7D2/staying crop in the future.

people rarely know what they want but they do know what they like. They see some new tech, something they never thought they wanted and all of a sudden, they need it.

whiteflyer wrote in post #16986660
As I've said in another tread the new DPP 4 is full frame only, Canon have proven you don't need crops anymore for frame rates ( APS-H dropped from 1D IV on 1DX ) I believe canon will move to full frame only for ALL new cameras.

FF is the future

Crop sensors have no future in professional bodies.

Low-price bodies, and ultra-compact bodies where size is at a premium, sure.

But if you're going to put a pro-level AF system, weather sealing, dual cards and pro-body controls onto a camera, you may as well stick in a full-frame sensor, too.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16995270
But if you're going to put a pro-level AF system, weather sealing, dual cards and pro-body controls onto a camera, you may as well stick in a full-frame sensor, too.

Unless, of course, your requirements are also to get as many pixels as possible on your subject when your subject is not (and cannot be made to be) frame-filling.

watt100 wrote in post #16995165
FF is the future

Famous quotes

2004

Phil Hall wrote in post #134883
Full frame chips are the way of the future, so embrace them.

Jesper wrote in post #272813
I think it's time people need to think about why they want a full-frame camera so much. The major disadvantage of the crop factor is that all your wide angle lenses are suddenly not really wide angle anymore - but that problem is being solved since Canon and other manufacturers start making lenses like the EF-S 10-22mm. If there are good wide angle lenses available for 1.6x crop factor cameras, there's little reason left to want a full frame camera.

I think it's time people start to accept the new, 22.5mm x 15mm sensor format on its own instead of seeing it as an intermediate step to 36mm x 24mm sensors.

Andy_T wrote in post #272871
I go exactly with Nosquare ... the 1.6 is going to stay ... like it or not.

It's been repeated over and over ... it's simple marketing. Apparantly, more people like it than dislike it.

Longwatcher wrote in post #274269
Having talked with image scientists I know that eventually we can get a camera with 20-25MP within the 1.6x format and a 40-60MP camera in the 35mm full frame format and with the current noise levels of the 10D/20D/1DM2 series. The pixel detector size can get down to around 4um (which means maybe as low as 2.8um) before the noise starts getting to be opressive (as is seen in the 8MP P&S cameras). So there is plenty of room for growth along these lines.

MrChad wrote in post #305764
It won't happen this year, but if in 4-years we went from the D30 to the 20D. [3.2 mega pixels -- 8.2 mega pixels + a thousand dollar drop in price] I have to imagine in the next 4 years we will have full frame across the board.

Roger_Cavanagh wrote in post #306064
My prediction is that the 1D Mk x will become FF as soon as Canon can ensure, at least, 8 fps and a 40 frame buffer. I think we would then see the 3 series equivalent that would have the 1.3 crop.

2005

MarkH wrote in post #735270
Pros will buy the FF body for the fantastic resolution of 30MPix, plus the ability to crop to 12MPix and do everything that the cheaper body can do. Considering the 1D MKII is in a pro body and sells at around $4K then the new 30MPix FF sensor could also be put in a pro body and be sold at around $4K (assuming that the FF sensor has become cheaper to make). If the same camera offered an 18MPix cropped mode for high speed shooting then it could replace both the 1D and 1DS lines.

Mark0159 wrote in post #779021
I am not to sure how many of you have seen the following web site:
http://web.canon.jp/Im​aging/cmos/index-e.html
but as you can see it's Canon : The World of Canon SMOS Sensors and just have a look around I am getting the impression that at some point, not to far off, canon will be dropping the 1.6x and the 1.3 crop from it's camera. I did notice that every photo listed on the site was either taken with the 5D or the 1D MK II which are both full frame.

Pekka wrote in post #779168
1.3X is so acclaimed by PJ's and sports shooters it is unlikely to be dropped from roadmap. It is a great compromise between good reach, good wide end, good viewfinder and image quality.

And many more, some right, some very wrong....

I will add your quote to the list and bring it back in a decade.

hollis_f wrote in post #16995288
Unless, of course, your requirements are also to get as many pixels as possible on your subject when your subject is not (and cannot be made to be) frame-filling.

