Canon 7d11

Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as I am concerned that is saying it is really good in low light and for me that means ISO 6400 - ISO 8000. i.e. at half the standard ISO range.
 
HoppyUK said:
Framing is very much part of DoF.

The only meaningful comparison to make between FF and APS-C is: same framing, same subject, same distance with focal length adjusted for crop factor. You then have two identical images in terms of framing and perspective, and for DoF to also be the same, the FF camera must use a higher f/number.

The difference is a bit over one stop, calculated by f/number x crop factor. Eg, 50mm f/4 on 1.6x APS-C, delivers the same framing and DoF as 80mm f/6.4 on FF.
Click to expand...


I usually work on the basis of FF=0, APS-H = +0.5 and APS-C = +1.

Works for me, anyway.
 
its the best he's seen - he may not have seen the pentax [spoonstir] eeryone knows pros only use canon or nikon [/spoonstir]
 
Werecow said:
This is what you're not or refusing to get... With the full frame sensor you have the option to or even HAVE to move closer to get the same rule of thirds composition for example. You move closer and you get less dof, simple as that.
This isn't about dof tests, this is about using the camera to get the framing and then less dof SIMPLY because you're closer.
Click to expand...
No because that's the distance effecting the DOF, not the sensor.

The scientific test is all things equal.

Same lens, same aperture, same distance, same DOF. If you move, or have to move, it's the distance changing the DOF. The sensor only provides a larger or smaller field of view, not DOF.

I understand what you're saying, completely, but it's wrong in terms of the sensor and DOF.
 
If you see this video with the 'Man from Canon' showing it off to Park Cameras, he is saying how great the speed is, etc etc etc


He mentions the new sensor - a rediesigned 70D sensor that he says 'should' give better image quality - 2:05 mins in.

WTF - 'it should' - errrrr does it or doesn't it?

Just read the Park cameras blog and he says

"Although I wasn't able to take any shots away with me whilst I was at Canon, I did take a number of higher ISO shots (2000-3200) and from the LCD screen they look far better than the 7D images do. This I'm sure will please 7D users everywhere, including me."

High ISO 2000-3000 what planet is he on?

Last edit.

Further down in the blog

This, on paper, is better than a Mark IV and if the noise is as good as Canon says it is, it's a logical "downgrade".
 
Last edited:
bigrob said:
......High ISO 2000-3000 what planet is he on?.......
Click to expand...

He's on a planet where he wants to get a shot of a sparrow on an overcast day in Rochdale......2000-3000 would be 'high' relative to current practice.
Shooting minor league football under manky floodlights requires a very different baseline when defining 'high'.

Bob
 
given that a few years ago ISO1600 was unusuably noisy , i supose ISO3000 is a reasonable definition of high
 
Bob - what is your best guess how this compare to the 1DIV ISO wise?
 
odd jim said:
No because that's the distance effecting the DOF, not the sensor.

The scientific test is all things equal.

Same lens, same aperture, same distance, same DOF. If you move, or have to move, it's the distance changing the DOF. The sensor only provides a larger or smaller field of view, not DOF.

I understand what you're saying, completely, but it's wrong in terms of the sensor and DOF.
Click to expand...

Ah it's half starting to sink in... exactly, it's the distance. The full frame sensor ALTERS THE DISTANCE you stand at to get your framing on the same lens. Please try to understand this instead of having a strange rigid testing rule in your head.

Other people have offered the maths on the test you can do for this now too if that helps...
 
On page 370 it shows how you assign the Rate button to protect, which is great and not something that is available on the 70D.
 
Werecow said:
Ah it's half starting to sink in... exactly, it's the distance. The full frame sensor ALTERS THE DISTANCE you stand at to get your framing on the same lens. Please try to understand this instead of having a strange rigid testing rule in your head.

Other people have offered the maths on the test you can do for this now too if that helps...
Click to expand...
Aside from the scientific and physical fact that sensor size can't affect dof (the focused area, that's key) I'm just going to suggest a google search, as discussing it further here is taking the thread way OT and it really doesn't take long to see some pretty conclusive videos on this matter.
 
bigrob said:
Bob - what is your best guess how this compare to the 1DIV ISO wise?
Click to expand...
Probably comparable given that it's newer technology but with a considerably higher pixel density. I think that the 1Dx pushed ahead of the 5D3 simply because they made a fair reduction in the pixel density from the 1Ds3 but kept it higher on the 5D3.
Time will tell I suppose but I suspect that it'll be an afternoon sports body and not too useful after dark at all but the top grounds.

