As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).
"There is no advantage to crop sensors when the development is the same, which is to say they are the same sensor fabrication but cut to different sizes. As technology and manufacture gets better yields improve and get cheaper, so larger sensors can be made more cheaply."
Nope. Sensors are made on silicon wafers, and larger format sensors are prone to higher defect rates because of their size. That doesn't get better with time or manufacturing process.
" Cropping 'in camera' rather than being limited to a crop sensor that has been physically 'cut' to the smaller size offers exactly the same thing."
Um, what? Cropping down in a D610 from full frame to DX is a difference of 14MP.
"A lot of people say that the gap is closing between sensor sizes in terms of IQ (absolutely false, the gap is the same but all are getting better)"
SNR is improving faster on smaller sensors. Aside from the A7R and some Canon sensors, most full frame sensors don't have as much an advantage over APS-C.
Precisely when did DoF become the only thing that mattered in photography? The pro full frame photographers I know hardly shoot wide open, and, when they do, it's not for DoF. Rather, it's for the light gathering capability.
I'll admit, there was a brief time where shallow DoF was all I wanted. After a while, I realized it's a cheap trick people rely on to make their photos seems as if they're better than they are. Pros use shallow DoF sparingly and only when it adds something useful to their composition.
Nikon turned to full frame because they were running out of tricks to attract new customers. They also used to say, "Nobody needs more than [insert low resolution here]," right up until they went off and made a bunch of cameras with high resolutions.
samsamsamsam: Please compare by yourself and do not believe the propaganda. That Canon Sensors are so bad.The Canon 5d m3 (ISO 50) has less noise then the a7 and more DR and more DR then A7s, only the a7r is better in Noise and DR. Tip, You have to look in the highlights.Show me that I am not right. just look at the RAW test images in PS.I dont anderstand that everybody say that Canon Sensor is so bad. What bad is about Canon is the Pixelcount only 22 and no Pro Mirrorless. But for more Pixel you need better lenses and less Shutter shake and so on. But I hope they will make it soon.
You're quickly degrading from 'had some semblance of a possible theory' into 'wild unfounded conspiracy theory' (or 'trippy public performance art', depending on what you're really going for).
I know what I see in Lightroom, which is practically interchangeable with Photoshop in terms of RAW processing. It's not that nobody else but you knows how to develop a RAW file or manipulate a tonal curve. Flat out, by objective and subjective evaluation, Canon isn't as good as their competitors when it comes to overall sensor performance.
Canon sensors aren't that bad. They just aren't as great as Canon likes to think they are. Then again, I tend to look beyond a single ISO that's not within a camera's natural range to make comparisons.
The RAW files I have from the Canon gear I've rented or owned in the past just aren't as malleable as those from their competitors. Banging on about default DR is one thing, but being able to recover detail from otherwise-blown highlights or crushed shadows - or even being able to adjust DR in post production to help improve upon the DR tone curves - is something entirely different. Again, Canon isn't outright awful in this respect. Their competitors just happen to be better.
In no particular order:
So, after interviewing 5k people, they decided the 7D Mk II is for amateurs (shocking), unless you happen to be a pro and want something lightweight? Sure, next to a 1DX, 910g is probably lightweight, but it's still heavier than anything else Canon makes.
Nothing says 'serious about mirrorless' like introducing 2 bodies and 4 lenses over the course of 2 years, and making only half of that equipment available globally. 'Scaling up production & manpower' means they might have added a new person to the CAD lab who's job is to copy and paste other company's ideas into half-hearted 'me too' designs. (I'm looking at you, G7X.)
'We have the best sensors' reeks of someone donning the Steve Jobs 'Reality Distortion Field'. It's right up there with Nikon claiming they design their own sensors.
Thoughts: To compete with FF, they should try to make f1.8 zoom lenses like Sigma did.
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC is massive for something that has such a short focal range. A 50-150mm f/1.8 would probably be bigger than a full frame 70-200mm f/2.8.
wolfloid: This whole article is based on a very basic misunderstanding. The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses. Depth of field on APS-C at f2.8 is 'equivalent to f4 on full frame. Any light gathering advantage of f2.8 on APS-C is mitigated by the larger sensor of FF, which, if the sensors are of the same quality, will have half the noise of APS-C.
