philtax wrote:
My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the 7D file is supposed to be uprezzed to 21mp in order to do a fair comparison with the 5DII. It seems to me that to compare the 5dII and the 7D we ought to be cropping the 5dII file so that it's the same phyisical size as the crop camera [i.e., by the appropriate 1.6 factor], and then uprezzing it to equal the density of the 7D.
No, that is not correct. Cropping a 5DII image to match the AOV of a 1.6x sensor will do only that, match the AOV. This doesn't equate to equal resolution.
As long as we don't know exactly how good the converters are (we can't separate conversion noise from amp noise), we don't know the exact benefit of using 14 bits. What we do know, is that the (12-bit) 450D has about 0,5 stops less DR than the (14 bit) 40D.
...
If you are referring to the A/D converter, the 450D (XSi) has a 14 bit, not a 12-bit.
No, that is not correct. Cropping a 5DII image to match the AOV of a 1.6x sensor will do only that, match the AOV. This doesn't equate to equal resolution.
I agree that in this case the FF sensor has more pixels and thus will have greater aggregate resolution. So in the hypothetical case of two cameras made with the identical sensor, one cropped and one FF, I agree that the larger sensor, having more pixels, has greater overall resolution. However, if we assume that we're just going to print the resulting images at, say, 300 DPI, and live with the difference in image size that results from the different aggregate resolution, a per-pixel comparison would not favor one camera over the other. Is that not correct? Perhaps it is also pointless (!) but I was scratching my head over this. It just seems odd to uprez an image from a cropped sensor in order to compare it with a larger sensor made from the same stuff...
Gil_W wrote:
With the 5DmkII, I could control some 580 mkI functions but not as many as I can with the mkII version. Honestly forgot what the differences were but I would expect the same with the 7D.
I think you are referring to the fact that the 580EX II settings can be controlled from the in-camera menu, while those for the older speedlights (580EX, 550EX, 420EX, etc.) cannot?
I believe Yakim was asking if there is any difference in the way the 7D's on-board E-TTL "master mode" controls a 580EX II vs. a 580EX when used remotely.
Here's the text from the 7D user manual: "The camera's built-in flash can work as a master unit with Canon Speedlites having a wireless slave feature and wirelessly trigger the Speedlite to fire."
John McLean wrote:
I never use this feature but check page 119 of the 7D manual pdf. From my reading the 580EX MK I can be wireless controlled by the 7D.
10X. I thought it will but somehow only found reference to the 580EX Mk II.
garyvot wrote:
I believe Yakim was asking if there is any difference in the way the 7D's on-board E-TTL "master mode" controls a 580EX II vs. a 580EX when used remotely.
Precisely.
garyvot wrote:
Here's the text from the 7D user manual: "The camera's built-in flash can work as a master unit with Canon Speedlites having a wireless slave feature and wirelessly trigger the Speedlite to fire."
philtax wrote:
However, if we assume that we're just going to print the resulting images at, say, 300 DPI, and live with the difference in image size that results from the different aggregate resolution, a per-pixel comparison would not favor one camera over the other. Is that not correct?
Yes, that's correct.
If the 5DII sensor is cut in half, we’ll have two 1.5x sensors with the exact same image quality as the 5DII.
Of course resolution would be 10.5mp vs 21mp on the 5DII, so printing at 300 dpi would result in smaller prints.
Applying the very latest technologies to this sensor might actually produce better image quality than the 5DII (sans the resolution).
Or, image quality could be kept the same but resolution might be modestly increased.
People like me would have been happier if the 7D had the same image quality as the 5DII but with less resolution – rather than having similar resolution but worse image quality at any ISO higher than ISO 200.
Canon has not imroved the ISO on 1.6x crop cameras since the 20D in 2004.
And for these five years resolution has increased more than 2x.
Now that the 7D is more than good enough for 13x19 prints (at ISO 100-200), hopefully they will focus their attention on improving ISO as well.
jorkata wrote:
Yes, that's correct.
If the 5DII sensor is cut in half, we’ll have two 1.5x sensors with the exact same image quality as the 5DII.
Of course resolution would be 10.5mp vs 21mp on the 5DII, so printing at 300 dpi would result in smaller prints.
Applying the very latest technologies to this sensor might actually produce better image quality than the 5DII (sans the resolution).
Or, image quality could be kept the same but resolution might be modestly increased.
People like me would have been happier if the 7D had the same image quality as the 5DII but with less resolution – rather than having similar resolution but worse image quality at any ISO higher than ISO 200.
Canon has not imroved the ISO on 1.6x crop cameras since the 20D in 2004.
And for these five years resolution has increased more than 2x.
Now that the 7D is more than good enough for 13x19 prints (at ISO 100-200), hopefully they will focus their attention on improving ISO as well. ...Show more →
philtax wrote:
However, if we assume that we're just going to print the resulting images at, say, 300 DPI, and live with the difference in image size that results from the different aggregate resolution, a per-pixel comparison would not favor one camera over the other. Is that not correct?
