Reading mode: Light Dark

The 7D2 is spec'ed like a 1-series. And people still complain...?

Go to last post
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
If the sensor manages the speed and is backed by a good sized buffer and fast way to write it's information (so no SD card only malarchy) then it's a winner. Only notoric DxO whiners will not be satisfied, but to them I say "good riddance". The current DSLR sensors from Canon only have a small lowest ISO disadvantage against the Sony ones, come ISO-400 and the playing field is leveled and above ISO-800 the Canon sensors win hands down because of better tonality.
Click to expand...
 
Chris59 said:
If Canon puts a 20 megapixel sensor with an AA filter on their 7D Mark II the camera will have inferior resolution to their competitors.
Click to expand...
No it will have less artifacts than their competitors - because you can only leave out the AA filter if your sensor pitch is at least double than what the lenses can deliver. So for the other manufacturers to leave out the AA filter is admitting that their lenses suck and that they do not have any ambitions to make any better...

--

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 
Flying Fish said:
'm not sure, though, why the sensor and electronics couldn't be as good at noise control as the amazing 6D is.
Click to expand...
Because that is not about electronics or anything else - it's just about sheer sensor cell size and there the 6D has 2.5 times the area to begin with.
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Chris59 said:
If Canon puts a 20 megapixel sensor with an AA filter on their 7D Mark II the camera will have inferior resolution to their competitors.
Click to expand...
No it will have less artifacts than their competitors - because you can only leave out the AA filter if your sensor pitch is at least double than what the lenses can deliver.
Click to expand...
It will only have less artefacts because it has less resolution.

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
So for the other manufacturers to leave out the AA filter is admitting that their lenses suck and that they do not have any ambitions to make any better...
Click to expand...
Of course, how could I have missed it. Leica, Nikon and Zeiss lenses all suck big time!

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
--

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Click to expand...
 
I still think I have to pay for having that choice, and I'd rather not.

FF
 
Chris59 said:
It will only have less artefacts because it has less resolution.
Click to expand...
As long as there is a Bayer color filter in play you can have only one or the other - the resolution is already limited by diffraction for many cameras (20Mp APS has a limit of about f/8) but if you got faster lenses that deliver the resolution then you need to drop that a little in an AA filter (which you can counteract by processing), drop the AA filter you end up with severe artifacts (if the lens is capable to deliver the resolution in the first place) which can not be removed by processing.
Chris59 said:
Leica, Nikon and Zeiss lenses all suck big time!
Click to expand...
Leica - haven't produced much in good lenses in the last 20 years. They mostly sold off their name for others to use. Zeiss is much the same (what Sony sells under the Zeiss brand is a shambles) with the exception of their lenses that are available for several mounts (but these have no bearing on the decision by Nikon or others to make the insane decision to drop the AA filter, they just get far worse because of artifacting) and Nikon - well those morons at DxO found out to their shame that when you put lenses and cameras together you end up with the Nikon D800 not to be up to the level of the 5DIII: "Out of a total 147 lenses tested, the Canon surprisingly delivered a higher mean sharpness than the Nikon D800," So don't start to ramble about other manufacturers lenses.
 
Actually to me it seems Canon likes to offer new technologies in lower end cameras and usually don’t put the new stuff into the 1 series until it is tested out more thoroughly. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Canon put new sensor tech in the 7D2.
 
BirdShooter7 said:
Actually to me it seems Canon likes to offer new technologies in lower end cameras and usually don’t put the new stuff into the 1 series until it is tested out more thoroughly. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Canon put new sensor tech in the 7D2.
Click to expand...
Yes, but because a rumour says it is a 20.2 mp sensor it must be the same one as the 70D. The 70D must because it is 20.2mp also be the same sensor as in the 6D, it goes without saying as the numbers are the same.

