*UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

[TrumpetPower!]

Over here in Africa we used to shoot with ASA 50 as standard, so I guess it's just something I'm used to from my film days. Using ISO 100 my shutter speeds go to 1/2000~4000 easily, but usually around 1/1000 most of the time. ND filters are a hassle.

I guess I'm still not seeing the point.

If you're regularly at ISO 100 and 1/4000, then ISO 25 is only going to get you to 1/1000. If you're looking to slow the shutter, you're at least looking at 1/250 to sync with a flash and therefore, even with ISO 25, you're still needing at least a two-stop ND filter. And such a filter is nothing compared with the hassle of the types of flash that need to be synced at that speed.

Much more common when you're looking for a slow shutter is something in the half second range to smooth out flowing water. And, first, that generally looks ugly no matter what in direct sunlight (sunny f/16 is ISO 100 @ f/4 @ 1/4000). And, second, you're not going to get even within shouting distance of that during daytime hours no matter the ISO without some serious ND filters.

And then, after that, you're looking at several second long exposures to turn busy areas into ghost towns. No way in hell is that happening in bright daylight from ISO alone.

And if your'e a videographer, ND filters are part of your standard kit and, again, the least of your worries. Again, no ISO speed has ever been made that'll take you from 1/4000 to the 1/50 you need for a 180° shutter at 25 FPS.

So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?

For everything else, you're generally wanting the fastest shutter speed you can get. You mention Africa, parts of which can get bright, granted. But it's not ISO 100 @ f/11 @ 1/4000 bright, I'm pretty sure, and you were pretty specific about the 1/4000. Put me on the savannah shooting wildlife and the last thing on my mind would be wishing for a slower shutter speed. Put me in a village shooting kids at play and I'll be wanting as fast a shutter as I can get. Put me in that village shooting the architecture and my concerns will again be about the shutter getting too slow, not being too fast. Put me again on the savannah during the golden hour to shoot the landscapes and I'll really be watching that shutter speed and quickly boosting the ISO to stop the swaying of the vegetation in the evening breeze.

I really, truly, don't get this desire for even lower ISOs speeds. That ship sailed a loooooong time ago....

Cheers,

b&

 

[TrumpetPower!]

As for the rest of your specs...well, they're meaningless.

This is a typical fanboy response.

When a Canon has better specs, it wins hands down.
But if a Nikon has better specs, then this is irrelevant in the 'real world'.

FYI, this is not how things work with buyers.
Buyers look at the price and the specs and then ponder if the camera offers good value.

The D7100 offers exceptional value.
If Canon doesn't match that, then they'd better offer the 70D for cheap.

Yet another measurebator who cares more about meaningless numbers on a spec list than actual real-world performance.

Here's a serious question for all y'all Nikon trolls: would you rather have a D800 with its manly 36 megapickles and 14 stops of DxO DR, or would you rather have a 1Dx with its girly half-as-many 18 megapickles and 12 stops of DxO DR? And let's not forget that the D800 scores a near-perfed 95 on the DxO scale, while the 1DX is barely above average at an unimpressive 82.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Krob78]

Personally I think Canon has painted themselves into a corner with their mid-range cameras. The xxxD range offers exceptional value in terms of what you get and what you pay for it. The 1D and 5D series are workhorses. Where does that leave the xxD, 7D and 6D cameras? Let's face it, on paper the 700D has a better AF system than the 6D - except for centre-point zero-light capability. What's going to differentiate the 70D from the 7DII and the xxxD line?

I've shot with a 7d since the end of 2009, I think it easily qualifies as a workhorse...

 

[Don Haines]

Anyway, whilst y'all going on about low-light and high-ISO performance, I want low-ISO performance ... ISO 50 ... or better yet, ISO 25.

Um...why?

The 5DIII (I'm not personally familiar with crop cameras) is noise-free at ISO 400. It's just as noise-free at ISO 200 and ISO 100. There's no more noise to be cleaned up, so what's there to be gained by ISO 25?

Being able to use the camera with extremely bright light and not need a filter.

