Canon Executive explains why 6D has only one X point

Now the 5Dii's price is $1799, are has the technology of the new 7D are 6D a better buy? Awaiting comments.

Doing a side by side of the 7D vs. 5DMK2, the 5DMK2 came up short in the following: no dual digit4 (didn't exist then), primary color filter, less than 100% viewfinder coverage, only +/-2 EV not 5. All just for a full sensor allowing a few more hundred more megapixals & still $300 more than 7D. I'm torn but leaning toward 7D.

Still interested in thoughts of 5D & 7D owners out there.

MVS photography wrote in post #15073571
Doing a side by side of the 7D vs. 5DMK2, the 5DMK2 came up short in the following: no dual digit4 (didn't exist then), primary color filter, less than 100% viewfinder coverage, only +/-2 EV not 5. All just for a full sensor allowing a few more hundred more megapixals & still $300 more than 7D. I'm torn but leaning toward 7D.

Still interested in thoughts of 5D & 7D owners out there.

You're totally missing the points..

- Less than 100% viewfinder on a full frame camera is still bigger than the admittedly very big viewfinder on the 7D

- +/- 2EV vs 5? What are you referring to, the 7D only goes to 3 stops of EC not 5.. Im guessing HDR mode?

- Few more megapixels, Heres where you really misunderstand what a 5D is about, the "few more megapixels" are also spread across a sensor that is SUBSTANTIALLY larger... How much larger? Well if you use an area corresponding to the 7D's sensor on the 5DII you get 8mp or so... By spacing those pixels out more they end up more efficient and capture more light, Giving you better dynamic range and high ISO noise performance

Thats not even getting into the fact that a full frame sensor will take full advantage of full frame lenses, Giving you more control over depth of field and isolation

Depends on what you shoot however, the 7D is better for action photography and wildlife, the 5DII is better for portraits and landscapes, That said, the 7D can do almost anything and do it very well, the 5DII is more focused on landscapes and portraits, Sure you can do other things with it, but its going to struggle more than say, doing a landscape with a 7D

NBEast wrote in post #15024046
2. new wish feature: Allow in-camera (and in viewfinder) crop so that FF becomes a crop (so, turning it into a 7D). OK, maybe this one's not so simple.

this is never going to happen ever (would be my guess)

from wikipedia site regarding EF-S lenses (http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount)

it would seem that Canon has engineered the EF-S to never fit on a EF mount that's attached to a FF camera. Why they have done this is anyones guess but it's more than likely they didn't want to provide that kinda of function on a FF camera.

I don't care if they had this feature cause I don't own any EF-S lenses. If your serious about having some good glass you wouldn't' have any either.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15077772
I don't care if they had this feature cause I don't own any EF-S lenses. If your serious about having some good glass you wouldn't' have any either.

Hey! the 15-85 and the 17-55 are really good lenses... Easily as good as some Ls...

Anyways the reason they did it is theoretically you could make smaller lenses by pushing some of the lens back into the body of the camera, Given one advantage of using a crop sensor is that you can make smaller/lighter lenses, this was an advantage

Rangefinders do something similar and if i remember right by being able to do so its why they have some amazing wide angle lenses...

KenjiS wrote in post #15077786
Hey! the 15-85 and the 17-55 are really good lenses... Easily as good as some Ls...

Anyways the reason they did it is theoretically you could make smaller lenses by pushing some of the lens back into the body of the camera, Given one advantage of using a crop sensor is that you can make smaller/lighter lenses, this was an advantage

Rangefinders do something similar and if i remember right by being able to do so its why they have some amazing wide angle lenses...

this shows the difference between how Nikon design cameras and how Canon does. They are really taking two different approaches to the same problem. They both obviously work in taking the photos but small differences like this means that there is going to be some features that one can do that the one other can not. Like mounting EF-S on a FF camera. this is never going to happen unless canon redesigns the lens and the mount. that's never going to happen soon. Unless Canon comes across limitations in the EF mount.

