No Canon 7d

[LCPete]

Yes do agree that full frame is better for sharpness but wondered if you are at a certain level of decent sharpness amy improvement going from crop to full frame would you really be able to tell without pixel peeping
I've never had a full frame camera tho so im only guessing

 

[HoppyUK]

is it noticeable in real life though or only on pixel peeping tests ?

Noticeable in real life, though you need a decent size image to appreciate it, say A4 or so. I don't think anybody doubts that FF is sharper than APS-C, I'm just explaining why and putting an approximate measure on it (say 12% MTF, but it varies between maybe 8-14% depending on the lens and aperture).

I'm talking about image contrast, that I suspect is what Jerry is lacking, and you don't need to pixel peep to see that. You need to pixel peep to see max resolution, but good contrast is visible in any size output, within reason. Call it 'pop' or 'punch' if you like. MTF testing measures the relationship between resolution and contrast, the two components of what we call sharpness, and it is contrast that contributes most to perceived sharpness (it's not about pixels, primarily). Smaller sensors require the image to be enlarged more for a given size output, so the lens has to deliver higher resolution (ie 1.5x or 1.6x, according to crop factor), but as resolution goes up, so contrast goes down (basic physics). And that's what we're seeing when comparing FF and APS-C in like-for-like photos.

 

[big soft moose]

I thought pop and punch were more down to subject separation caused by the smaller dof achievable on a FF sensor. I don't doubt that FF is sharper, but I'm not sure it matters that much unless you are doing side by side comparison.

 

[artyman]

But when you're already shooting at 600mm another 1.6 is useful.

 

[HoppyUK]

I thought pop and punch were more down to subject separation caused by the smaller dof achievable on a FF sensor. I don't doubt that FF is sharper, but I'm not sure it matters that much unless you are doing side by side comparison.

Call it sharpness then And while FF certainly is sharper* and you don't have to look that closely to see it, I agree that a lot of the time APS-C is plenty good enough, M4/3 too for that matter.

But in certain applications, such as landscape and wildlife perhaps, specialists in those areas are often seeking every last drop of sharpness they can get. I'm just commenting on Jerry's post and suggesting that maybe a new and better Canon 7D Mk2 might not be the answer he's hoping for (in his link) because the size of the sensor won't change, so lens performance won't change either.

*FF also has inherently greater dynamic range and lower noise.

 

[jerry12953]

Thanks for that Jerry I don't think the market demand for a 7D Mk2 is in doubt, the question for me is rather if it now suits Canon to make one, with the features we want at a nice 7D-like price point. Frankly, I don't think that was ever going to happen and Canon was always going to push it higher, but with the new shape of the market, that may be worse than we know, I fear that every manufacturer will have to reconfigure their plans quite radically.

On your blog link, I'm not sure any crop-format APS-C camera will achieve what you (we all) would like. I don't think Canon will push the pixel count much on a new 7D, as that's already adequate IMHO and any more will slow the potential frame-rate. But if they can improve the ISO performance by one stop, that will be quite an achievement.

The other problem is simply lenses don't perform as well on smaller formats. I don't know how familiar you are with lens MTF sharpness performance, but from my numerous magazine tests I know that on average MTF level drops by about 12% just by changing from FF to APS-C. That is very noticeable, and an unavoidable fact of physics, regardless of the sensor or pixels or ISO performance.

The only way to compensate (partly) for that is to start with an extremely sharp lens in the first place, one with resolution 'in reserve' and can take that hit better, like the Great White Canons - they're just in a different league. 400/5.6L is a fine lens, but it's not in the top class, and the extender only makes things worse. Better still, switch to full-frame and an even longer lens to get the reach back - short answer, 5D3 and 600/4L. There's no avoiding the fact that high quality long lens work is very expensive, and no new camera is going to change that.

Suggest hire say a 600/4L or 500/4L, and shoot the 7D side by side with your 400/5.6L and extender. And also, watch out for poor atmospherics messing things up.

You make some good points there and on the technical side of things I couldn't disagree as I don't have the expertise. However I was under the impression that as crop-format bodies use only the centre of the lens, they could potentially give better performance, or at least counter the drop in sharpness that you mention.

As for my lens - well, it's not the 400 f5.6, actually! it's the 100-400 zoom but I guess whatever you say about one is true about the other. The fact remains that I have managed SOME excellent, very sharp images at the long end of the zoom,, and I'm assuming that on those I got EVERYTHING right. The majority, however, have been slightly below par in some respect, and the end result of any optimisation I tried in software was an increase in noise levels. Pixel-peeping may play a role in my dissatisfaction, but I still don't know how use-able those shots are.

It would be an interesting experiment to try hiring a big white Canon - I maybe genuinely will try that for an important trip. As I've sold the 7d I'll never know the results of the experiment but I should come back with some sharp pictures anyway.

