7D2/staying crop in the future.

I just don't get why any person thinks that what is ideal for them should be ideal for everyone else and that "just compromise" is a solution for those who have other needs and desires. "just frame wider and crop", "just time the shot better", "just use the center point". And this idea that APS-C is for non-pro cameras only because cost doesn't matter to a pro is just nonsense. Money is money. Why waste it on things you don't need when you can buy more of what you do need with it. whether that's other glass, equipment, travel, or marketing? People don't get wealthy by spending wastefully.
And that all ignores the number of pixels on target. If we got a 24MP 7D, you would need about 61MP to have the same number of pixels on target and crop.
Aside from that, why does it even matter to full frame shooters if Canon makes an APS-C or not? Or who uses it? Or why?
This is perhaps the silliest debate I see come up and yet it comes up over and over.

Imagemaster wrote in post #16996395
How about the cheetah is running either left to right, or right to left?

Imagemaster wrote in post #16996416
Good one.

Anyone with half a brain knows that full-frame is the best for everyone.

Anyone with half an education knows that something moving left to right or right to left, is not moving parallel to you unless you're somehow moving along with it in the same or opposite direction (extremely unlikely, as noted by another user).

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16996057
Can I put the D800 / A7R sensor in my 5DIII please? Or my 1D4. I'm flexible

I still like the idea of the massively dense FF sensor with a "crop mode" like Noink used in the ( D3? can't recall)
Drop to a crop resolution to boost frame rate if needed.

SIGN ME UP !!!!!

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16996662
Anyone with half an education knows that something moving left to right or right to left, is not moving parallel to you unless you're somehow moving along with it in the same or opposite direction (extremely unlikely, as noted by another user).

No kidding.

Imagemaster wrote in post #16998158
No kidding.

This is what happens when you fail to use the appropriate emoticon to convey your sarcasm.

hollis_f wrote in post #16995594
I still reckon some people would buy a FF sensor nailed to a block of wood in preference to a 7D.

It's got to be better. It's FF.

Hmm…lets just bash the FF for the sake of it shall we? It appears you like to stir up everyone by propagating the myth that crop sensors are better because they amplify magnification.

You're comparing oranges to apples and you keep bagging the FF for no good reason. There is overwhelming evidence FF sensors produce superior quality images and perform better in low light conditions.

Lone Rider wrote in post #17003274
Hmm…lets just bash the FF for the sake of it shall we? It appears you like to stir up everyone by propagating the myth that crop sensors are better because they amplify magnification.

You're comparing oranges to apples and you keep bagging the FF for no good reason. There is overwhelming evidence FF sensors produce superior quality images and perform better in low light conditions.

That's not the point being made there at all. I'm not quite sure how you think that was a bash of full frame sensors. If you ever did that exercise in school where you break down a sentence into its parts, you would realize that the remark was clearly directed at people who just can't understand that different people have different goals and that the APS-C sensor has a place. It has some unique properties that fit the overall goals of many people better than a full frame. Those goals may be weight, cost, reach, etc. And sure, while the cost of full frame sensors comes down, so does the cost of APS-C. If you aren't one of these people, then it wasn't directed at you either. Those people make about as much sense as someone who insists that a 22 oz claw hammer is always superior to a 16 oz claw hammer since it drives nails faster. I happen to have a 12 oz, 16 oz and 22 oz claw hammer and I grab the one I need for the specific job. This is no different.

kfreels wrote in post #17004665
That's not the point being made there at all. Those people make about as much sense as someone who insists that a 22 oz claw hammer is always superior to a 16 oz claw hammer since it drives nails faster. I happen to have a 12 oz, 16 oz and 22 oz claw hammer and I grab the one I need for the specific job. This is no different.

This is a good analogy K but its not the first time Hollis has bagged FF sensors.

The thing is, a full-frame sensor can be made to do everything a crop sensor can. It can be made just as dense as a crop sensor, and can achieve the same frame rate either by increasing the bandwidth or only recording using the middle portion of the sensor (effectively functioning as a crop when frame rate is needed). And it can do other things that the crop sensor can't.