There's no reason a full-frame sensor can't be as densely packed as a crop sensor. And it's much easier to shoot a fast-moving animal by tracking its head with a single point on a full-frame camera and cropping around it (giving you a crop-sized image) than to frame tightly on a crop camera and try to track the head while it's bobbing up and down. It's much easier shooting wildlife with a 36MP full-frame camera than a 15MP crop camera, despite both having the same photosite density.

Apart from wildlife and some sports (which both benefit from full frame due to easier tracking of a moving subject), the only other times you won't be able to fill a full frame will be when shooting through a telescope or a microscope - both very specialised applications.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16995307
There's no reason a full-frame sensor can't be as densely packed as a crop sensor. And it's much easier to shoot a fast-moving animal by tracking its head with a single point on a full-frame camera and cropping around it (giving you a crop-sized image) than to frame tightly on a crop camera and try to track the head while it's bobbing up and down. It's much easier shooting wildlife with a 36MP full-frame camera than a 15MP crop camera, despite both having the same photosite density.

Apart from wildlife and some sports (which both benefit from full frame due to easier tracking of a moving subject), the only other times you won't be able to fill a full frame will be when shooting through a telescope or a microscope - both very specialised applications.

I don't understand? I had no issues tracking heads with the 1.3 crop 1D3/1D4 or the 19pt 7D. I shoot both, and I don't see any advantage of tracking what you are describing with a FF. With the advanced AF systems with spot AF, or single point with expansion, I don't see a clear advantage either way. Glass (reach) and AF modes are more important here than sensor format.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16995307
There's no reason a full-frame sensor can't be as densely packed as a crop sensor.

No reason at all. Oh, apart from the massive increase in cost and reduction in frame rate.

It's really quite incredible how blinkered some people are.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16995306
Famous quotes

some right, some very wrong....

I will add your quote to the list and bring it back in a decade.

all these prognostications

watt100 wrote in post #16995335
all these prognostications

Fun stuff! Just shows that we can guess all we want, but the technology march has a 5 year prediction window at best, where there is some level of certainty.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16995309
I don't understand? I had no issues tracking heads with the 1.3 crop 1D3/1D4 or the 19pt 7D. I shoot both, and I don't see any advantage of tracking what you are describing with a FF. With the advanced AF systems with spot AF, or single point with expansion, I don't see a clear advantage either way.

Picture an animal running perpendicular to the axis of the lens, from right to left or left to right. As it runs, it bobs its head up and down constantly. You're shooting wide open, either due to lighting conditions or for a blurred background, so accurate focus is vital - a large group of focus points aimed vaguely at the animal won't do it. You want focus to be on the eye of the animal, not on its ear or on its left leg. Trouble is, it's the head of the animal that's bobbing up and down, not the whole animal. Depending on whether the head's up or down, the animal's eye is either towards the top left of your final desired composition, or towards the bottom left. For instance, this vs this.

The eye of the animal is in two very different positions relative to the rest of the animal, and shifts between those two positions several times a second. If you shoot using a crop body and track using the top right AF point, you'll have a poor composition when the head is down. If you use the bottom right AF point, you'll have a poor composition when the head is up. You can't possibly switch between the two points fast enough for a running animal. But, if you shoot full frame and frame more loosely (i.e. with the same focal length, which now subtends a greater angle of view due to the greater sensor size) you can track the eye of the animal using the centre point as it moves up and down, then still have plenty of room to crop around it for an ideal composition regardless of what position the animal's head is in at that point in time.

Or, for another example, an animal running towards you, zigzagging like this and this. In one instance, the animal's head is to the left of its body, in the other, to its right. When shooting crop and framed tightly, which AF point are you going to use? Or you can use full-frame, track it with one AF point, then crop around it for a final image that's still the same size as the crop image or larger.

