Last night Canon unveiled the successor to their popular 60D DSLR, the EOS 70D. There is a lot to like about the camera, but where Canon is focusing the brunt of their marketing is around the new Dual Pixel sensor which supposedly offers significantly faster focusing during video production. We've gathered a few videos from numerous Canon sources for your perusal to get you excited for Canon's next camera.
The video above is from Canon France, and does a pretty good job visually explaining the new sensor. Canon USA made a particularly "epic" video that you can see on their Facebook page (their sharing settings would not allow me to embed it here). Click here for a direct link to the video (you might need to be a fan of their page to see it).
Below you can see two videos uploaded by Canon Australia, the first doing its best to tout the new video autofocus abilities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf0BBNr6Epk
And this one is from Canon Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmV6I3XrkUw
At this point, it's full frame or nothing in DSLRs. Once you try it, there is no going back.
Agree! if I'm going to get a crop sensor, then I'm going to get a smaller mirror less system like something from the Fuji X series. .
I don't agree. There is still a place for crop sensor DSLRs. for people who like the built in 1.6 teleconverter and the higher pixel density. For example bird photographers or sports photographers. I use a 1.6 crop with a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS and 2.0 TC, giving me a focal length of 960mm. If I want that kind of reach on a FF dslr I would need to get a Canon 500mm with a 2.0 TC to get approximately the same reach, and light gathering capabilities. That would be a lot more expensive and heavier.
I am liking the Canon 70D, but I waiting for more information on this body. How is the ISO performance, how big is the buffer and how does the AF perform? It has the same AF sensor as the 7D, but the 7D had a dedicated AF processor. I am also curious about the 7DmII, I am hoping for the AF of the 5d3 and 8 fps or more in combination with a big buffer and a 1.6 crop sensor with good ISO performance.
I don't think you understand what happens when you use a FF lens on a crop sensor. You might be getting an equivalent of 960mm but that is because of the crop, not because you are getting a higher focal length.
You can crop any image but you can't claim that you are increasing the focal length by doing so!
The only thing you are missing out on is some depth of field...its not the same as simply digitally cropping. Practically speaking you are getting a lot of extra reach
It is the same as digitally cropping. It's not changing the way the image gets onto the sensor. The pictures that illustrate the coverage of a crop sensor on a full frame sensor are exactly what's happening. That full frame image is making it's way into the camera, but the sensor is only picking up a portion of the image from the center. the rest can be considered like bleed on a print.
Missing out on dof is because with a 50mm lens, you're still getting the 50mm view, you're just getting the center section that's equivalent to about 75-80mm of view. No extra increase in optical reach
Practically speaking it is not the same. The 5d3 and the 70d have close to the same amount of megapixels. Cropping on a 5d3 to the distance of a 70d is not going to get you the same image quality as sticking the lens on a crop sensor and letting it be. I realize that technically speaking it is the same as a digital crop, but in use it is not.
That's definitely true, but it's not providing extra reach, just a crop with more pixels/detail. Putting my 70-200 on my V1 isn't going to get me something equivalent to 500 f4. It's just going to get me 12mp in the center of a 200mm frame that's of a size equal to appx the angle of view provided by a 540mm lens.
But, if people want to think it's going to allow them to reach out and touch someone...I guess I can't convince them otherwise.
It's providing exactly EXTRA REACH. Forget the damn mm. It's just a measure of the lens. Forget it. FOV is what tells you what you see. And the FOV changes drastically with a cropped sensor. You put that lens on a 1" sensor and you will see very far. You are completely wrong in thinking it's "just" a crop. What if you take a lens designed for a 1.6x crop and put it on a fullframe sensor? What do you say then? "It's just an ... inverse crop!" You can put the tokina 11-16mm at 16mm on a fullframe lens and use it at 16mm. Just forget your photography training and use a bit more cropped sensors (even videosensors like 1/3"), forget the mm numbers and just look at the way images are framed.
It is the same as digitally cropping. It's not changing the way the image gets onto the sensor. The pictures that illustrate the coverage of a crop sensor on a full frame sensor are exactly what's happening. That full frame image is making it's way into the camera, but the sensor is only picking up a portion of the image from the center. the rest can be considered like bleed on a print.
Missing out on dof is because with a 50mm lens, you're still getting the 50mm view, you're just getting the center section that's equivalent to about 75-80mm of view. No extra increase in optical reach
Doesn't matter. Field-of-view is the only thing that matters. And you are creating a completely different field of view. A cropped "equivalent" of 960mm is actually 100% the same as 960mm on full-frame. Only thing different is depth of field.
The flattening effect of the longer lens doesn't change.
A 200mm lens on a d4 is going to have the same characteristics as a 200mm lens on a d7100, the difference is the d7100 is just showing the smaller section from the center of the full frame image.
