To be fair the 7D sensor is pretty ancient in comparison to the NEX7's, and of course it looks muddier than a 12MP full frame camera. Even today crop sensors can't perform at the same level as the original 5D in most respects.
New Canon full frame?
- Thread starter Vertigo
- Start date
To be fair the 7D sensor is pretty ancient in comparison to the NEX7's, and of course it looks muddier than a 12MP full frame camera. Even today crop sensors can't perform at the same level as the original 5D in most respects.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
(Ignoring ISO btw)
The nex7 despite it's extremely high pixel density can rival a FF camera for sharpness and contrast, in fact it probably beats nearly all of them with exception of the D800E and M9 at pixel level. I'd say once normalised, the nex7 has the edge over the m9.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_vs_m9_part_deux.shtml
People used to say the 7D's issues were due to high pixel density, it wasn't, it was due to the AA filter. New higher resolution APSC's prove current pixel densities are not responsible for muddy image quality.
Again though, this muddy image quality is most apparent with fine detail such as foliage or people faces that are further away and not a close up. Close ups though, where the details are large enough to cover more than a few pixels look relatively ok.
The nex7 despite it's extremely high pixel density can rival a FF camera for sharpness and contrast, in fact it probably beats nearly all of them with exception of the D800E and M9 at pixel level. I'd say once normalised, the nex7 has the edge over the m9.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_vs_m9_part_deux.shtml
People used to say the 7D's issues were due to high pixel density, it wasn't, it was due to the AA filter. New higher resolution APSC's prove current pixel densities are not responsible for muddy image quality.
Again though, this muddy image quality is most apparent with fine detail such as foliage or people faces that are further away and not a close up. Close ups though, where the details are large enough to cover more than a few pixels look relatively ok.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
You can take some fantastic images with an iphone, that's not the point I'm making, as you most probably know.
Again, it's an ancient sensor. You can't compare it to new ones, you have to compare it to the 12MP and earlier Nikon sensors. It is largely the pixel density that caused poor performance with the 7D, combined with the problem that they haven't updated their crop sensors since bringing in the 7D, which means it gets compared with much much more modern sensors.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Before we go any further, what I'm discussing (at this stage of the thread) is the negative affect of AA filters, not Canon Vs Nikon.
7D is a prime example for highlighting that.
You say the 7D's sharpness/contrast suffered due to pixel density?
Why exactly?
Back on subject, I'd be very interested in a budget full frame from Canon. It would seem like the logical step from a xxxd for the beginner-turned-enthusiast, who wants more performance and the benefits of FF but doesn't need business critical features. I think there are stacks of people that would jump on something like that. Will be interested to see if any more news on this pops up
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think a lot of people will be like me who have been wanting to upgrade their xxD for a while but the 5D Mark II never quite hit the spot and the mark III is too expensive.
So D600 vs whatever this camera will probably be more relevant than previous comparisons as any crop specific lenses would have to be replaced anyway.
Agreed. I have a 30D and 17-50mm and wish to move to full frame so hopefully this will be competitive price wise. The encouraging thing is how fast the price fell of the Mark III so even it has a comical RRP it shouldn't last too long. I wonder if the 24-70 II will fall at such a rate if it ever becomes available...
Presumably if it does happen its going to have to come in at what the current 5D mkii price is, which is roughly £1500, but given Canon's recent 30% price increases, I'd imagine it will be more.
Obviously the reason people criticise the mkii compared to other cameras now is that the AF isn't so good, however of course its been used successfully by thousands of Photographers, so it isn't everything.
My assumption was always that the 5D mkii production would eventually stop, which would lead to the mkiii dropping in price somewhat.
As I said before, if you offer a camera which has largely been hugely successful with a few upgrades and possible downgrades, then why are people going to buy the mkiii unless they really need the extra AF points or shooting speed?
Plus if you look at it from the mentality that people are going to jump from the XXXD models to a full frame entry level, 1 series priced camera, then it cuts out the XXD and 7D line somewhat, which is traditionally where people tend to go for a body upgrade before Full Frame.
I'm also not sure I totally agree with Nikon forcing Canon's hand because Canon is now firmly pricing their products more than Nikon. They make their real money on the XXXD lines, because thats where you get the first time buyers after a decent camera and why they get updated so often. Once you get higher up, you are likely to be pro, semi-pro or a serious amateur and already be invested in their system.
Olv - I've not seen that the mkiii has fallen in price in this country, aside from a few retailers knocking roughly £10 off the £2999 retail price.
Obviously the reason people criticise the mkii compared to other cameras now is that the AF isn't so good, however of course its been used successfully by thousands of Photographers, so it isn't everything.
My assumption was always that the 5D mkii production would eventually stop, which would lead to the mkiii dropping in price somewhat.
As I said before, if you offer a camera which has largely been hugely successful with a few upgrades and possible downgrades, then why are people going to buy the mkiii unless they really need the extra AF points or shooting speed?
Plus if you look at it from the mentality that people are going to jump from the XXXD models to a full frame entry level, 1 series priced camera, then it cuts out the XXD and 7D line somewhat, which is traditionally where people tend to go for a body upgrade before Full Frame.
