Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Mr. Rib on March 01, 2012, 12:08:03 pm
-
There's a buzz going on with (probably) real specification of MKIII
http://www.canonrumors.com/category/photography/canon-5d-mark-iii/
Of course it all depends on the final product but for me this is a letdown and I'd rather have a D800 as a sidekick to MFDB camera. What do you think guys?
Also how probable do you think these specs are- I think I would like to have more mp... at least something near D800. I'm thinking about pre-ordering D800E and I've been waiting with the finger on my trigger for 5d MKIII specs.
-
Nikon's D800 camera was brave, but I would guess Canon's is closer to what the masses actually want.
In this forum there's a lot of landscape photographers, and we like MP. But most rather want high ISO performance and not too much MP. I don't think Canon will be close to Sony Exmor sensor in D800 in DR at low ISO, but high ISO it will probably be competitive and that is more important for sales.
I'm myself a 5D mark II owner, and I don't feel in a hurry to upgrade. Had it been an high MP camera I would be more tempted. But now I'm seriously considering MF instead...
-
Well the big question of course is low light performance and dynamic range. But if D800/D800E is superior in this department, Nikon should be the winner for landscape/architecture/product photo (and that's my field of interest). I hope we will know soon..
-
Megapixels are overrated.
-
Assuming these specs are correct, is there anything the canon 5d3 will do better than the new nikon D800e?
-
Megapixels are overrated.
Your just saying that because the 645D only comes in one flavor ;) but they are and they aren't. They Aren't overrated when more megapixels translates to a bigger sensor which translates to bigger pixels which translates to more dynamic ranger etc etc. However, cramming more MP into a smaller sensor like the D800/D800e or that 41mp Nokia camera phone, won't do anything significant to alter image quality. I actually think the 5D MK III will perform nicer for video and at standard ISO's because they kept the MP count down, so you would hope that they boosted other relevant factors.
-
Looks and specs very much like the Mark II. Is it just me or has not a lot (of any significance) been changed? I think it had enough AF points etc. already.
I would be pleased though if they could follow Sony into delivering low readout noise at low ISO, not just at high ISO. That would be a real leap forward for Canon.
WRT the D800E, the Canon should have better high ISO S/N.
Ray
-
I'm a Canon shooter that has been waiting for a newer Canon camera.
I shoot ISO 100 in studio almost exclusively. I print big, always! Print is the final destination for all of my images. I proof images at 24"x30" or 24"x36". I am just in the process of selling my six 4x5 cameras (1 left.)
I pre-ordered the Nikon 800E when it was announced and was looking forward to it. However, I took a look at sample Canon 1DX images rezzed up and compared side-by-side to the Nikon 800.
Canon 1DX ISO 400 rezzed up was better on noise than NIKON 800 100 ISO. If the 5D3 performs as well as the 1DX - which I would expect from previous history - I am going to cancel my 800E order.
More pixels of equal quality is better. More pixels in the same sensor space, as someone mentioned, is at best a wash. In many cases the edge will go to the better quality pixels because of the increased processing power in Lightroom or PS on an i7 CPU compared to in-camera processing.
We will have to see what the dynamic range looks like. I think the new Canon's have the A/D converter on the sensor? That was supposedly Sony's key advantage in capturing with low noise and higher dynamic range. Although with controlled studio lighting, absolutute dynamic range is not as critically important, as I can control contrast with my lighting.
If I had a 5D2 would I upgrade? Maybe not. But based on previous history I probably would wind up upgrading, just because of the improvements in the Digic 5 processing, and the likely video improvements with a new generation (like the Nikon 22 level sound management in camera, etc.)
Plus the 5D2 was 3 years between upgrades. So if it fits, may as well get in early if you are going to own a camera for 4-5 years.
Best,
Michael
-
Assuming these specs are correct, is there anything the canon 5d3 will do better than the new nikon D800e?
A higher frame rate (it is in the rumor specs, and expected with fewer pixels to read and process). For many potential customers, that could be enough reason to prefer it, which is good, because it is about the only advantage that there is much real reason to expect from what we have seen in the past plus believing this rumor. In fact, frame rate might be the main real reason the makers of 35mm format DSLRs have ever sacrificed resolution.
As has been argued many times, there is little evidence to indicate that when printing or displaying at equal size, there will be any significant advantage in noise or such at any ISO speed, except when you go close enough to see smeared detail in the lower res. image in place of more detail plus more noise in the higher res. alternative. And that can be corrected with NR processing if you prefer the smearing to the noise.
However, people who view 22MP files at a smaller size than 36MP files (such as viewing both at 100% on screen) will probably see less noise in the image displayed at a smaller size. Then again, my contact prints usually look so fantastically sharp and grain free that the 8"x10" prints are often a disappointment in comparison.