Being able to take longer exposure photographs in normal lighting without needing a filter.

ISO25 film produced some excellent shots.

There might be a very good reason for no ISO25...... If it is so bright that you need it, you have a lot of light pouring into the camera.... and light is energy, and energy causes heating. What happens to your sensor on a long exposure? will the heating damage the sensor or will it just create a whole lot of thermal noise? Would you get a cleaner picture at higher ISO with a ND filter keeping the heat away from the sensor?

I don't know..... just asking....

 

[TrumpetPower!]

There might be a very good reason for no ISO25...... If it is so bright that you need it, you have a lot of light pouring into the camera.... and light is energy, and energy causes heating. What happens to your sensor on a long exposure? will the heating damage the sensor or will it just create a whole lot of thermal noise? Would you get a cleaner picture at higher ISO with a ND filter keeping the heat away from the sensor?

I don't know..... just asking....

You're not going to damage the sensor with any scenes even at EV 23, which is ISO 25 @ f/22 @ 1/4000, which you can also get with ISO 100 @ f/32 @ 1/8000 (which, depending on the lens, is the dimmest exposure you're going to get on a 5DIII).

What could very easily damage the sensor, at any level of brightness, with or without an ND filter, is prolonged direct exposure to the Sun. And the damage will be caused by the same method that causes blindness in humans who stare at the Sun. (Lasers can also fry a sensor as well as they can fry your eyes, but the damage is caused by a different mechanism.)

But there is a very good reason for no native ISOs below 100 (ish). The photosites have a maximum number of photons they can record to a single charge. Dump more than that many photons onto a photosite and it still records the same number for its full charge. The physics of it works in such a way that, if you shoot outside on a sunny day at 1/100s at f/16 with minimal / no analog amplification with a sensor that clips slightly above the brightest non-specular highlights in the scene, you'll have an optimal dynamic range for that imaging technology over most shooting conditions most people encounter.

Incidentally, no Canon camera actually shoots at ISO 50. When you set the camera to ISO 50, the meter changes, but the electronics still operates exactly the same way it does at ISO 100. If you shoot JPEGs, the onboard raw processor will divide every value coming off the sensor by two before converting it to a JPEG, thereby costing you a stop of exposure headroom. If you shoot RAW, the same RAW file gets created as if you shot at ISO 100 except that the metadata flag for ISO says "50" instead of "100." The RAW processor on your computer sees that, and it, too, divides every number in the RAW file by two before continuing with raw processing.

You might therefore wonder what the point is of ISO 50. The point is twofold. First, if you shoot JPEG, it's a wonderfully convenient in-camera way of doing ETTR when either your scene has no highlights or you don't care if they clip. And second, if you're planning on doing ETTR in the digital darkroom, you might as well shoot ISO 50 instead and get a much more useful preview image on the back of the camera, plus you'll save yourself a step in post-processing. Also, considering that most ETTR workflows I've encountered apply the exposure correction after all the tone curves and color adjustments have been made to the RAW file whilst ISO 50 does that stuff before, you're much more likely to get better results with ISO 50 than with ETTR.

Unless, of course, you actually know what you're doing with ETTR, in which case you probably already know that there's no point to ETTR. I'll once again again note that, unlike in the early days of DSLRs, there's no noise in modern DSLRs at ISO 100 so there's nothing to be gained any more from an image quality perspective in doing ETTR or, similarly, shooting ISO 50.

Cheers,

b&

P.S. Highlight Tone Priority is much like ISO 50 except in the opposite direction. It's baked-in ETTL, in other words. Considering the low noise levels of modern DSLRs, HTP is potentially much more useful in real-world shooting than ISO 50, especially in high dynamic range environments. b&

 

[Sella174]

So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?

For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.

Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.

Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...

Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.

 

[CanNotYet]

Regarding differentiation. I am not sure Canon can keep the 70D at 9-points, all cross-type (as 650D/700D). (Well of course they CAN, they are Canon...)