Bob
 
odd jim said:
Aside from the scientific and physical fact that sensor size can't affect dof (the focused area, that's key) I'm just going to suggest a google search, as discussing it further here is taking the thread way OT and it really doesn't take long to see some pretty conclusive videos on this matter.
Click to expand...

Ok... ahem
http://allanattridge.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/5d-50mm.jpg
http://allanattridge.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/40d-50mm-backed-up.jpg

All i can find is samples of the dof being different? ;) Which is what the difference is between the sensor sizes when you're actually taking photos of things properly rather than doing TESTS with rules designed to not show that characteristic.

But yes this is OT now.
 
bigrob said:
All new sensor or a tweaked 70D sensor?
Click to expand...

....A next generation Dual Pixel 70D sensor (1.6 crop). New but based on, if that makes sense.
 
bigrob said:
........................"Although I wasn't able to take any shots away with me whilst I was at Canon, I did take a number of higher ISO shots (2000-3200) and from the LCD screen they look far better than the 7D images do. This I'm sure will please 7D users everywhere, including me.".........................
Click to expand...
The reason they looked better is that the LCD has a better resolution on the 7D2 !!! I shall wait until I see some images from real users in the real world to make a judgement as to whether I think it is better or not. Personally I'd swap the extra 2fps for better ISO performance.
 
Werecow said:
Ok... ahem
http://allanattridge.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/5d-50mm.jpg
http://allanattridge.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/40d-50mm-backed-up.jpg

All i can find is samples of the dof being different? ;) Which is what the difference is between the sensor sizes when you're actually taking photos of things properly rather than doing TESTS with rules designed to not show that characteristic.

But yes this is OT now.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the field of view is the same, meaning they have moved the bodies.

I can't see much difference in DOF (viewing on my iPhone at least) but as I say, all things equal it should be the same.

If I get time, I'm going to try this myself tomorrow and see what I come up with!
 
Last edited:
artyman said:
Personally I'd swap the extra 2fps for better ISO performance.
Click to expand...

....Oooh no! I wouldn't. Not for wildlife and that's what the 7D Mark II is primarily aimed at. Good third-party noise reduction (NR) filters make a significant difference if you shoot RAW. I use NR on backgrounds regardless of the ISO I shot with. I find very little difference between ISO 400, 500, and 640 on my 70D. Even ISO 800 is very good and noise doesn't really kick in until ISO 1200. However, perhaps my standards of acceptable noise are different to some of yours.
 
odd jim said:
Yes, but the field of view is the same, meaning they have moved the bodies.

I can't see much difference in DOF (viewing on my iPhone at least) but as I say, all things equal it should be the same.

If I get time, I'm going to try this myself tomorrow and see what I come up with!
Click to expand...

Do some tests, but the only valid comparison is when framing is the same and distance (perspective) is the same. The focal length must be adjusted to achieve this, by the crop factor. Then you'll find the FF image shows less DoF at same f/number. To get DoF the same too, multiply f/number by crop factor. These are facts.

There have been dozens of posts on this. Save some time by using this DoF calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
All this debate about DoF which is running through this thread....

Whether crop-sensor or full-frame, just use your DoF Preview Button and adjust your aperture accordingly. Who cares about the theory - It's not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Btw, the DoF Preview Button on the 70D is tiny, badly positioned and therefore virtually useless. Whereas the new 70D II has a nice big well positioned DoF button just like the old SLR Nikon F's and EOS-1 film cameras I used to shoot. A small but actually very important feature.
 
RedRobin said:
All this debate about DoF which is running through this thread....

Whether crop-sensor or full-frame, just use your DoF Preview Button and adjust your aperture accordingly. Who cares about the theory - It's not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Btw, the DoF Preview Button on the 70D is tiny, badly positioned and therefore virtually useless. Whereas the new 70D II has a nice big well positioned DoF button just like the old SLR Nikon F's and EOS-1 film cameras I used to shoot. A small but actually very important feature.
Click to expand...

