7D II

Jahled wrote in post #15561562
Putting the APS-C to bed would would be progress, the last decade has been a horrific experience for photography with horribly small sensors. A last growl of an APS-H would perhaps be a justified wail into the world, and where better than the 7D series. Canon were merciless, but somewhat practical in 1987. Why not again

Because theres many of us who use APS-C, APS-C has advantages over Full Frame in the <$2000 price bracket

-Higher pixel density which benefits people shooting wildlife and sports (Who cannot afford $20k telephoto primes)
-Faster advance rates due to a smaller mirror and shutter mechanism which benefits wildlife and sports shooters
-AF points cover a larger percentage of the viewfinder, again, benefitting wildlife and sports shooters
-Lower cost allows you to invest more in lenses which matter more than the camera

Photography has jack to do with sensor size, if you cant take a good photo with a 7D I doubt you can take a good photo with a 5DIII or a 1DX... Plain and simple, Buying a D600 or a 5DIII is not going to instantly turn you into Ansel Adams.. Full frame gives you more options and some advantages in some situations, but its a tradeoff, You do lose some things, For some people what you lose outweighs what you gain...

The thing I care more for is ergonomics, and if that statement by Canon is indicating we're going to have a 70D replacing the 60D and 7D in a 6D-like body then I've got two choices, I get a 5DIII or I go to Nikon, Because the 6D's ergonomics kill my hands...

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15567161
The 18MP sensor is already milking lenses for most of their details beyond what they can deliver.

This is the point. A 24MP APS-C sensor is going to show the limits of even your expensive lenses, many L lenses won't be able to keep up with the detail such MP density requires. Forget anything less sharp than a 70-200mm 2.8 if you plan on cropping much. How about Canon focus on the dynamic range and ISO performance rather than megapixels?

Jahled wrote in post #15561562
Putting the APS-C to bed would would be progress, the last decade has been a horrific experience for photography with horribly small sensors. A last growl of an APS-H would perhaps be a justified wail into the world, and where better than the 7D series. Canon were merciless, but somewhat practical in 1987. Why not again

FF sensors still cost 10 times as much to manufacture as APS-C. And APS-C has many advantages in terms of reach, pixel density and AF point coverage. The 7D shows how they are capable of achieving about 90% the image quality of FF too.

DreDaze wrote in post #15567954
i can't think of one canon 24mp crop camera...

Forget that: I can't even think of one Canon 24mp camera.

Mornnb wrote in post #15573756
FF sensors still cost 10 times as much to manufacture as APS-C.

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon cost accounting reports showed something different!

Mornnb wrote in post #15573756
FF sensors still cost 10 times as much to manufacture as APS-C.

watt100 wrote in post #15574164
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon cost accounting reports showed something different!

Yup. FF is 20x more costly.

I am completely with KenjiS on the APS-C thinking. Additionally, I dislike paying for features I do not use, e.g., video. We have enough MP already. New cars and new cameras have gone button/touch crazy at higher cost and poor ergonomic usability in time-critical situations. Adding more un-needed gadgets has kept me out of the new camera (and new car!) market for years. I find good results with an old reliable APS-C DLSR, a good lens, and a steady hand--then applying basic composition principles.

Wolfpack61 wrote in post #15574707
Additionally, I dislike paying for features I do not use, e.g., video.

Ye gods! Not this old chestnut again. Oh, well....

The addition of video to a camera that already has LiveView costs around $0.05. The hardware to read the image from the sensor is already there, the firmware to write the information to a video format has already been written for the P&S market, the only extra hardware required is for a cheap microphone to capture the sound (which was already in the Pro cameras).

In fact addition of video has probably made the cameras cheaper. Having video as an extra makes the camera more popular (yes, incredible isn't it - not everybody has the same needs as you), so they sell more, and economies of scale means that the camera is cheaper to make - so Canon can sell it for less!

Now, they could sell a special, 'purist', model without video. But it would cost more. If you want one send me your camera, plus $50, and I'll do the conversion (a quick drop of glue on the video switch).

I am glad to learn more every day--especially about costs. My logic that more "features" equals more complications, more things to go wrong, and higher costs, I stand corrected. Thanks.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15567161
The 18MP sensor is already milking lenses for most of their details beyond what they can deliver.

What lens? A 28-135IS wide open at 28mm? Define deliver.

Like many people, you seem to have some strange idea that digital capture should be able to record a white pixel right next to a black pixel, but it is not possible to image properly in a system that can. In such a system, you are looking at artifacts more than optical details. To image properly, it takes about 6 pixels to properly record a transition from black to white to black again. Even the scenario I mentioned above doesn't do that.

As far as I know, a camera can not read the sensor just to read the crop; it has to read the entire length of each line in the crop, so the speed can only be 1.6x as fast for APS-c, as oppsed to the 2.56x as fast as you could do with an actual crop sensor, with the same bandwidth.

An uncompromised crop mode would also scale the AF points, and the metering to be consistent, and it would also need extra optics for an optical viewfinder to zoom it, so you're not looking through a peephole. Also, you would need hundreds of MPs to do justice to good lenses in the center.