But, although it is imbued with my wishful thinking, I really think it is time for Canon to get some ROI on the 19-pt system in 7D. Putting into 70D would seem like a no-brainer to me, ESPECIALLY if they go the cream-of-the-crop route with 7D2. That route more or less demands an even better AF system than the 7D has today. (Otherwise it would not be the upgrade people crave).

I really do not think 7D2 will keep the same AF-system as the current 7D. And if it does not, getting more ROI from that particular tech would involve putting the system into another body. 70D looks like a plausible candidate.

Besides, it gives the 70D a relation to 7D as the 6D has to 5D2, a modern version with tweaks. Not to mention it would sell like hotcakes.

 

[Marsu42]

Regarding differentiation. I am not sure Canon can keep the 70D at 9-points, all cross-type (as 650D/700D). (Well of course they CAN, they are Canon...)

Probably they'll add 2 more af points just like 5d2->6d for all you nay-sayers to be happy ? Personally and having looked at Canon's product policy during the last years, I cannot imagine they'll just chuck in the good 7d af system into a xxd system yet - even if they love re-using af arrays.

 

[Sella174]

I cannot imagine they'll just chuck in the good 7d af system into a xxd system yet

I agree. Canon still has too many other "selling" points in their cameras with which to entice buyers ... "full-frame" sensors, high ISO sensors, more megapixel sensors, HD video sensors, and now integrated WiFi & GPS ...

 

[Albi86]

Besides, it gives the 70D a relation to 7D as the 6D has to 5D2, a modern version with tweaks. Not to mention it would sell like hotcakes.

It could be a total crap and it would sell like hot cake anyway. It's Canon's offer at that price point, and people who want to buy Canon will buy that - it's their only choice, same with the 6D. This is why Canon can afford to protect the higher-end models without losing market share even when competing products are better specced. A brilliant policy for their stokeholders, much less so for their users.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Looks like a 7D for SD card users.

It'll be interesting to find out the weight and dimensions on this. It won't replace my 7D but it surely could be a great upgrade to people who want a smaller SLR.

 

[Zv]

So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?

For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.

Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.

Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...

Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.

Does a varying ND fader help?

 

[TrumpetPower!]

So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?

For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.

Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.

Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...

Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.

Does a varying ND fader help?

They're already all complaining that they can't be bothered to use a filter.

I'm still trying to figure out who'd be wanting to shoot flying aircraft at f/1.4 in the noonday Sun. I mean, seriously? Because that's what it would take to go past the limits of the 30D.

If you're really shooting ultra-fast primes wide open in harsh light, you're doing it for some special effect and you should be prepared to go out of your way to achieve your vision. But I don't think I've ever seen a good shot of a flying aircraft taken with a wide-open 50 f/1.4 on a harsh sunny day by a photographer on the ground, and I really very much doubt I ever will. My heart, it bleeds for these poor souls...but not for their lack of ISO 50.....

Cheers,

b&

 

[Zv]

So, do please tell me: in what real-world shooting situation would you want a shutter speed two stops slower (ISO 100 => ISO 25) that you can't reasonably stop down an additional two stops (f/4 => f/8) where you wouldn't already need significant ND filters in the first place?

For effect, the aperture is kept as open as possible ... accentuate the subject, blur the background ... and not necessarily people ... but road signs, trains, etc.

Sunny-16 rule ... ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 ... thus ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/4000.

Now, I'm not really complaining, because my 30D's can do 1/8000. But seeing as there is a trend with Canon on reducing the maximum shutter speed down to 1/4000, it means I'm already shooting at the limit ... and this reduces the flexibility of a DSLR over an FSLR ...

Photographing an aircraft where I want the background blurred, as well as the propeller, requires a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed. ND filters work, but as I've said, they're a hassle ... especially when the subjects (and hence shooting conditions) change rapidly ... remove hood, remove ND filter, put ND filter in pouch, replace hood, put pouch in pocket ... see same type of shot ... redo in reverse ... miss shot ... swear ... get fingerprint smudge on filter ... swear again ... ... as opposed to press button ... adjust ISO ... shoot.

Does a varying ND fader help?

They're already all complaining that they can't be bothered to use a filter.