So, the Canon 70-200IS f4 is actually the lens to compare these new lenses with, and that, of couse, is smaller and lighter.
You do realize there's a whole article regarding equivalence on DPR written by the same guy who authored this opinion, right?
Precisely one of your points is correct; DoF is different based on sensor size. Light gathering doesn't change, and sensor size ≠ better noise performance.
whtchocla7e: The point-and-shoots are alive and well.
The Nex 3/5, the small m4/3 cams from Oly and Panny, the Nikon 1, the Q from Pentax, the premium compacts from various manufacturers?
They're all point-and-shoots in disguise. They sell in mass quantities, the majority of the buyers never purchase an additional lenses or accessories.
Your casual photographer may now have a more capable camera with interchangeable lenses (and they may not even know it!) but the point-and-shoot mentality does not change.
The definition of a point-and-shoot should be more dynamic to reflect the current state of the (lower end) camera market.
I think it's a little naive to conflate mirrorless cameras and premium compacts with point-and-shoots based on the assumption pointing and shooting is the style of photography they will be used for. If that's what you're going for, you may as well lump in low-to-mid-range DSLRs, while you're at it. According to the manufacturers, there are loads of people who buy a DSLR only to leave it on P and use no other lens than what came in the box.
Shooting style ≠ Product category
whyamihere: Dear Canon,
Cute camera. If this were Photokina 2012, I'm sure everyone would have been excited. Today, it's just the Canon 70D, Spray & Pray Edition.
I'm sure you'll sell tons, anyway, because: Canon.
Lassoni: There are other manufacturers out there besides Canikon.
Joseph Black: Yes, Canon does need to excite if they want to stem their falling DSLR sales. If they released this camera in 2012 or '13 before the 70D, it would have been amazing. They would have sold tons more, and they would have sold a bunch more 70D's as a 'pedestrian' 7D Mk II. Now, it's just rehashed technology stuck in a tougher body with moar framez that nobody really asked for or needed.
Remembering the advent of the iPod, it was successful because it held more than 32MB worth of songs and didn't require burning a CD. You could pick one of a thousand songs and play it at will. It wasn't a status symbol when I bought one - 90% of the world didn't even know what an MP3 player was when it came out.
Canon is good at marketing, and that's about as much as they have in common with Apple. After that, Canon supports their pro customers and occasionally innovates, which can be pretty much said for Nikon.
chlamchowder: I'm a Nikon user, and this camera looks awesome, even for the rather high price. It has everything a daylight action shooter/birder could ask for - an excellent AF system, a high burst rate without having to crop, and a deep buffer. This thing would be awesome for shooting soccer/football, or pretty much any outdoor sport where a large field is involved. I wish it had a Nikon mount.
And for those of you complaining that it doesn't have FF ISO performance - the best FF for action you can get at that price is the D610. It doesn't shoot at 10 fps, and doesn't have the 7D II's pixel density for telephoto reach.
As a photographer who shoots Nikon for daylight action and birds, nothing on offer here really has me excited. Nobody - and I do mean 'nobody' - needs 10 fps to get good photos. You could instead learn to do weird things like compose without cropping, anticipate action, and take shots that are worth keeping instead of taking 200 in hopes that 1 or 2 are decent.
I'd honestly rather have the 70D and pocket the change for a good telephoto lens, even if the ISO performance of the 7D Mk II is somehow magically better, despite it likely having the same sensor. From Nikon, the D7100 or the D610 would probably do it for most people.
joe6pack: 300mm without stabilization is going to be tough to use!
Trying to remind people that cameras with the lens mounts where OS was not included have in-body stabilization is about as tough.
DrLogic: No stabilization for Sony? The extra reach is useless without stabilization... And this is a very large range kit lens - the single IQ compromise range somebody takes on a holiday to replace a whole a whole bunch of lenses, so they aren't likely to be using a tripod. Doesn't make sense.