That leaves only size and cost. Sure, if you need a camera to be as small as possible or as cheap as possible, crop fits the bill. But, when a camera is intended for professional use, that generally isn't the case. Hence, crop will be increasingly be relegated to cheap entry-level bodies and point-and-shoot/compact models where size is paramount.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17004857
The thing is, a full-frame sensor can be made to do everything a crop sensor can. It can be made just as dense as a crop sensor, and can achieve the same frame rate either by increasing the bandwidth or only recording using the middle portion of the sensor (effectively functioning as a crop when frame rate is needed). And it can do other things that the crop sensor can't.

That leaves only size and cost. Sure, if you need a camera to be as small as possible or as cheap as possible, crop fits the bill. But, when a camera is intended for professional use, that generally isn't the case. Hence, crop will be increasingly be relegated to cheap entry-level bodies and point-and-shoot/compact models where size is paramount.

Sure, but then you also lose the ISO improvements over crop if you increase the density of a FF, eliminating one of the core desired attributes of FF. Also the 7D is a crop and is used by many professionals, including wedding photographers. The 1D series (non-S) was crop, and it also was used by professionals. I just don't buy the "FF is what pros use". Get the right body coupled with the right lenses and put it into capable hands, and the results will speak for themselves, whether 2.0 crop, 1.6 crop, 1.3 crop, or 35mm equivalent. Just remember FF is also a crop, for those that shoot medium and large format, so I suspect they are saying the same about FF shooters.

Also there are 4 differently sized APS-C crop bodies, the 7D is actually nearly identical to the 5D2 in size and weight. It also debuted at the $1700 price point USD when it came out. So no, crops are not relegated to small cheap bodies, and I don't see that trend changing any time soon. The same argument has been made for nearly a decade, yet here we are, with larger more capable APS-C bodies. I doubt Canon made a marketing mistake when they broke the xxD line into 2 directions, during the announcement of the 7D. I suspect they plan on keeping with that plan, with the 7D series adding more capability and performance over the xxD, xxxD, and xxxD lines. This will continue for as long as the competition does the same, as well, so the direction of Sony, Nikon, and Canon will feed each other.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17004869
Sure, but then you also lose the ISO improvements over crop if you increase the density of a FF, eliminating one of the core desired attributes of FF.

That's a misconception. The ISO benefits are not due to larger photosite size, but larger total sensor size. With more pixels, each individual pixel is noisier, but the total noise level remains the same. Cut the sensor area down by 2.25 or 2.56, though, and you lose one-and-a-half stops or so of ISO performance.

That was five years ago, when full-frame sensors were still very expensive and cameras had bandwidth problems trying to shoot high-resolution images at fast frame rates. Times change and technology advances.

I've only ever seen the 7D used as a backup, and, even then, only by relatively low-level wedding photographers. Most prefer to have their primary and secondary cameras share the same crop factor, i.e. full frame.

Just remember FF is also a crop, for those that shoot medium and large format, so I suspect they are saying the same about FF shooters.

Except that medium-format cameras have nowhere near the functionality of full-frame cameras. Very poor lens selection (unless using a digital back, in which case you lose even more functionality), poor AF, minimal frame rate, poor performance at anything above ISO 100 (apart from the newest CMOS medium-format sensor from Sony), poor/nonexistent live view...

The same cannot be said for full frame vs crop sensors.

Because the $2500 5D2 was out of reach of many people at that stage.

Nowadays, you can get a full-frame body for $1500. There's not much room for anything more than entry-level and mid-range crop bodies below that.

There hasn't been a pro-level APS-C body released by anyone for the past five years. There have been countless entry- and mid-level APS-C bodies released during that time, and a lot of pro-level (5D3, D800, 1Dx, D4, etc.) and mid-level (D600, 6D) full-frame bodies in the same time. If there was any room in the market for an APS-C body with pro features, outside of the wishful thinking of a few enthusiasts who don't want to part with their crop-format lenses, they would have released one by now.

Wow, I guess I never realized the following:

- that most photographers world-wide only shoot one common format and don't have mixed format in their bags. All those sports illustrated and getty photographers that I talk with at the championship games that had 3 formats in their bags must be in the minority.

- that wedding photographers would never use an APS-C as their primary or general use gear, I guess that I read some of the more well-known photographer blogs incorrectly.

