There are two more APS-C RF mount cameras coming [CR2]

[AlanF]

Ok, I was t clear there. What I meant was cropping to the same resolution, not the same sensor size. So crop 45 to 32. As I said, similar, it not the same.

As @neuroanatomist put it: if with the same lens you crop a 45 Mpx sensor to 32 Mpx, you put far fewer pixels per duck than a 32 Mpx APS-C does - the APS-C puts 88% more pixels on it.

 

[citytrader]

I just bought a M6mkII and I'm buying M lenses, I don't care if Canon discontinued it, I have the budget to buy any R Camera with the lens I could need, but I like the size of lens and camera of M system for what I need ( I don't do video)
Canon did a stupid decision to discontinue the M system, something that for people like me, this system fill our needs.
(I sold my old 5dmk4)

 

[koenkooi]

[...] Canon did a stupid decision to discontinue the M system, something that for people like me, this system fill our needs.[...]

Canon has not discontinued the M system yet, just most of the cameras. We'll see if that's a distinction without a difference in a few months...

 

[photographer]

I just bought a M6mkII and I'm buying M lenses, I don't care if Canon discontinued it, I have the budget to buy any R Camera with the lens I could need, but I like the size of lens and camera of M system for what I need ( I don't do video)
Canon did a stupid decision to discontinue the M system, something that for people like me, this system fill our needs.
(I sold my old 5dmk4)

For travel, I prefer the M system, but it is true that some RF-S lenses are not very large. Compare, for example, CANON EF-M 15-45 and CANON RF-S 18-45.

 

[melgross]

As @neuroanatomist put it: if with the same lens you crop a 45 Mpx sensor to 32 Mpx, you put far fewer pixels per duck than a 32 Mpx APS-C does - the APS-C puts 88% more pixels on it.

That majes no sense. 32mp is 32mp no matter how you achieve it.

 

[Maximilian]

That majes no sense. 32mp is 32mp no matter how you achieve it.

The important phrase is not "32 MP" but "far fewer pixels per duck".

Because @AlanF and @neuroanatomist already put clear that a 45 MP FF sensor delivers less MP over the same area as an APS-C sensor:

If you crop a 45mm [MP] FF image to APS-C, you get 17.6 MPx, which is less than 32 Mpx of the APS-C. ...
On the other hand, an 82 Mpx FF sensor has exactly the same reach as a 32 Mpx APS-C, both having 3.2µ pixels.

If you still don't want to understand that, I'll recommend you to draw it down and start counting pixels (... per duck).

Edit: maybe that wiki-page will help you with drawing: Sensor Sizes

 

[neuroanatomist]

That majes no sense. 32mp is 32mp no matter how you achieve it.

Really? Lol. So you believe all pixels in all sensors are the same size?

If you take a picture of a duck with the R5 and an R7, the duck will have far fewer pixels on it in the R5 image (assuming you take the picture from the same distance and with the same focal length, as stated). The duck will cover the same area of whatever sensor is behind the lens. The R5 has 4.39 µm pixels, the R7 has 3.2 µm pixels, therefore the area covered by the duck on the R7 sensor will have far more pixels in it than the same area on the R5.

Maybe this will help you understand the concept of pixels on duck.



Or maybe you'll just keep on making daffy statements and embarrass yourself further.

 

[melgross]

Really? Lol. So you believe all pixels in all sensors are the same size?

If you take a picture of a duck with the R5 and an R7, the duck will have far fewer pixels on it in the R5 image (assuming you take the picture from the same distance and with the same focal length, as stated). The duck will cover the same area of whatever sensor is behind the lens. The R5 has 4.39 µm pixels, the R7 has 3.2 µm pixels, therefore the area covered by the duck on the R7 sensor will have far more pixels in it than the same area on the R5.

Maybe this will help you understand the concept of pixels on duck.

View attachment 206577

Or maybe you'll just keep on making daffy statements and embarrass yourself further.

You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. I said,mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. I said,mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.

Lol, yes comprehension problems are happening. If you crop the R5 image to 32 MP, it will put fewer pixels on the duck than the 32 MP sensor of the R7. In other words, how you achieve 32 MP does matter (despite your incorrect statement to the contrary), because pixel size matters. What part of that do you not comprehend?

 

[AlanF]

You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. I said,mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.

Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.

 

[Del Paso]

Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.

Thanks for this excellent (as usual !) explanation.

 

[snapshot]

Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.

I am sure you have studied the matter in the case of wild-life, but when I went from 5D mark 4 to R5, i went from 30MP to 45MP, both full frame. Shooting tennis with my EF100-400 IS II, I am not sure I see a PQ improvement. (way fewer AF missses and more frames around contact ... but that is different). Thus, I am not convinced that the sensor is my resolution limiter.