It's not creating an equivalent to a 300mm lens on the d4.
(By characteristics, I'm referring to the flattening effect, and the way the view changes when going wide to telephoto, like this illustrates http://petapixel.com/2012/05/03/trippy-example-of-hitchcock-zoom-shot-on..., or the examples that have been shared of a persons face and how a wide angle lens shows more of the sides of the face, while a telephoto shows less)
To make this argument short, here it is:
When you crop a photo in software, you can take, for example a 20MP image and turn it into a 12MP image by cropping. When you use an APS-C camera and capture an image, it is 20MP even when "cropped" by the sensor, no different than its FF counterpart.
I own both a FF camera and an APS-C camera, and for crying out loud the only difference I see from my results is the difference in the focal length from one lens to another on either camera.
People need to stop with the FF vs. APS-C comparisons, because it is all about personal preference, nothing more.
In addition, many pro photographers carry APS-C cameras with them for times when they need the extra reach. So even if they aren't getting true focal length extensions, they are saving money on expensive glass and ending up with images that can easily be compared in quality to those taken with a FF camera and expensive glass. I've seen stunning images taken with cropped bodies and you would be hard pressed to tell them apart from a FF body.
It's still not REALLY providing extra reach though. It's strictly cropping the image down from what a full frame view is. The only difference, is in fact, a 20mp crop sensor has a tighter pixel density than a 20mp full frame sensor. Thus, if you crop a 20mp full frame image to the size that you'll get from a 20mp crop sensor, you'll have less pixels making up the same image.
These diagrams are what I was referring to before. The black frame is a full frame sensor. The image isn't getting zoomed into any further on a crop sensor. The crop sensor is the size of the yellow/green lines. What's inside of those lines is what the crop sensor is going to give you. The image projected through the lens onto the sensor is still the size of the black line. If you shoot a scene with an fx sensor on a 50mm lens, then shoot the same scene on a crop sensor with a 35mm lens, if you overlay the two images, the size of the subjects will be the same, and the crop image will fit within those green/yellow lines. (Appx, as 35mm*1.5 is of course not exactly 50mm)
The sensor size doesn't act as a teleconverter, magnifying the image any. It's strictly cropping the size of the image.
In my situation, I have a d700 and a d300s. The d700 at 200 may not get me close enough. Though, if I crop in post, that 12mp file may end up around 8mp once I get the framing I want. If the file needs to be blown up, there's some loss there. If I shot the image with the d300s, I have a 12mp image that's the same framing and view as my digitally cropped d700 file, it just happens to have more pixel data.
how bout this - for video shooters who can't crop their 1080p image down more than a few clicks, it gives us extra reach.
At this stage in the game I don't think most people care about the science behind crop cameras. They are still making glass for APS-C cameras, and for some reason camera manufacturers are still making the bodies, so they must be popular. Now, in my experience with APS-C and FF I really do not notice much of a difference in my images with a crop body over a full frame one. I was getting great images with my 7D before I bought my 6D.
I know there are people who look at the semantics behind the crop factor and scientifically break down why a FF sensor is better, but at the end of the day the average person will not care, and others will look at a camera like the 70D as an excuse to get more bang out of their telephoto lenses, whether it is getting more reach or just cropping.
There are instances where cropping is necessary and sometimes A LOT of cropping. Eventually the image quality of the cropped FF image starts to break down...and the image from the crop will not because of the higher density pixel count of the crop. I carry a 5DM3 and a 7D for wedddings and I have had to use my 70-200 on my 7D during ceremonies because I was kept SO FAR away from the altar that the crop to make the image useable would have been useless on my 5DM3. I got a useable image from my 7D. It, effectively, gave me extra reach. I get your point that it isn't a 300mm equivalent, etc...but the FF camera would have FAILED to get me the image I needed. In addition...as was stated by someone else, scaling a video on a FF to get the same framing as a cropped sensor will be problematic. We use fusion a lot at our weddings...we don't use the 5DM3 for video, generally speaking. Saying there isn't a place for crop sensor cameras in the DSLR world is just ridiculous.
Of course, I should have said giving me an equivalent field of view of a 960mm lens on a FF body. I do know what happens when you put a lens on a crop body vs a lens on a FF body ;)
The big difference between FF and crop is the pixel density. There is no FF body with the same pixel density as this 70D. The body that comes closest is the Nikon D800, which would have the same pixeldensity as a 14 MP 1.6 crop sensor. This higher pixel density gives you more pixels on target and with good lenses sharper images in focallength limited situations, when you can't just move closer to get your subject filling more of the frame. Even if there was a FF with the same pixeldensity, the body with the crop sensor, still has some advantages. Your subject is larger in your viewfinder, the files are smaller, more images fit in your buffer (considering the same buffersize) and you can take more frames per second with the same image processor, buffer and memory card.