I'm still trying to figure out who'd be wanting to shoot flying aircraft at f/1.4 in the noonday Sun. I mean, seriously? Because that's what it would take to go past the limits of the 30D.

If you're really shooting ultra-fast primes wide open in harsh light, you're doing it for some special effect and you should be prepared to go out of your way to achieve your vision. But I don't think I've ever seen a good shot of a flying aircraft taken with a wide-open 50 f/1.4 on a harsh sunny day by a photographer on the ground, and I really very much doubt I ever will. My heart, it bleeds for these poor souls...but not for their lack of ISO 50.....

Cheers,

b&

Oh I see. I just read the latest comment and didn't see the prev ones about all that ISO 25 nonsense.

Like you said - ND filter is the only real option. I don't see why you would be taking it off an on if the conditions are bright then leave it on. You can always increase ISO for more light, no need to remove it.

Stopping down wont make much difference to the background. f/4 works just fine around 200mm if the subject to background ratio is right. No need to shoot wide open.

 

[jrista]

Re: A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

Sounds pretty good, it's got everything you need in a mid range crop camera. Wonder how that SL1 sensor is doing so far?

18 megapixels is plenty. Glad they didn't add more. Seems like Canon are putting an end to the megapixel race - until they bring out the big megapixel camera (but that's a high end product for specialists).

Weather sealed? Wonder how much it will get compared to a 7D?

6.5 fps is respectable. I could live with that.

I never liked the 60D to be honest. I picked one up at a camera store, it didn't agree with me and from that point on I ignored it. The 7D was love at first sight! It's like it was custom made for me. A perfect fit.

Exactly! To be honest, I wouldn't mind if my 5D III was 18 MP (without hearing it would be 22.3).
And 6.5 fps is a big improvement on the 60D's frame rate.

This is kind of a flawed argument, as you are comparing the FF sensor of the 5D III to the APS-C sensor of the 70D. The 18 megapixels of the 70D are capable of resolving FAR more detail than the 5D III. The FF sensor has 6.25µm pixels, while the APS-C has 4.3µm pixels. The 70D has a 52% resolving power advantage over the 5D III!

Now, in some cases this doesn't matter. In some cases, the only thing that matters is total pixel count. These kinds of things would be landscapes, still life, portrait/wedding photography. Any time you can easily fill the frame with your subject and fully utilize ALL of the pixels a sensor has to offer, pixel size matters less, and if all you need is 18mp because all you do is print lower-resolution or upload downscaled versions to the web, then the 1D X sensor will serve you well.

On the other hand, any kind of photography where you need reach...sports, wildlife, birds, etc. Any kind of photography where the expectation is that you will be enlarging the results in print. Then the smallest pixels you can get away with, as well as having as many as you possibly can, DOES matter. At that point, 18mp, 22.3mp, hell even 36.3mp aren't really enough. You can always use more. In the case of needing reach, APS-C sensors with their higher pixel density have a lot to offer over a FF sensor.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Re: A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

Sounds pretty good, it's got everything you need in a mid range crop camera. Wonder how that SL1 sensor is doing so far?

18 megapixels is plenty. Glad they didn't add more. Seems like Canon are putting an end to the megapixel race - until they bring out the big megapixel camera (but that's a high end product for specialists).

Weather sealed? Wonder how much it will get compared to a 7D?

6.5 fps is respectable. I could live with that.

I never liked the 60D to be honest. I picked one up at a camera store, it didn't agree with me and from that point on I ignored it. The 7D was love at first sight! It's like it was custom made for me. A perfect fit.

Exactly! To be honest, I wouldn't mind if my 5D III was 18 MP (without hearing it would be 22.3).
And 6.5 fps is a big improvement on the 60D's frame rate.

This is kind of a flawed argument, as you are comparing the FF sensor of the 5D III to the APS-C sensor of the 70D. The 18 megapixels of the 70D are capable of resolving FAR more detail than the 5D III. The FF sensor has 6.25µm pixels, while the APS-C has 4.3µm pixels. The 70D has a 52% resolving power advantage over the 5D III!