 

[AlanF]

I am sure you have studied the matter in the case of wild-life, but when I went from 5D mark 4 to R5, i went from 30MP to 45MP, both full frame. Shooting tennis with my EF100-400 IS II, I am not sure I see a PQ improvement. (way fewer AF missses and more frames around contact ... but that is different). Thus, I am not convinced that the sensor is my resolution limiter.

Tennis shooting has different demands from wild life, which is often reach and detail limited. For shooting birds, unless it was mainly BIF where I wanted the better AF of the 5DIV, I would grab my 5DSR over my 5DIV because of the extra detail from the 50 Mpx, and subsequently the R5 over the R6 (or 5DIV). However, for more general photography I was more than happy with the R6. I like the detail I can squeeze out of the R7 but if I had only one body, it would be the R5.

 

[Czardoom]

I am sure you have studied the matter in the case of wild-life, but when I went from 5D mark 4 to R5, i went from 30MP to 45MP, both full frame. Shooting tennis with my EF100-400 IS II, I am not sure I see a PQ improvement. (way fewer AF missses and more frames around contact ... but that is different). Thus, I am not convinced that the sensor is my resolution limiter.

In my experience, when talking about the resolution increases in sensors, there are many factors that people do not consider. This is not a scientific evaluation, but just some things I have noticed in use. In my experience, perhaps the most important limiting factor in resolution is whether you are using a tripod or hand holding. Hand holding, I have taken pics with the 24 MP R10 and the 32 MP R7. No noticeable difference in resolution in many cases and when there was, a slight edge to 32 MP but had to zoom in over 100%. A few years ago took shots with the R in crop mode, about 12 MP, and a 24 MP crop camera with the same lens, the consumer Canon 70-300 II. Some of each batch showed greater resolution, leading me to the conclusion that it was the shots that I was able to hand hold more effectively that was the deciding factor. Later on I did the same test with a better lens the 70-300 L, and in that case the 24 MP out resolved the 12 MP in almost all cases, so lens matters, too. Just watched a YouTube video where the photographer was comparing hand held shots with a Fuji 26MP crop sensor versus their new 40 MP crop sensor. At 100% viewing, he said maybe her could see a very slight improvement. Maybe. Of course, diffraction also becomes an issue as pixels get smaller. So I think that the actual resolution increase in higher MP sensors is limited in real life hand held situations far more than many people think. Again, just a casual observation, so could be way off base. But that's my limited experience.

 

[AlanF]

In my experience, when talking about the resolution increases in sensors, there are many factors that people do not consider. This is not a scientific evaluation, but just some things I have noticed in use. In my experience, perhaps the most important limiting factor in resolution is whether you are using a tripod or hand holding. Hand holding, I have taken pics with the 24 MP R10 and the 32 MP R7. No noticeable difference in resolution in many cases and when there was, a slight edge to 32 MP but had to zoom in over 100%. A few years ago took shots with the R in crop mode, about 12 MP, and a 24 MP crop camera with the same lens, the consumer Canon 70-300 II. Some of each batch showed greater resolution, leading me to the conclusion that it was the shots that I was able to hand hold more effectively that was the deciding factor. Later on I did the same test with a better lens the 70-300 L, and in that case the 24 MP out resolved the 12 MP in almost all cases, so lens matters, too. Just watched a YouTube video where the photographer was comparing hand held shots with a Fuji 26MP crop sensor versus their new 40 MP crop sensor. At 100% viewing, he said maybe her could see a very slight improvement. Maybe. Of course, diffraction also becomes an issue as pixels get smaller. So I think that the actual resolution increase in higher MP sensors is limited in real life hand held situations far more than many people think. Again, just a casual observation, so could be way off base. But that's my limited experience.

A lot of truth there, and you have to work on it to get the best from the R7. Another crucial factor is shutter speed, especially with hand holding telephotos. You see claims of sharp images of say 1/30s for lenses with good IS and IBIS thrown in, but it doesn't work for me when I am trying to get sharp details of feathers etc. Even on the rare occasions when I use a tripod I like keeping the shutter speed up because of movement of the subject. I don't like going below 1/320s when hand holding long telephotos and prefer to get to 1/500s and faster.

 

[Maximilian]

You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. ...

Thank you very much. I'll take that into account.
I'll give that compliment directly back to you. Do you want a mirror to see the one with reading comprehension problems?

I said, mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.