If you're going to crop the full-frame for a tighter composition anyway, the glass will be the same regardless of whether you're shooting crop or full-frame. Usually, it will be a 500mm, 800mm or 200-400 1.4x lens, so it's not like you'll find a significantly better lens elsewhere.

hollis_f wrote in post #16995326
No reason at all. Oh, apart from the massive increase in cost

A significant factor for a $500 consumer body, but far less significant with a $2000-$3000 pro body. Take away the full-frame sensor and put in a crop sensor and it would only cost $500 less. And they're getting cheaper all the time.

That's an easily-solvable matter of bandwidth.

4k video cameras are everywhere now. 8k ones (designed for filming for 4k final output) are starting to come out.

The same bandwidth which can handle a 4k sensor shooting at 60fps can handle a 32MP sensor shooting 15fps, while the same bandwidth which can handle a 4k sensor shooting at 30fps can handle a 32MP sensor shooting 7.5fps.

Compared to high-resolution video, bandwidth for high-resolution still photography isn't a problem at all, at least from an engineering point of view (but possibly from a marketing, product differentiation point of view).

So I would shoot more loosely with a less wide focal length on the 7D, for example, and also get a tiny bit more DOF to boot due to the focal length change. I would use AF with expansion so that it would follow the bobbing head.

I shot basketball this way, and there is a whole lot of bobbing, and none of it very predictable.

Again, glass and AF modes/performance make up what you can or cannot do, more so than what sensor format you use.

For example, I shot in portrait mode, and use point off center for this, following the player making a run for the basket, weaving in and out, and then snap the shot as he goes up. I set up the 7D AF to not change positions quickly on me as I track, so it didn't matter if he dove under the players and emerged out the other side, etc. The only thing that the 5D3 gives over the 7D is that its AF performance is a bit better, high ISO is better, and the images are a bit sharper, and not because I am using a FF.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16995567
So I would shoot more loosely with a less wide focal length on the 7D, for example,

So, you now either have a different composition, or you've cropped a crop-sensor image for an even smaller final image.

I'd rather shoot loosely with a high-resolution, full-frame sensor so that, once I crop it, I still have a high-resolution image that uses as much, if not more, sensor area than the image from a crop-sensor camera.

That may or may not be a good thing, depending on the background and how much subject isolation you're going for.

The head bobs up and down by more than the size of an expanded AF point. In the case of the animal running towards you, the head even shifts from one side of the frame to the other. If you use zone AF, there's no telling what part of the animal it's going to focus on. Cheetahs have spots and tigers have stripes, both of which are excellent AF targets, and are found all over the animal's body.

Also, this is no guarantee that it will focus on the right part of the head, and not on the grass behind the animal's head that also falls within that AF zone.

I shot basketball this way, and there is a whole lot of bobbing, and none of it very predictable.

All well and good if you want a loosely-frame photo, but what if you want a tightly-framed composition?

The sensor format determines how big you can print it.

You can shoot loosely with a crop sensor, then crop for a tighter composition, but you won't have a very large image. Do the same thing with a full-frame sensor and you can still end up with a huge image even after cropping.

AF expansion handles this. Players move more than an AF point too, and AF handles it just fine. I shoot both formats for sports, and again, the only reason I like the FF results is simply due to high ISO performance and sharpness of results after NR. The 7D, 1D4 (1.3 crop) and the 5D3 AF systems were all up to the job of following players heads as they fake, dodge, lay up, etc.

If I want a tight composition, which most of my shots are, I simply use one of the outer points. Again those 3 cameras have AF systems up to the task of tracking and taking the shot, 3 different formats.

I crop very little, simply because I have this "too tight a composition" disease, and have been working on shooting wider with my crop bodies (and ff). I just think the glass, a very capable AF system, and the photographer knowing how to set up the AF settings/CF values accordingly for what is being shot is much more critical than sensor format.

Not much cropped, too tight a composition, using the outer points to track on the 7D, for example. I needed to shoot wider, and just kept forgetting about unzooming toward the 70mm mark. It is a big flaw I need to work on. My rule for this past season was "no limbs cut off", and my results were much better. That coupled with the fact I can now shoot at 1/1600 at f2.8 since I have the ISO headroom necessary. ISO 6400 on the 7D was about the limit for me, with some shots at 12800.