Technically accurate, but completely impractical. Why print the resulting images at 300 dpi when they have different numbers of pixels? When it's time to print, what you want is a 10x8. If you allow the number of pixels in your files to determine the size at which you print, then you are taking the technical side a bit too seriously. In comparing cameras, what you want to know is how well each camera does when printing some given size of print, let's say 10x8. Printing two files to different sizes and then cutting out a square inch from each and comparing them will give you a false comparison. You need to compare equal areas of the same image to compare how the cameras compete, and that is hard to do unless you print the same picture to the same size. None of these cameras is anywhere near perfect, so what we want to find out is how well they fare against each other in producing a 10x8.
jorkata wrote:
Yes, that's correct.
If the 5DII sensor is cut in half, we’ll have two 1.5x sensors with the exact same image quality as the 5DII.
You are using 'image quality' in a very unintuitive way. By your definition, 35mm Ilford HP5 has the same image quality as 5x4" Ilford HP5. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are talking about image quality per square inch of medium, which is quite different from the image quality of a particular sensor of a particular size. Beware of any analysis which ignores the size of the capture area, because people aren't very good at allowing for differences in capture area, or understanding why we should.
>Applying the very latest technologies to this sensor might actually produce better image quality than the 5DII (sans the resolution).
I.e. 2012 technology. It took 4 years for APS-C (7D) to catch up with the 5D. Expect an APS-C camera which competes with the 5D2 in a couple of years from now.
>People like me would have been happier if the 7D had the same image quality as the 5DII but with less resolution – rather than having similar resolution but worse image quality at any ISO higher than ISO 200.
You are making the mistake of thinking that resolution is the reason why the 7D has worse image quality than the 5D2. It isn't. The size of the sensor (and relatively contemporary technology) is why the 5D2 has better IQ. Even a 2 Mpixel APS-C Canon 7D still would not have image quality noticeably better than the 7D, or close to the 5D2. Read this: http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth
>Canon has not imroved the ISO on 1.6x crop cameras since the 20D in 2004.
And for these five years resolution has increased more than 2x.
Nonsense. Canon has dramatically improved the high iso/low light performance while simultaneously increasing resolution, because resolution has practically no bearing on high iso/noise floor performance. Don't take my word for it, compare the actual results. Shoot a 20D and a 7D at iso 6400, make an A3 print from each, and see what you get.
>Now that the 7D is more than good enough for 13x19 prints (at ISO 100-200), hopefully they will focus their attention on improving ISO as well.
Your head is firmly stuck in the sand. The 7D has the best high iso performance of any APS-C camera ever and it is also the highest resolution APS-C camera. How does that square with the false dogma that resolution hurts high iso?
If it hurts anything, resolution hurts latitude. If you were complaining about losing half a stop of latitude due to the 7D's high resolution, I could understand it, but at high isos, (e.g. in low light) the problem is typically the black noise levels, not the latitude.
After 52 pages with everyones opinion I'm starting to like the 7D a lot being a wildlife photographer. While the sensor is smaller, the rest of the equipment can be far more compact. Look at the guys with their Olympus and their 300mm lenses .. Even this small sensor produces brilliant IQ. 7D provides even more room around the subject by equal distance.
Once every 3 years or so Canon develops a revolutionary cam, 10D, 1D2, 350D, 5D .... 7D. Inbetween are only small 'improvements'.
7D is on my wishlist for walking around with a 300mm lens. I think I will enjoy nature a lot more than struggling around with a 1D3 and 500mm ..
rocksy wrote:
And becouse the 7D was just launched, we must wait for that another 3 years...
I seriously think so. Maybe they have a camera with the same pixel density as the 7D on full frame with the same speed then. We will only need one camera at that moment .. For the time being we still need two camera's for the need of speed, light sensitivity and resolution. Or is Canon gonna make us believe we will soon need 3 camara's to cover the whole range of (outdoor) photography?
Bas Breetveld wrote:
After 52 pages with everyones opinion I'm starting to like the 7D a lot being a wildlife photographer. While the sensor is smaller, the rest of the equipment can be far more compact. Look at the guys with their Olympus and their 300mm lenses .. Even this small sensor produces brilliant IQ. 7D provides even more room around the subject by equal distance.
Once every 3 years or so Canon develops a revolutionary cam, 10D, 1D2, 350D, 5D .... 7D. Inbetween are only small 'improvements'.
7D is on my wishlist for walking around with a 300mm lens. I think I will enjoy nature a lot more than struggling around with a 1D3 and 500mm ..
Yes, for wildlife, this cam may become a winner. While there has been some very good information and technical data tossed around on this thread, the ground truth comes when we get the cam, attach the lens, and shoot in a variety of conditions.
Bas Breetveld wrote:
I seriously think so. Maybe they have a camera with the same pixel density as the 7D on full frame with the same speed then. We will only need one camera at that moment.
I hope you are wrong: This would suggest that when this hypothetical full frame camera comes out, there will have been no worthwhile improvements to APS-C sensors, so we can do without a new APS-C camera. But what if we can have a 36MP APS-C with improved IQ over the 7D?
I hope you are right: It would be nice to have only one camera (well, I only have one now, but it's not full frame). While I would like technology to advance and continually improve sensors, if the improvements plateaued out, then there would be less compulsion to upgrade bodies. As it is, I told my wife that after the 7D, I will not upgrade bodies before 2012. So I am thinking that the 7D is indeed a significant advance that I will be happy with for a good while.
Have to admit that myself, I'm about as far from being a canon fanboy that there ever could be but the noise in those 7D RAW files using early beta software was close to that of my 5D and that has just blown my mind.