Having said that, the 70D sensor is very good anyway, there are plenty damn fine award winning images out there to show that.
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Chris59 said:
It will only have less artefacts because it has less resolution.
Click to expand...
As long as there is a Bayer color filter in play you can have only one or the other - the resolution is already limited by diffraction for many cameras (20Mp APS has a limit of about f/8) but if you got faster lenses that deliver the resolution then you need to drop that a little in an AA filter (which you can counteract by processing), drop the AA filter you end up with severe artifacts (if the lens is capable to deliver the resolution in the first place) which can not be removed by processing.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Leica, Nikon and Zeiss lenses all suck big time!
Click to expand...
Leica - haven't produced much in good lenses in the last 20 years. They mostly sold off their name for others to use. Zeiss is much the same (what Sony sells under the Zeiss brand is a shambles) with the exception of their lenses that are available for several mounts (but these have no bearing on the decision by Nikon or others to make the insane decision to drop the AA filter, they just get far worse because of artifacting) and Nikon - well those morons at DxO found out to their shame that when you put lenses and cameras together you end up with the Nikon D800 not to be up to the level of the 5DIII: "Out of a total 147 lenses tested, the Canon surprisingly delivered a higher mean sharpness than the Nikon D800," So don't start to ramble about other manufacturers lenses.
Click to expand...
 
The 70D sensor isn’t bad but I don’t have to look very hard to see that it could be better. I was recently out shooting with my 70D and 500mm f/4 along with a friend with a D7100 and Nikon 500mm f/4. I took photos with both cameras as the light was starting to drop off at the end of the day and to my eyes it certainly looked like the 7100 had a significant advantage in terms of IQ. Probably the lack of AA filter helped but the noise was also less bothersome. Details showed up better and colors looked better in the darker parts of the photos. Regardless of what lab tests might show, to me the actual results from the field speak louder than anything. To me it looks like better performance is possible so I don’t think it is unreasonable to think that Canon just shut down their R&D department after making the 70D sensor saying, “good job boys, that’s good enough, lets go home.”

I do find it a little odd that people assume that the 20MP sensor must be the same tech as the 70D. It very well might be, it wouldn’t shock me if it was but as far as I have seen we have no actual evidence that this is the case. I am waiting for the official announcement with some hope that Canon has been able to come up with some sensor improvements for the new 7D but trying to not be too hopeful in case they follow their past track record which wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Certainly the 7D and 70D can produce award winning images. However, it doesn’t take good image quality to make an award winning image, content usually has more to do with that. However, they can produce some darn fine looking images; I just would like to expand the sorts of conditions they can make that level of quality image in. Hey, maybe Canon will surprise us and deliver it with the 7D2. We should know very soon.

Greg
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Chris59 said:
It will only have less artefacts because it has less resolution.
Click to expand...
As long as there is a Bayer color filter in play you can have only one or the other - the resolution is already limited by diffraction for many cameras (20Mp APS has a limit of about f/8) but if you got faster lenses that deliver the resolution then you need to drop that a little in an AA filter (which you can counteract by processing), drop the AA filter you end up with severe artifacts (if the lens is capable to deliver the resolution in the first place) which can not be removed by processing.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Leica, Nikon and Zeiss lenses all suck big time!
Click to expand...
Leica - haven't produced much in good lenses in the last 20 years. They mostly sold off their name for others to use. Zeiss is much the same (what Sony sells under the Zeiss brand is a shambles) with the exception of their lenses that are available for several mounts (but these have no bearing on the decision by Nikon or others to make the insane decision to drop the AA filter, they just get far worse because of artifacting) and Nikon - well those morons at DxO found out to their shame that when you put lenses and cameras together you end up with the Nikon D800 not to be up to the level of the 5DIII: "Out of a total 147 lenses tested, the Canon surprisingly delivered a higher mean sharpness than the Nikon D800," So don't start to ramble about other manufacturers lenses.
Click to expand...
 