No! Concerning reading comprehension you said:

... The excuse that you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. Just crop your image. ...

Here you said nothing about same amount of pixels.
And when most people compare FF to APS-C it is about how big is the subject is on the sensor from the same distance with the same FL of the lens.
And this is what most of the people interests. Especially if you can get more pixels on the subject at the same time.
And therefore, @neuroanatomist 's example picture with Duffy Duck directly hits the nail on the head.
And @AlanF 's maths showed you that cropping 45 MP FF to APS-C size will deliver significantly less pixels per duck compared to a 32 MP APS-C sensor.

If you now (later) come with the argument of the same amount of MP per cropping it will deliver you significantly less duck on your FF sensor area that you will use for your photo after cropping. In other words: The duck is smaller on the picture area.
So if you still think that

... you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. ...

fell free to do so, but

... Just crop your image. ...

is just plain and simply wrong, as long as you don't have the same pixel size (edit: ) and density on both APS-C and FF sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm very curious about how the spectrum has changed over the years. When I bought my first camera, an IXUS 400, in 2003 there was generally speaking a progression:

1. No camera
2. Disposable cameras
3. Point & shoot
4. APS-C film cameras
5. 135 film cameras
6. The very first digital SLRs
7. Medium format cameras

A few years later, with, what in the US was called 'rebel', cameras being introduced:

1. No camera
2. point & shoot
3. 'rebel' camers
4. 135 film cameras
5. Digital SLRs
6. Medium format

Nowadays phones seem to have taken over the 'no camera' and 'p&s' group and I bet a lot of the 'rebel' as well. What I'd really like to know is what people who want an ILC right now are thinking when they go shopping. How do they decide between SLRs and mirrorless? Price? Size/weight? The amount of kickbacks the salesperson gets? @neuroanatomist is fond of showing how strong SLR sales keep being, so there's something that keeps people buying them over things like the M series.

I know my father will buy the Olympus OM system body that's on sale or comes with free garbage he thinks he'll use. Arguments like "that's the exact same frame for both bodies, but this one has an accelerometer to automatically rotate your pictures, the other doesn't, for €30 more" fall on deaf ears. But lenses get researched very heavily The rest of the extended family is pretty much phone-only nowadays. Same for the neighbours, except for the vintage lens collector, but he has 2 kids under 5 now, so not much time for hobbies. The friends circle 'suffers' from the same small kids situation and use mostly their phones, but few of them bought a 'rebel' for their honeymoon and sporadically use it. My former coworkers in the concert industry like action cams, since you can strap them on and use them handsfree. Showing scale and rigging details is much easier on video.

Does anyone here have direct contact with people who are planning to buy their first ILC? What are their reasons for landing on an ILC instead of a bridge camera or phone. And what do they think the deciding factors will be for picking the brand/model/kit?

"Rebels" were around in the U.S. long before any consumer level (including "pro" bodies) mass marketed digital cameras. I still have an EOS Rebel IIs that shoots 135 format film. It came out in the mid-1990s. The whole "Rebel" moniker was based on the marketing campaign that featured tennis icon Andre Agassi. Andre had the image of a "rebel" on the men's tennis tour.

 

[melgross]

Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.

It doesn’t have to be the same length lens. I’m not saying that. You’re saying that. I know the “disadvantages“ to a longer lens, but that not the question.

 

[melgross]

Thank you very much. I'll take that into account.
I'll give that compliment directly back to you. Do you want a mirror to see the one with reading comprehension problems?


No! Concerning reading comprehension you said:

Here you said nothing about same amount of pixels.
And when most people compare FF to APS-C it is about how big is the subject is on the sensor from the same distance with the same FL of the lens.
And this is what most of the people interests. Especially if you can get more pixels on the subject at the same time.
And therefore, @neuroanatomist 's example picture with Duffy Duck directly hits the nail on the head.
And @AlanF 's maths showed you that cropping 45 MP FF to APS-C size will deliver significantly less pixels per duck compared to a 32 MP APS-C sensor.

If you now (later) come with the argument of the same amount of MP per cropping it will deliver you significantly less duck on your FF sensor area that you will use for your photo after cropping. In other words: The duck is smaller on the picture area.
So if you still think that

fell free to do so, but

is just plain and simply wrong, as long as you don't have the same pixel size (edit: ) and density on both APS-C and FF sensor.

No, none of that is talking about the issue. Crop to the same number of pixels. Obviously using the appropriate lens length. I thought that with all the experienced people here that it was obvious, that it didn’t need explanation in detail. I suppose I was wrong.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I suppose I was wrong.

Well, at least you are correct about one thing. Well done!