mosc: Wow, you prefer the 5D to the 7D, amazing insight! 10 FPS is not even that quick if you got off of your Canon fixation. This is one of the most expensive APS-C cameras on the market, it's not "cheap". Lenses are true to their focal lengths when they're made for the sensor size camera you have. That's nothing to do with whtiher it's APS-C or FF. If you use a MF lens on your 5D, it's not going to use the whole lens.
Gah, this article is somewhere between frustrating and simply irritating.
@dash2k8 - I agree with the cost factor. APS-C sensors was the result of extremely high cost for FF at one point. However, the cost to produce FF is no long an issue. Today, entry level FF are about the same price as high-end crop sensors if not cheaper in the case of Canon 6D vs 7D II. I think the issue has do with the fact that the creation of crop sensors created a new breed of photographers who are used to APS-C or still have the perception that FF is beyond their reach in terms of $$ or the glass they had invested in APS-C bodies would render useless if APS-C becomes the thing of the past.
Joed700: It seems like the Sony Alpha a6000 is the winner here in terms of sharpness and high ISO performance.
@rrccad - As a matter of fact, I did get a brand new pair of glasses, and I'm not the only one seeing that the a6000 produces very shape images here....
I wonder how many pros out there would actually prefer an APS-C camera as their bread winner over FF. It would be nice if we could have someone generate some stat....to justify the existence of crop sensors.
It seems like the Sony Alpha a6000 is the winner here in terms of sharpness and high ISO performance.
sleibson: I was happy to see this review because it has the ring of truth to it. This pro photographer brings her biases to her review, just like any reviewer. She is a full-frame shooter. She has a color preference. She knows what she likes and what she doesn't like. I found her review of the 7DII very credible based on that. She noted the fast AF and the fast burst speed. She noted controls she didn't like. She also noted how she sets the camera up for her work. In all, this is as informative a working review of a camera as you can hope to get and I appreciate the even-handed, easy-to-read tone.
And no, Canon didn't pay me to write this.
It's funny when I read comments from APS-C shooters that they deliberately ignore all the shortcomings of crop sensors and insisted that people have to say something good about them. I personally have invested in a crop sensor system (even I have several FF systems) and used for a year, and my conclusion is that I prefer shooting FF if size and weight is not an issue. And if a system that cannot deliver when I needed to isolate my subject (shallow DOF), it's a half ass product, period. Beside, the size of the 7D II doesn't give any advantage compared to other APS-C platforms.
riveredger: Pros: Low Cost
Isn't this the most expensive APS-C DSLR on the market? lol
That's typical Canon attitude. If they don't have anything new to show off, they will just charge a ridiculous prize to boast their products, just like they did with the 5D Mrk III.
Mr N: Hello everyone, I've always wanted to buy the Fujifilm X100 series camera ever since they had come out. I was in college back then and it was out of my price range, and so I kept putting it off forever. I am an architect but mostly I take street photography and some architecture details (barely to be honest), could any of you guys give me a thumbs up if you think I should just go for it instead of any other camera for my use ? I know I won't be able to take wide angle shots but that's okay, I never photograph an entire building only parts of it. Thanks in advance, also the colour in the beta sample gallery seems weird, I hope I can change this, any X100 series users out there., some input would be great.
I think buying a used one from eBay is your best bet. A used X100s is about $700 on eBay. If you're not happy with it, sell it back for about the same price. If you get a brand new X100T, you will lose a least a few hundred dollars the minute you open the box. Used equipment is the way to go.
George Veltchev: here’s a compilation of the best selling DSLRs based on Amazon Reports, where Canon has managed to convince the users with 11 models, Nikon 4, Pentax 1 and Sony with a single model .... Long live 7D MarkII ...the rest is just a fudge.
1 Canon EOS Rebel T3i 2 Nikon D3100 3 Canon EOS Rebel T2i 4 Canon EOS Rebel T3 5 Canon EOS Rebel T1i 6 Nikon D5100 7 Canon EOS 60D 8 Nikon D7000 9 Canon Rebel XS 10 Nikon D3000 11 Pentax K-5 12 Canon Digital Rebel XTi 13 Canon Digital Rebel XT 14 Canon EOS 7D 15 Canon Digital Rebel XSi 16 Canon EOS 5D Mark II 17 Sony Alpha SLTA33L
Where is 5D Mrk III?
Joed700: I would like to see APS-C cameras to disappear. During the film era, we only had 35mm SLR and point-n-shoot for most people. The APS-C breed was introduced at a time when chips were still quite expensive/lack of technology for FF DSLR. Today, FF DSLR starts at around $1600 price range while APS-C are around $1000 - $1700, which is ridiculous. The existence of APS-C somehow made the FF (old 35mm equil.) into a higher class. I don't think it will cost that much to produce FF compared to APS-C. It's just an opportunity for camera manufacturers to make more money. Point-n-shoot has it's place because they are compact and good for traveling while the APS-C are about the same size as FF DSLR; APS-C also lacks shallow DOF; not a desirable option for isolating your subject....