 

[jerry12953]

Oh, come on boys ..... Be honest .... You don't need any excuses to buy new toys, and the "new technology" you use as an excuse is just another technological gizmo which you don't really need and you'll probably never use. Other than for bragging rights at the camera club / bird hide / sports venue or wherever it is you hang out with your gear.

I accept the commercial issues, companies do need to keep offering new stuff to their markets to stay in business but I stand by my argument. You don't really NEED a new camera, you just want one, in the same way as you don't really need a new BMW, you just want one so your new one is the best one on the block.

I'll stick with my old fashioned 7D for now..... Does a great job and no need for any more gizmos ....

..... Oh ... Time to put the spuds on ..... Where's my apron gone ......?!

Glad to see you have a sense of humour about this, quicksnapper! In some respects I agree with you, but my experience with the 7d has told me that in this case, you are mistaken. The 7d doesn't quite cut the mustard when you push it to its limits, and that is what wildlife photographers will always do.

 

[jonneymendoza]

they need to upgrade some of canons prime lenses first!

 

[HoppyUK]

You make some good points there and on the technical side of things I couldn't disagree as I don't have the expertise. However I was under the impression that as crop-format bodies use only the centre of the lens, they could potentially give better performance, or at least counter the drop in sharpness that you mention.

As for my lens - well, it's not the 400 f5.6, actually! it's the 100-400 zoom but I guess whatever you say about one is true about the other. The fact remains that I have managed SOME excellent, very sharp images at the long end of the zoom,, and I'm assuming that on those I got EVERYTHING right. The majority, however, have been slightly below par in some respect, and the end result of any optimisation I tried in software was an increase in noise levels. Pixel-peeping may play a role in my dissatisfaction, but I still don't know how use-able those shots are.

It would be an interesting experiment to try hiring a big white Canon - I maybe genuinely will try that for an important trip. As I've sold the 7d I'll never know the results of the experiment but I should come back with some sharp pictures anyway.

I suspect what you're seeing is the lower standard of sharpness from the Canon 100-400L at the long end, further reduced by an extender, and judging by the image on your blog link, poor atmospherics playing a significant role. If you're looking for the highest standards of sharpness, compared to shorter lenses, that's never going to happen and a new/improved 7D won't change that. A better lens will, a bigger sensor format will, and better shooting conditions will.

The fact that APS-C uses the sharper centre of the image compared to full-frame only means that poorer edge sharpness is cut out, most noticeable on shorter lenses where there tends to be more of a reduction in sharpness towards the edges. But the centre will always be less sharp than on full-frame, because of the higher resolution demanded by smaller formats. As resolution goes up, so contrast goes down. It's a bit like a car that accelerates from 0-60 in six seconds, won't go from 60-120 in another six, as you're asking it to work much harder. The difference is the crop factor, so for example if you require a certain standard of sharpness at 30 lines-per-mm on full frame, to match that on APS-C the lens has to deliver the same standard at 48 lines-per-mm (30x1.6=48) and it can never do that. A very good lens might get close, but can never match it. Check the MTF graphs from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Leica etc you'll see how the numbers get lower as the lines-per-mm standard is increased.

 

[jerry12953]

I suspect what you're seeing is the lower standard of sharpness from the Canon 100-400L at the long end, further reduced by an extender, and judging by the image on your blog link, poor atmospherics playing a significant role. If you're looking for the highest standards of sharpness, compared to shorter lenses, that's never going to happen and a new/improved 7D won't change that. A better lens will, a bigger sensor format will, and better shooting conditions will.

The fact that APS-C uses the sharper centre of the image compared to full-frame only means that poorer edge sharpness is cut out, most noticeable on shorter lenses where there tends to be more of a reduction in sharpness towards the edges. But the centre will always be less sharp than on full-frame, because of the higher resolution demanded by smaller formats. As resolution goes up, so contrast goes down. It's a bit like a car that accelerates from 0-60 in six seconds, won't go from 60-120 in another six, as you're asking it to work much harder. The difference is the crop factor, so for example if you require a certain standard of sharpness at 30 lines-per-mm on full frame, to match that on APS-C the lens has to deliver the same standard at 48 lines-per-mm (30x1.6=48) and it can never do that. A very good lens might get close, but can never match it. Check the MTF graphs from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Leica etc you'll see how the numbers get lower as the lines-per-mm standard is increased.

I appreciate your comments, but don't forget that I have seen hundreds (thousands) of images taken with my 7d/100-400 set-up, and not just the one used in my blog.

Presumably whatever the "new 7d" is called, it WILL have a better sensor and better ISO performance.

 

[WilliamC]

I want the replacement to have the same controls as the 7D, swivel screen, continuous focus for video, use CF cards, have better High ISO performance. I'm not so fussed about a pixel increase, but there is no way I'm going FF, the crop is too useful for birds.

Ken, that pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.