The lens stop-down button is not a good way to check DoF through the viewfinder. The standard screen doesn't show true DoF at f/numbers below about f/2.5, and at higher f/numbers the screen is too dark to see anything much at all.

However, live view shows DoF very accurately at all apertures. Or just take a snap and scroll around the magnified LCD image.
 
Can we pleeease park the debate about depth of field elsewhere? It's been done to death, and if you still want to talk about it, start a new thread.
 
The 6D is clearly a different beast. If you want to shoot anything sporty or fast, anyone in there right mind would pick a 7d2 over a 6d.

AF speed matters for some, I prefer my 50d over my uncles 5d2 for sports despite the full frame and better iso performance because the 5d's AF is better so my hit rate is higher. Also the 50d has a faster FPS and a longer burst (as it has less data to transfer). It's horses for courses, not everyone shoots weddings, not everyone shoots in bright sunshine, not everyone shoots sports. Every camera currently made has it's place, it's features, size, interface and price will appeal to someone.
 
Very true. The 6d does make a surprisingly good sports camera at times though, as long as you're happy with just the centre AF point. I use it for indoor sports rather than my 50d as the high ISO is so good, and the centre AF point is amazing in low light (one of canons best low light AF sensors) which is rather odd actually!
 
odd jim said:
Very true. The 6d does make a surprisingly good sports camera at times though, as long as you're happy with just the centre AF point. I use it for indoor sports rather than my 50d as the high ISO is so good, and the centre AF point is amazing in low light (one of canons best low light AF sensors) which is rather odd actually!
Click to expand...

And chocolate makes a surprisingly good material to make tea pots out of, as long as you are happy with it melting.;)

I find when shooting sports I rarely want the center AF point, faces are never in the center of my frame because if they are there is a load of space above them!
 
Last edited:
No not always. But most of the time the subject is central in my frame, then I use higher ISO's so I can tighten the aperture.

Skills and making the best of the equipment :)
 
odd jim said:
No not always. But most of the time the subject is central in my frame, then I use higher ISO's so I can tighten the aperture.

Skills and making the best of the equipment :)
Click to expand...


So you end up with a incorrectly focused higher ISO image? I'll stick to the top AF points thanks!
 
Jesus, what's with the BS here lately?!? It's like a p***ing competition for some people.

I can post hundreds of great sports and fast action shots taken with a 6d but really this isn't what the threads about.
 
odd jim said:
Jesus, what's with the BS here lately?!? It's like a p***ing competition for some people.

I can post hundreds of great sports and fast action shots taken with a 6d but really this isn't what the threads about.
Click to expand...

Wow! I didn't mean to offend. I suggest you take a break if you are getting wound up by this civil discussion. I'm sure you are a very good photographer and your 6d is an excellent camera.
 
Its not offensive, it's just an attitude thing I've noticed on here of late with a lot of people.

Anyway yes, I'm going to stop logging onto TP for a bit and just enjoy my photography...
 
Well I don't think it is my attitude as I haven't been on here in about 6 months and all my recent posts are on this thread because I'm thinking of getting a 7D2.

As I said I don't come on here that often but a reasonable response, in my opinion, would have been I do it like this because x,y,z here are some examples not calling my post b******t. I come in here to learn and offer my opinions not to upset people.

Is that a reasonable view or is this forum full of angry people that don't like you disagreeing with them?
 
chris-red said:
Is that a reasonable view or is this forum full of angry people that don't like you disagreeing with them?
Click to expand...

Seems that way sometimes doesn't it , I am talking about forums in general btw and not anyone in this thread, before I get vilified and pilloried on this one. :exit:

The internet is fairly well populated with people whos social skills are.... shall we say, not very finely tuned and no matter how polite and reasonably you try to make your case it will always at some point be taken out of context and not in the spirit it was intended. :(
 
Getting back to the Camera (sort of), I thought I'd download the manual to peruse whilst dreaming over my new camera:p

548 pages!!!!! I thought it was multiple Languages at first. I just checked my 20d was 168 pages and the 50d 228. If it keeps going this way the manual for the 7dmk4 will be bigger than the camera!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top