^- Yep, and the issue is that while ON PAPER it means higher quality lenses i really cant think of any situation where thats come true... Maybe the 10-22... But thats about it... Probubly because Canon doesnt want to kill sales of the L lenses...

-edit- i mean compared to the competition, im not sure the Short back focus design is responsible for them being better or if its just Canon's optical engineers doing what they do best and kicking rear and taking names

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15077772
I don't care if they had this feature cause I don't own any EF-S lenses. If your serious about having some good glass you wouldn't' have any either.

The following EF-S lenses match or beat their FF counterparts in terms of optical performance...
10-22
17-55
15-85
60 macro

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15077772
this is never going to happen ever (would be my guess)

from wikipedia site regarding EF-S lenses (http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount)

EF-S lens use is not the issue. It's to use an EF lens *as if* it were an EF-S. Use a FF *as if* it were a crop. Best of both worlds & all that.

I don't know all the technical barriers they would have to cross, ingenious solutions to be thought up ; only that as a user it would be nice to just have a single body without forfeiting functionality.

I grant that the smaller, lighter EF-S lens will always be an advantage of a smaller sensor. If they could make the EF-S mountable on the FF (and then only utilize the smaller image circle), that would be nice too. Why carry around 30% more lens than you're actually using.

Sirrith wrote in post #15077814
The following EF-S lenses match or beat their FF counterparts in terms of optical performance...
10-22
17-55
15-85
60 macro

more than that if you include lens from Tamron, Sigma like the 17-50

I think Canon will be forced to redesign its EF-S lenses to EF standard, so they can be used by FF cameras. It is totally doable - AFAIK the third party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, ...) make at least some of their crop camera lenses for Canon in EF format (so they can be used on both crop and FF cameras).

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15077772
it would seem that Canon has engineered the EF-S to never fit on a EF mount that's attached to a FF camera. Why they have done this is anyones guess but it's more than likely they didn't want to provide that kinda of function on a FF camera.

I don't care if they had this feature cause I don't own any EF-S lenses. If your serious about having some good glass you wouldn't' have any either.

Why the EF-s lenses exist seems to be common knowledge to just about everyone, except you. That last statement is so ridiculous that it doesn't even qualify as wrong. It is just stupid. Are you insinuating that my BMW 760i is a piece of junk because it doesn't measure up to your standards of automotive excellence? Keep driving your 1975 Vega, if that makes you happy. Please allow others to make choices based on their own standards.

I only use the center one any way. The others are a free bonus for me.

pulsar123 wrote in post #15083826
I think Canon will be forced to redesign its EF-S lenses to EF standard, so they can be used by FF cameras. It is totally doable - AFAIK the third party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, ...) make at least some of their crop camera lenses for Canon in EF format (so they can be used on both crop and FF cameras).

seems pointless, EF-S were made for crop models, why put them on FF even if you could crop out the center part

TSchrief wrote in post #15083989
Why the EF-s lenses exist seems to be common knowledge to just about everyone, except you. That last statement is so ridiculous that it doesn't even qualify as wrong. It is just stupid. Are you insinuating that my BMW 760i is a piece of junk because it doesn't measure up to your standards of automotive excellence? Keep driving your 1975 Vega, if that makes you happy. Please allow others to make choices based on their own standards.

wow really, How on earth do you get that from what I have said. EF-S lenses are designed for the soul purpose to be used on cameras that have a 1.6x crop factor. they are cheaper to make because they use less glass and have a lesser quality build.

since my last statement doesn't qualify as wrong then it must be right. And indeed it is because I don't own any EF-S lenses. If you looked at my sig and see a link to my gear which you will see that I only have L glass and not a single EF-S.

How that translates to the automotive allegory I have no idea. since I would consider the EF-S to be generally the 1974 Vega (whatever that is and no I am not going to google some car I don't care about) and a new 5 series BMW. But really it would be more like EF-S = Series 1 BMW basic model and L being the M1.