Now, in some cases this doesn't matter. In some cases, the only thing that matters is total pixel count. These kinds of things would be landscapes, still life, portrait/wedding photography. Any time you can easily fill the frame with your subject and fully utilize ALL of the pixels a sensor has to offer, pixel size matters less, and if all you need is 18mp because all you do is print lower-resolution or upload downscaled versions to the web, then the 1D X sensor will serve you well.

On the other hand, any kind of photography where you need reach...sports, wildlife, birds, etc. Any kind of photography where the expectation is that you will be enlarging the results in print. Then the smallest pixels you can get away with, as well as having as many as you possibly can, DOES matter. At that point, 18mp, 22.3mp, hell even 36.3mp aren't really enough. You can always use more. In the case of needing reach, APS-C sensors with their higher pixel density have a lot to offer over a FF sensor.

I'm sorry, but the notion that a high megapickle APS-C camer makes for a better sports camera than the 1DX is ludicrous. Image quality especially.

b&

 

[TrumpetPower!]

obviously you get higher image quality with more resolution. An APS camera with 24Mp pixels will always be an advantage for a nature photographer or sports photographer to come closer (have better reach with the same lens) as long as the signal level and the light is sufficient high compared to 1dx 18 mp resolution and signal/noise level.

More resolution is always more resolution and Its a question about light/ signal/noise and what the lens can resolve.

God damn, but that's got to be the most idiotic thing I've read all week.

I mean, really? You seriously think that the Nikon D3200, a 24 megapickle APS-C camera, is "obviously" a better camera than the 1DX?

Seriously?

And for sports photographers?

Please tell me that this is a joke or that I've somehow otherwise managed to misinterpret what you wrote.

In case you weren't aware, the 1DX actually has marginally better image quality than even the 5DIII. And, yes, the D800 as well. It positively mops the floor with anything APS-C, chews it up, spits it out, and laughs over its corpse.

Find me a Sports Illustrated photographer who could manage to not bust out laughing at the notion that she should scrap her 1DX for a D3200 just because it's got more megapickles and therefore is "obviously" superior, and I'll go out and buy a hat just so I can eat it.

Cheers,

b&

 

[TrumpetPower!]

have you problem to understand what Im writing?

I sure hope so, because it sure seemed to me that you wrote that a 24 megapickle APS-C camera is "obviously" a superior sports camera to the 1DX.

If that's not what you intended to write, then perhaps you should add a bit of clarification.

b&

 

[TrumpetPower!]

no, read above. you are mixing up things and come to strange conclusions

You wrote -- and I quote:

An APS camera with 24Mp pixels will always be an advantage for a nature photographer or sports photographer to come closer (have better reach with the same lens) as long as the signal level and the light is sufficient high compared to 1dx 18 mp resolution and signal/noise level.

There is no APS-C camera on the market, period, which can match the image quality of the 1DX. Period, full stop, end of story -- and that you think there's even a theoretical possibility that such might be the case...well, it just goes to show the success of the marketing departments in selling megapickles, and your gullibility in falling for it.

Any blather to the contrary about resolution this and DXO that is bullshit, pure and simple -- and the type of bullshit that only comes from somebody so completely clueless about the matter as to never have actually touched a 1DX, let alone shot with one.

You can spout numbers all day long, but the fact of the matter remains that the images from the 1DX, even after cropping, are so far superior to those from any and all APS-C cameras that all you're doing is digging that hole for yourself even deeper.

...and, yes, that's a not-so-subtle hint that you might wish to refresh your knowledge about the First Rule of Holes before continuing this discussion.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Zv]

It's simple physics. If you have 24 million pixels crammed on a aps-c sensor those pixel must be very small and therefore each pixel well will collect less light resulting in more noise. Sure it might be theoretically able to resolve more detail but in reality it wont as any detail will be smudged by noise as the processor is now making up values for the insufficient light. You can't add light that wasn't there to begin with. The 1DX will have the advantage as the pixels are larger, collect more light and the process produces a much more accurate image. In the real world this means better image quality and sharper images.