I'm also not sure I totally agree with Nikon forcing Canon's hand because Canon is now firmly pricing their products more than Nikon. They make their real money on the XXXD lines, because thats where you get the first time buyers after a decent camera and why they get updated so often. Once you get higher up, you are likely to be pro, semi-pro or a serious amateur and already be invested in their system.
Olv - I've not seen that the mkiii has fallen in price in this country, aside from a few retailers knocking roughly £10 off the £2999 retail price.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
If Canon doesn't/didn't respond to the D600 at it's rumoured price/spec, I'm pretty sure Canon would haemorrhage market share.
From all the people selling up their 550D, 600D, 650D, 60D, or 7D's as well as crop lenses to move to full frame. How many would upgrade to a 5Dii, when a much better performing full frame camera exists at the same or lower price, therefore offsetting the remaining residual cost of switching systems?
As for current pricing trends...
A business will sell their product at a higher cost than it's competitors if;
a) They have a better product, and/or.
b) They feel they have enough market share, thus want to maximise margins/profits.
A business will sell their product at a lower cost than it's competitors if;
a) They have a worse product, and/or.
b) They feel they don't have enough market share, thus will sacrifice margins/profits.
I don't disagree with you and I see what you are saying.
However not everybody is going to want to go through the hassle of selling all their gear to move to a different brand.
I think it does raise a lot of questions about what will happen to the future of the XXD and 7D lines though, because an entry level full frame would likely steal a lot of sales from those.
However not everybody is going to want to go through the hassle of selling all their gear to move to a different brand.
I think it does raise a lot of questions about what will happen to the future of the XXD and 7D lines though, because an entry level full frame would likely steal a lot of sales from those.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Not everyone would have to for it to make sense. Just a decent percentage of people who while going through the hassle of selling half their lenses, decide to sell the remaining lenses also. Moving to FF itself is a hassle.
As for where XXD lines etc. are going, well I predicted a couple of years ago, eventually APSC with be reserved for more compact camera's and entry level DSLR's. I think eventually they will become extinct or become niche products.
A little further down the road as sensors become cheaper and cheaper, and as pro's want to distinguish them selves from ordinary consumer 35mm camera's, I think we will see Canon/Nikon move into the medium format market, and release DSLR like bodies, like the Leica S2.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,214
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Dont forget u can now get a 5d3 for around 2k-2.3k brand new.
Also, in film slr, there was no such thing as crop sensors so the sooner crop dies and 35mm sensors become the norm, the better IMO
Last edited:
Why, what is so bad the crop sensor?
In my eyes the introduction of the crop sensor brought SLR technology to the masses and helped take the 'eliteism' out of it.
Certainly for me it brought photography to a price point that I was willing to invest in and I'm sure many others would feel the same.
Yes there is no doubt FF is the way to go for the serious hobbyist and professional but at the prices still being commanded for new FF bodies it just doesn't make sense for most occassional photographers, especially when you have to consider the investment in lenses as well.
You are wrong, in film SLRs there was such a thing as a crop sensor, it was called APS-C, funnily enough the same standard that was then used by Pentax, Nikon and Sony to make their APS-C crop cameras. Before digital cameras even existed Film SLRs were tanitioning to a crop format!
Crops sensors will not go anywhere, all major manufactures have heavily invested in it and will continue to develop sensors, lenses and camera bodies.
The 35mm film size was a completely arbitrary size chosen over 100 years ago with a completely different technology and user base in mind. The modern APS-C size was actually chosen for use by film cameras long before digital cameras ever came to the market place.
There are many advantages to the APS-C format and many disadvantages to 35mm FF format, so crop cameras will never go anywhere. Actually, I would tend to say the opposite and that 35mm size is more likely to go extinct. APS-C is a good size for most uses form beginners, prosumers to professionals needing reach or lighter kit for expedition photography. Crop cameras are widely used by professional wildlife photographers acros the world.
35mm frame is actually very small compared to medium format setups and with the reduced price of sensor manufacturing at these large sizes I expect Nikon and Canon to produce medium format cameras for those needing large sensor for resolution or DoF reasons. Pentax has already started the ball rolling. This will of course take a long time because of the large amount of lenses that would be transitioned so don't expect this to happen completely for a couple of decades.
There's no real use for resolution over a full frame camera with the exception of wall prints. Or ridiculously lazy framing followed by cropping in post but then nobody buying medium format will be that bad at photography. Also sensors getting cheaper doesn't mean glass will get cheaper - medium format glass will always average thousands and thosuands of pounds in costs.
35mm is the sweet spot for shallow depth of field - nothing is fast enough on medium format to give shallower depth of field than you get from an 85 1.2 or similar on 35mm. If it did exist you can be damned sure it would cost well over £10,000.
Also the main argument for APS-C in film days was that film could be smaller. The general market was in no way, shape or form transitioning to it. It was just an option.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,999
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I had a APS-C film camera, it came in a cartridge, it was convenient to load but the photo quality are rubbish. It's no where near as good as Fuji Reala or NPH or Velvia.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 8,516
- Location
- Glocestershire
Nikon even did an SLR, and it can be used with DX lenses.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/pronea-s.htm