In many cases cropping the full frame camera gives you the exact same picture with the benefit of having the FX sensor for all other non-birding shots.
I sure wish I had a crop sensor camera when I was shooting a surf contest in Bali last week with a 70-300mm. And don't tell me to get a bigger, longer lens.
If you are shooting this professionally you need to get a bigger longer lens. You need to try and stand out from the crowd. If you can't afford it, rent one. It's hard to mimic the DOF of a FF camera and a fast long lens. If you're not doing this professionally then go for a crop camera and keep the 70-300.
Nikon really needs to step up their marketing efforts or they will continue to lose ground. The 1-series has had this capability for over a year, but now Canon has produced this video and is creating the impression that they just found a new way to slice bread - that's what's bringing them sales - WAKE UP NIKON.
The Nikon Series 1 is aimed at tourists, YOU need to wake up.
How's that for a Nikon 1 v1 tourist pic :)
You wasted good money on a Nikon 1 to take this? You coulda done it with a P310...
I've had no desire to use AF while shooting video. Especially when shooting on manual vintage Nikon lenses. Unless this thing has a headphone jack I'm just not convinced.
It does. You also have to remember that this is supposed to be primarily a photo- camera, and video capabilities are a plus - although most people nowadays expect cameras to perform well in both jobs...
As someone who has been shooting with a 60D the last 2 years...this is everything I could have asked for. Can't wait to get this as my main body!
Do you think it's worth it? I'm a 60D user as well. It's about time for me to upgrade and I'm trying to justify it. I mean, from what I can tell, the 70D basically just replaced the current 7D. I feel like I might have just answered my own question haha.
I shoot an equal amount of photography and video for weddings and YES this is definitely worth it. More focus points, more MP(small but good), continuous autofocus, and more. Perfect for bouncing between photo and video and definitely perfect for video
Just wait until Nikon comes out with a Triple Pixel sensor!
or quad pixel
quad pixel is more accurate though :P
Since in electronic usually works with binaries
Will be interesting to see how the Movie Mode AF tracking works with existing lenses vs. STM lenses. Shooting run and gun would be so much better with a real working AF system. I wouldn't always use it, but when I need it I sorely miss a working AF.
Did you watch the "Handmade" video above? It shows the making of and indicates which lenses were used and how they were focused.
The AF seems to work the same with all of the lenses. They use a 50L and tap the screen to change focus and it is instantaneous.
I'm not sure how interesting this autofocus in Video/LiveView really is on this 70D. However, it will be mighty useful on the next Canon EOS M. That being said, with two photodiodes per microlens, I'm guessing Canon can work some kind of magic to get way better ISO performance.
My C100 has a 1.5 crop and I love it...
The wi-fi capability is key for me. I'll be picking up one of these camera bodies just for that feature alone.
I was going to hold out for a 7D mkII, but in light of this announcement I think I might spring for this instead. Nice specs. I can see 6D owners selling their camera bodies for this one.
You obviously don't work with a full frame camera.
I have a FF camera. In fact I have a FF camera and an APS-C.
Maybe if the 6D owner uses their camera for more video than stills. There is a reason that Canon is pushing the video capabilities so aggressively and not the still capabilities. I highly doubt that the 70D's ISO performance will rival the 6D (that actually give the 5DM3 a run for its money). From the comparison's I have read, no one is comparing the 70D's ISO to any full frame camera. 7D owners might give up waiting for the 7DM2 and buy this, but I doubt anyone on the FF side will give up their camera for this...might add it...but doubt they give up FF.
I said 6D owners, not every FF owner. I own a 6D and I am considering trading either it or my 7D for the 70D. If Canon had introduced the 70D at the same time as the 6D, I would have bought the 70D. I like the 6D, but with a new sensor I cannot see Canon taking a step back as far as quality is concerned. I've seen photos taken at high ISOs with the 70D and they are crisp and very low noise. So, I will restate, I can see 6D owners (not all, mind you) giving up the 6D for the 70D.
I highly doubt the 70D's sensor will be as good as the 6D's, considering the 6D has a better sensor than the Mark III.
Check out the high ISO samples posted on the internet and judge for yourself. I think they look pretty good.
I'm sure they look pretty good, as most modern DX cameras have very good high ISO quality, but the 6D's sensor is going to be better. You'd have to do comparisons of identical images shot at respective ISOs to see the difference.
For action shots this technology will be cool. For filmaking it's more limited. I guess you can do the lazy touch screen focus routine tho...
How is using the touch screen lazy or bad? Watching the "Handmade" video I was struck by how simple it is to do rack focusing by just tapping the screen. Much better than buying an expensive focus rig.
And IS would have nothing to do with the situation if you're using a tripod. Even if you're not, tapping the screen lightly would not necessarily cause a huge amount of camera shake. Just as much as turning a focus dial would...
Yeah, I dunno...