My Pentax Q with an EOS adapter can get fairly pixel-sharp detail on my sharper lenses, and that's with a pixel density that would be a few hundred MP on a FF sensor.

A smaller frame with film meant much lower maximum frame resolution with the same film. Digitals generally scale pixel size fairly close to sensor size, giving an advantage not possible with crop-film cameras.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15567673
I don't think it needs to go that far.

Canon shooters do not know what 24mp feels like on crop. I have read many skilled opinions from Nikon shooters who use both 16 and 24 mp crop machines. They agree that the 16mp sensor is better and the added mp of 24 can't be supported fully by lenses and the increase in noise negated any cropping or printing power. 24 mp is a number that sells cameras because "bigger is better"

It is better. Those people have poor skills, or are perceptually handicapped, and mistake pixelation and aliasing for subject detail. Look, I shoot my Canon lenses sometimes with a Pentax Q, with much, much, smaller pixels than a 24MP APS-c, and the amount of extra detail is quite clear, as is an almost total lack of artifacts from AA filters and aliased color channels.

Yes, if you can fill your frame; if you have to crop, then a 36MP or even 24MP APS-c can be better.

Look, you can carry the same lens and use it on 3 cameras with 3 sensor sizes. No matter which scale you choose, there are subjects that allow cropping room, and subjects that don't. A smaller sensor has cropping room for smaller subjects.

The bottom line is, crop mode in FF is a nice feature, but not likely to be a full substitute for a crop camera any time soon.

Only if you magnify the detail more, which is what you do when you view at 100% on a monitor. Higher pixel density increases subject microdetail, even if pixel contrast reduces.

Why not all three? You're going to look back on your post and laugh some day. There is no Physical principal that prevents all three.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #15567918
Stop trying to create a falsely based argument off something that is not relevant to the current situation. 24 MP has already proven to not yield the gains people had hoped beyond 16MP.

No, it hasn't, unless they were ignorant enough to think that a 16MP crop from a 24MP APS-c sensor would be as pixel-sharp as a 16MP APS-c sensor, or equivalent in noise.

24 vs 16 is better for accurate, unaliased imaging, but still not anywhere near potential.

Mornnb wrote in post #15573756
This is the point. A 24MP APS-C sensor is going to show the limits of even your expensive lenses, many L lenses won't be able to keep up with the detail such MP density requires. Forget anything less sharp than a 70-200mm 2.8 if you plan on cropping much. How about Canon focus on the dynamic range and ISO performance rather than megapixels?

Megapixels do not require lens resolution. The more pixel density you have, the more accurately you capture all that a lens does, whether that is a lot or a little.
Lenses require pixel densities, so as to not waste their optical resolution.

To properly sample even the less sharp lenses requires far more pixel density than any Canon DSLR currently has.

A nice set of posts from John. Always worth reading.

Forums are nice, but there comes a point when heated arguments begin to become bloated, causing facts to be thrown to the wind in order to buff ones argument and shame another's. I would like to remind those who got caught up in this discussion that what you are saying here can easily be read by a beginner, or someone just joining the discussion, and assumed as the truth.

Look at us, we are sitting at our computers arguing over one thread (which by the way, has kind of derailed itself). We have no idea which is better 24mp, or 16. There is a reason that each company has released (or not for that matter), its own technology. I know its not as fun, but how about we have a little faith in their actual knowledge of the subject?

John Sheehy wrote in post #15576865
Megapixels do not require lens resolution. The more pixel density you have, the more accurately you capture all that a lens does, whether that is a lot or a little.
Lenses require pixel densities, so as to not waste their optical resolution.

To properly sample even the less sharp lenses requires far more pixel density than any Canon DSLR currently has.

This to an extent, Roger Cicala did an interesting little comparison over at LensRentals with this, where he compared several 24-70 lenses on the 5DIII and the D800e...

http://www.lensrentals​.com …24-70mm-system-comparison

In this he's comparing the combo's absolute resolution, The Tamron 24-70 VC test is irst, since its the same lens on two different bodies, Using that lens, the D800e still offers a large difference in resolution over the 5DIII, in fact its somewhat like shooting the lens stopped down a stop on the D800e (if we just got by the MTF numbers and are talking solely bout resolution)

Now the NEXT test gets more interesting... the Nikon VS Canon 24-70s on their respective cameras.. in this test the MTF figures work out to be about the same.. the Nikon has a SLIGHT edge, but we're not talking the night and day difference on the Tamron

So what can we take away from this? its the combination of the lens and the sensor that determines absolute resolution, You will get more resolution from a less than awesome lens on a high resolution sensor than on a lower resolution one, But a fantastic lens on a low resolution sensor can come very close to a pretty good lens on a high resolution one... Of course a fantastic lens on a high megapixel body wins the day every day, But thats not always the choice we can make when looking at systems...

Of course this also tears me on saying which is better.. on one hand lenses are a better investment, Eventually Canons going to give us a high res body, Eventually... But on the other hand, the better package in terms of cost is the Nikon option... and obviously you dont need the creme de la creme lenses to get very very high resolution output... so you can save a lot of money to say..take your camera somewhere...