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Chris59 said:
It will only have less artefacts because it has less resolution.
Click to expand...
As long as there is a Bayer color filter in play you can have only one or the other - the resolution is already limited by diffraction for many cameras (20Mp APS has a limit of about f/8) but if you got faster lenses that deliver the resolution then you need to drop that a little in an AA filter (which you can counteract by processing), drop the AA filter you end up with severe artifacts (if the lens is capable to deliver the resolution in the first place) which can not be removed by processing.
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Leica, Nikon and Zeiss lenses all suck big time!
Click to expand...
Leica - haven't produced much in good lenses in the last 20 years. They mostly sold off their name for others to use. Zeiss is much the same (what Sony sells under the Zeiss brand is a shambles) with the exception of their lenses that are available for several mounts (but these have no bearing on the decision by Nikon or others to make the insane decision to drop the AA filter, they just get far worse because of artifacting) and Nikon - well those morons at DxO found out to their shame that when you put lenses and cameras together you end up with the Nikon D800 not to be up to the level of the 5DIII: "Out of a total 147 lenses tested, the Canon surprisingly delivered a higher mean sharpness than the Nikon D800," So don't start to ramble about other manufacturers lenses.
Click to expand...
 
riknash said:
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Chris59 said:
It will only have less artefacts because it has less resolution.
Click to expand...
As long as there is a Bayer color filter in play you can have only one or the other - the resolution is already limited by diffraction for many cameras (20Mp APS has a limit of about f/8) but if you got faster lenses that deliver the resolution then you need to drop that a little in an AA filter (which you can counteract by processing), drop the AA filter you end up with severe artifacts (if the lens is capable to deliver the resolution in the first place) which can not be removed by processing.
riknash said:
Leica, Nikon and Zeiss lenses all suck big time!
Click to expand...
Leica - haven't produced much in good lenses in the last 20 years. They mostly sold off their name for others to use. Zeiss is much the same (what Sony sells under the Zeiss brand is a shambles) with the exception of their lenses that are available for several mounts (but these have no bearing on the decision by Nikon or others to make the insane decision to drop the AA filter, they just get far worse because of artifacting) and Nikon - well those morons at DxO found out to their shame that when you put lenses and cameras together you end up with the Nikon D800 not to be up to the level of the 5DIII: "Out of a total 147 lenses tested, the Canon surprisingly delivered a higher mean sharpness than the Nikon D800," So don't start to ramble about other manufacturers lenses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Turnip Chops said:
Karl Gnter Wnsch said:
Chris59 said:
It will only have less artefacts because it has less resolution.
Click to expand...
As long as there is a Bayer color filter in play you can have only one or the other - the resolution is already limited by diffraction for many cameras (20Mp APS has a limit of about f/8) but if you got faster lenses that deliver the resolution then you need to drop that a little in an AA filter (which you can counteract by processing), drop the AA filter you end up with severe artifacts (if the lens is capable to deliver the resolution in the first place) which can not be removed by processing.
Turnip Chops said:
Leica, Nikon and Zeiss lenses all suck big time!
Click to expand...
Leica - haven't produced much in good lenses in the last 20 years. They mostly sold off their name for others to use. Zeiss is much the same (what Sony sells under the Zeiss brand is a shambles) with the exception of their lenses that are available for several mounts (but these have no bearing on the decision by Nikon or others to make the insane decision to drop the AA filter, they just get far worse because of artifacting) and Nikon - well those morons at DxO found out to their shame that when you put lenses and cameras together you end up with the Nikon D800 not to be up to the level of the 5DIII: "Out of a total 147 lenses tested, the Canon surprisingly delivered a higher mean sharpness than the Nikon D800," So don't start to ramble about other manufacturers lenses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Chris59 said:
Exactly. Image quality is about both lens and camera. Improve either and you get a better image.
Click to expand...
But leaving the AA off is not a clear cut improvement of the image quality. If you got excellent lenses that can deliver sharpness wide open (like macro lenses) the artifacts of the missing AA filter far outweigh any gains you get for worse lenses.
 
how ironic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Official Canon EOS R1 Images and Specifications
Replies
3
Views
390
BirdShooter7
B
D
  • For sale For sale
CANON EOS R5 8K VIDEO~48.0 MP MIRRORLESS DIGITAL CAMERA W/ CANON 24-105MM LENS
Replies
0
Views
1
Deldelux
D
R
  • User review User review
Well rounded
2 3
Replies
42
Views
13K
RLight
R
K
Canon R5 Mark II - speculated in Q2/2023, specs
2 3
Replies
42
Views
1K
Envisionpubli
E
D
Sigma 300-600 4 DG OS Sports – Review After 14 Days of Testing
Replies
1
Views
3K
jerste
J

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top