MP APS-C sensor.

What are you on about. If your petition is about pixel density why the hell does it talk about a long-dead format?

Because that is the sensor that Canon has been demonstrating!

And if it is about pixel density, a 97MP APS-C is not the same density as 100MP APS-H. Why not a 100MP FF sensor?

You are clearly trying to do nothing but obfuscate the situation. Read the thread again, I’ve explained it half a dozen times already.
If you want me to type out another explanation you have to sign the petition first.