- that now there is an entry level FF with fewer features costing only $1500, it has set a bar for no need on higher end APS-C bodies with greater features and performance. People couldn't afford $2500 FF bodies before (assuming 5D2), but they flock to $1700 (current 6D) because of the vast savings and such low cost. If there was a more expensive APS-C that had more resolution, better ISO performance than the 70D, could shoot bursts faster and longer, and had a mix of other features, there would be no market for it.

- that there was inside knowledge at Canon that they have moved all APS-C development down to the low-end segment of the market, and have put all their efforts into just FF development for high end cameras.

I learn something everyday, thank you for the enlightenment, I certainly appreciate it. I look forward to what the future brings.

I will end with these comments, subjective as they are, and as wrong as history may prove out:

- The reason the 7D made such a splash was because the 5D Mark II was generally a disappointment. The 7D specs and changes, from the 50D, were more than evolutionary, and after the 5D2 came out with marginal more ISO improvement, same AF system that caused grief in the 5D, and really no other real improvements other than movie recording, MFA, and more resolution, the 7D looked very promising, and addressed many of the 50D shortcomings, and helped bridge the gap between the 5D2 and 50D.

- There have been a couple of other Canon models that took nearly 5 years to see a successor, the 7D isn't alone in this.

- If the 7D2 comes out with new tech that yields better ISO performance with more features and AF/burst performance, etc. and is priced at $1900, it will be a hit, and it will make for a great companion to those with a 1DX or 5D3, or even a 6D. There is most assuredly a market for this, especially since there seems to be no more APS-H, which was a great compromise between FF and APS-C, while having a pro build and longevity.

- FF has its place, but in the overall consumer market, meh, not so much. For those consumers and prosumers, the APS-C space still provides a profit margin much higher simply due to demand and manufacturing costs. Even "pros", whatever that means" that sport 1DXs or 1DIVs carry APS-C bodies, including sports and wedding photographers. In today's world where there are so many photographers vying for the same space, one way to differentiate yourself is to shoot creatively, and the APS-C space gives you that flexibility, while being cost effective.

- The Rebel and xxD lines have always had the highest turnover, simply because this is where a large amount of annual revenue is derived.

- I would love to see a FF like the 5D3 come out with more resolution and a crop mode built in, but also need more FPS and buffer size. I would be putting in a pre-order, the first I have ever done. I would love to have a camera so versatile as to be able to shoot FF, then also crop leaving enough resolution for poster prints, and as clean as the 5D3 is now. I relish the opportunity to admit I was wrong, it would be worth it! The 6D simply doesn't meet my needs, and the 1DX is just north of my budget for what I shoot vs what I make.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17005407
I look forward to what the future brings.

I've already predicted that -

It's the FF sensor nailed to a plank of wood. No, it won't handle your current lenses, and the frame rate is rubbish (0 fps). But it's FF, so it must be better than APS-C.

hollis_f wrote in post #17005423
I've already predicted that -

It's the FF sensor nailed to a plank of wood. No, it won't handle your current lenses, and the frame rate is rubbish (0 fps). But it's FF, so it must be better than APS-C.

lol, but it would look cool, it would make for a great conversation piece. So the upgrades for that would be the type of wood, correct? I choose cedar, it would really make the pelican case smell good.

I got rid of my 1D4 due to my poor prediction that it was going to drop pretty significantly in the used market over a year ago. I was way wrong about that, it still fetches nearly what I got for it, which was what I nearly paid for it 2 years prior. The 1D4 is my favorite camera still, but the 5D3 does handle the same situations very admirably in its stead. So it will be interesting to see what releases come out this year.

I do need a crop body as a backup still, the SL1 is okay, but between its handling and worse ISO than my last 7D (for whatever reason), I just don't use it much, it is pretty much the camera my kids use now. Between portraits and sports, having the 2 formats is very nice through the shoots. My 50-500 sings on the 5D3, and not so much on the crop bodies, but the 100L is outstanding on the crop, for example.

Lone Rider wrote in post #17004670
This is a good analogy K but its not the first time Hollis has bagged FF sensors.

I think it's the idea that everyone wants or needs a FF sensor that he "bags".

Now if all lenses and cameras were available for FF in the same price and quality range, then I bet most would pick the larger sensor. But that's not reality.