The specs list is wrong. This is for A mount, not FE. Releasing a lens for APS-C sensors for the FE mount would make less sense than releasing an un-stabilized telephoto lens for a body that doesn't feature IBIS.
Even if they did release it with OS so one could put it on a small E-mount camera, the thing significantly outweighs the average mirrorless Alpha, and getting the right adapter to regain AF adds even more weight. Saying Sigma is somehow missing out on a larger market by cutting out E-mount camera owners is nonsense.
Also, I've tried IBIS vs OS. Hardly a difference. People who say there is one are crazy. Charging differently to make an entirely separate line of product for a smaller overall market is equally as crazy.
AJorger: Only 1/4000s?1/200s sync?
What to serve fast lenses with this camera? Nikon is regressing. Do not play with people's moneyCanon does not have cameras with 1/4000 sec...
"Canon does not have cameras with 1/4000 sec..."
Sure they do. It's called the EOS 6D, and it only has 1/180s sync.
Quit your moaning and get your facts straight, son.
ekaton: Nice, but 24MP would have been it.
Because nobody can photograph a thing with anything less than 6000 x 4000 pixels.
Heck, Fuji may as well have released an iPhone with a shutter speed dial and a manual aperture ring.
captura: POW! Take that, Sony!
Yeah, take that, Sony, with your products that evidently don't compete in the same category as this camera!......POW!
BarnET: D5300 what we don't like about it."18-140mm is large and expensive"Then get it with another lens!
"Needs good lenses to make the most of the sensor"Yeah let's dislike an camera for it's ability to out resolve some lenses
No touchscreen well the canon has it so fair point.
I have to agree. If the complaint with the D3300 is the 18-55mm kit lens is degrading the performance of the 24MP sensor, one really shouldn't opine that the D5300 lacks the ability of being packaged along with the very same lens they just denigrated.
mike winslow: does having a floppy mirror make anything better? good riddance, and we can use the glass on our mirrorless cameras.. lol Sorry if this was supposed to be an SLR only party.. :P
It's getting harder to recommend an entry level DSLR camera over a mirrorless model, especially when compactness and equivalent image qualities are concerned.
(See, Mike Winslow, that's what a considerate opinion looks like. One of these days, you'll graduate from being a ham-fisted, self-gratifying internet troll, and you'll be able to write something like that. Oh, the possibilities.)
VadymA: I just don't get it. I always thought the main reason people switch to Apple is for such crative and user friendly tools like iPhoto, Aperture, iMovie, FinalCut, etc. But now they are ditching everything what made Apple such a success. How are they going to differentiate themselves if not for those applications? Personally, I don't see any reason to upgrade to another iMac now. If I owned Apple stock, I would sell it now. I haven't seen anything over the last three years from Apple to boost my confidence in their furture. I think it is going to be a repeat of Apple's collapse just like when Steve left it first time in the 90th.
Anybody who thinks that has their head stuck in the late 90's & early 00's when that may have been true. You probably could have made the switch to Windows at anytime in the last several years & been just as well off. Apple's stock, however, will be just fine without Aperture, I'm sure. They've been differentiating themselves with their music business, their tablet & phone business, their app business, and all the money they make off of the licensing that allows other companies to use all of the above.
Timbukto: What is happening is that the Apple platform has *long* shifted from a platform of mostly creative developers, to a platform of mostly brain-dead consumerism. Most of the money is now from consumers of images, movies, music, and apps, and not necessarily the development of them (although in that case it would be plain to see that its by far the apps and content providers that profit share here). But independent developers of content? Not much $$ there and an infinitesimally small piece of the pie Apple currently has compared to the bread-dead consumerism market.
Everyone over-inflates how much the 'creative community' supported Apple during their non-Steve Jobs days. Apple diversified their offerings too much in the early to late 90's, and they nearly imploded because of it. It took them nearly a decade to return to profitability, and it wasn't because of their support of creatives. It's because they had a dumb business strategy, and it took them a really long time to right their ship.