Now that I have my questions resolved, thanks to bartjeej, I still think that APS-C sensors are not the best for critical shallow DOF demanding tasks. For those of us who are not familiar with the DOF equivalence concept, the f1.2 is very misleading because we are not actually getting the DOF of a true FF f1.2 lens, but only a FF f1.8 instead. I think camera manufacturers should also include DOF equivalence of their APS-C lenses to the FF when they advertise their products. So the argument remains true in terms of the fact that APS-C sensors lack the shallow DOF, because there is no way I can get an 85mm equivalent that could also produce shallow DOF like a true f1.4/f1.2 FF lens. In fact, I could spend half the price and gotten a FF 85mm f1.8 instead!
bartjeej - THANK YOU for counting the dots! You have just solved my problem. I've been observing the same phenomenon all this time due to differences in distance between the two cameras and the subject. I did another test with tape...you are absolutely RIGHT!
bartjeej - I did read the article carefully, and I'd like to believe they are the same. However, whenever I pick up the two cameras and lenses (XT-1 + 56mm f1.2 & D810 + 85mm at f/2), the results tells a different story. I'm surprise you didn't notice the differences when you place your mouse pointer on the picture comparing the FF, APS-C; micro...the subject immediately pulls itself back and the background became sharper (dots), which appears to have more DOF (visually). The effect is more apparent because my shots are much tighter than the one shown online. To be honest, I could careless about the numbers. I'm only sharing what I have personally observed based on the available equipment I have on hand. And YES, the 85mm at f2 does produce a better picture compared to the 56mm at f1.2 taken from the same distance and the same subject in terms of bokeh and overall appears! Since I spent a lot of money into both systems, I have no reason to put down one and praise the other....
bartjeej - Here is another link: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/3
Place your mouse pointer on the picture and compare the background...and you'll see what I mean.
bartjeeej - Here is an article about how aps-c sensors would effect the overall quality of your images: http://www.mdavid.com.au/photography/apscversusfullframe.shtml Pay attention to the last part "Cons of APS_C".
bartjeej - Yes, the field of view are identical between aps and FF, but this is only true for the main subject. The background will never be the same unless you are talking about having a completely white background where you have nothing to make comparison with. As I had stated early, lenses with longer focal length pulls the background forward, and thus, you may end up with less in the background. Example, let say there are some trees near and behind your subject...with the shorter lens, you will see the trees in the background where as a longer lens, creating the identical crop, would make the trees completely disappeared because of the pulling effect/compression...Your argument is based on some numbers you read on some charts online, but you haven't done the experiment yourself, nor do you own those lenses to be able to make comparisons. Seeing is believing, go try it out at your local camera store and see for yourself.
I got to give Canon credits for being honest with their products. You've been told. Buy at your own risk....
bartjeej - the DOF calculator shows that the differences between the 56mm and the FF 85mm is only 0.01 ft at f1.2 vs f2 respectively. The overall quality isn't just DOF, but the combination of background and the ability of each lens' bokeh. Wider lenses push the background backward while teles pull it forward. The sample pictures I took with both lenses (not measured exactly, I could have leaned forward and background a little with each camera) shows that the FF 85mm wins because the 56mm has way too much background, thus effected the overall quality of the picture. The whole point of sharing my experience is that I wanted to inform people who still believe in this myth that APS-C is just as good as FF is false....
bartjeej - you forgot the fact that a FF 85mm pull in more from the background and thus the angle of view is less compared to the 56mm. The 56mm would capture way too much from the background...has a lot to do with the smoothness and bokeh. Therefore, the FF 85m wins in all cases. This is also true for all other focal length. As I had mention early, numbers don't show everything. You need to experiment this yourself.
Charlieangel: If this had a 50mm (equiv) lens, I would definitely upgrade from my X100S.
This is a nice, worthy improvement, and Fuji should be praised for improving this camera. But I don't see how this upgrade provides a compelling reason to buy for anyone, unless they were already planning on buying an X100S
@spontaneousservices - in that case, you are better off getting a XE-1 and a XF 35mm f1.4. It will still be cheaper than getting the X100T.
sheckwel: I disagree is most comments, I think this camera has vast improvements over the original 7D, I didn't test and put my hands ON on the 7d II but am pretty sure it's speed, responsiveness , handling are going to be terrific, it;s aim to be an APS C size Pro camera (How some folks say why it's not full frame) It's never going to be full frame, it's aim to be for sports, actions, wildlife shooters who need more reach because of it's 1.6 crop sensor, it's AF is going to be outstanding, others folks are complaining about 10 FPS is low (you will not going to get $6799 camera like the 1D X specs on a $1799 camera) Thanks they didn't put smartphone features on the 7d like WIFI/touch, crappy swivel, theses features means less weather sealing and since the 7d II is going to be used for most actions/wildlife shooters, they are going to need a tough metal camera!If you really need 4K or you want to act like a Pro videographer go get the 1d C with only $15.000 or new 2014 smartphones :-)
The minor improvements on the 7D MkII is nothing more than a gimmick to get Canon fan boys to put more money into an old technology (APS-C that has the size as FF). Canon should have put the improvements on a FF 5D Mrk IV instead. Sony and Fuji are the one with the real innovation in term of design, price and performance. As of today, the ff Canon 6D cost less than the APS-C 7D Mrk II. So go figure...
M.B.: Win what? Is it just going to be failed marketing plot to sell pricy low range and inadequate products? We have mass market full frame compact auto-focus film cameras 30 yrs ago. There was so little difference in image quality to mirrored counter parts back then. Since digital compact camera appeared in early 90's, consumers had been getting stone age quality stuffs unless you can afford premium price in R1. Like high resolution music and vinyl discs are now only enjoyed by privileged few. In the last 2 decades, consumers pay for update versions of camera housing nothing more than extra bits of computing power to cover up for the deficiency in smallish sensor. As we can see phone companies can do computing job better than camera companies. RIP for point and shoots until the firms do what they had done 30yrs. ago. Having been in the market since the very beginning of digital point and shoots, I stopped buying since 2010. There simply isn't anyone with quality that is reasonably priced.
filmIn the name of progress, we went from high quality products to low ones. It took nearly six years to bring us back to where we were (print quality), and within those years, we spent more money switching from one mediocre product to the next. The problem with easy to please consumers is that manufacturers will continue to produce mediocre products.