P. S. mmurph: how did the up-ressed 1DX images compare to the D800 images for sharpness and detail when viewed large enough to see the full resolution of the D800 images? Upsampling adds neither noise nor resolution, so I would expect the D800 images to have more of both.
-
After 7-8 years of using Canon, I bought newer version II glass for multiple lenses. A far better use of money in my mind.
+1!
-
I held off buying the 5D2 because after much testing it just wasn't that much of an upgrade to spend $5K on two bodies for basically 1/2 stop of better ISO (the 5D does better at 1600 and upped a stop in post production IMO) and slower AF than the 5D. Plus those horrible shadows if you shoot for highlights! I'm very interested in the 5D3 and feel Canon may finally have their heads removed from their posterior with the firing of the CEO a few months ago and their 1Dx announcement seeming to get it right for the sports crowd. If the 5D3 is a good step up with dynamic range, shadow noise, high ISO and af performance this will be my camera. 22mp is plenty enough for me and I have zero interest in 36mp in a 35mm camera. Although I'd rather have 16 megapixels with 16 bit color ;-). 35mm means higher volume shooting particularly at weddings in my case and 22mp is already a bit too much. Anything more than that means buying a new computer for me. Although I do appreciate the added resolution offered with 22mp. Now it better not be $3500 and would be perfect at $3k or under.
-
Assuming these specs are correct, is there anything the canon 5d3 will do better than the new nikon D800e?
Speed, possibly slightly better at high ISO. Plus that I think that the typical user prefer the lower resolution, smaller files to deal with.
-
Well my D800E is on order to replace my Canon 1DSIII. I figure It can't be any worse and hopefully its much better for HiRes landscapes.
-
Wrong section mate ...
-
Wrong section mate ...
The 36x24mm sensor of the rumored Canon 5D Mk III is larger than 99.9% of all digital camera sensors and larger than about 90% or more of DSLR sensors, so this section for "... and Large Sensor Photography" works for me! ("Medium Format" is a bit puzzling though.)
-
Well, since DSLRs are trying to bite off a part of MF market (at least Nikon marketing tries to do it with their 36 mp 'policy') and there's a tendency to switch from MFDB to DSLR (at least in product/architecture photography) I do find this topic relevant in this section. Also as an owner of MFDB for a couple of years I am always looking for a good/best solution to back up/complement my main system.. and we live in interesting times- these 'backup' solutions start to take over the field of work of the main workhorses..
Wrong section mate ...
-
mmurph,
Have you actually shot with pre-production models of both cameras? I'd love to see those files if you have. I wouldn't come to any conclusions based on the hand out pics from Nikon & Canon...
Thanks
-
Hi,
My impression is that 5DIII is a better camera than the 5DII in general, better AF and better sealing. My guess is that they didn't want the old 5DII to compete head on with the 1Ds series, but they made a rethink with the D800 hanging around the door.
Regarding sensor I guess that we can compare Nikon's and Canon's APS-C offerings the D7000 and the EOS 60D and it seems that the Nikon is better in high ISO noise, too. On the other hand I understand that Nikon handles read noise differently from Canon.
Best regards
Erik
Looks and specs very much like the Mark II. Is it just me or has not a lot (of any significance) been changed? I think it had enough AF points etc. already.
I would be pleased though if they could follow Sony into delivering low readout noise at low ISO, not just at high ISO. That would be a real leap forward for Canon.
WRT the D800E, the Canon should have better high ISO S/N.
Ray
-
Officially, the specification is already known.
4 years ago I talked with the producers of MF on the introduction of a prism with a transparent screen. (To display the grid, important information, but also masks - depending on what you have plugged the sensor). This caused only a smile. Can be? As you can see it was possible :)
What I think about the new Canon? I will test, compare with Nikon. Of course, I share the results. Do not forget that this is just a tool. Do you replace the MF? I think that far it is not possible. But ... Can complement your basic tools ...
-
According to my inbox the MK 111 is "creativity redefined".
That should solve all our creativity problems then ;)
Here's a screengrab of a useful specs comparison that arrived in my Inbox, courtesy of a major UK retailer...so these are official.
Set against the 1DX, it looks rather similar (the fps being the only major difference)...looks like it will undercut it at close to half the price, in the same way as the 5DII undercut the 1DsIII.
Ray
-
If you put it this way (as in the table Ray provided), 1DX makes sense for a very small fraction of Canon market while 5d MK III / MK II fills the rest of the market share. There won't be many photographers needing 12 fps if they already have 6 fps.. (same for high ISO)
Which makes me wonder- what exactly is the target group of 1DX? What am I missing?
-
Wrong section mate ...
Not at all. The 'discussion' in the other section is just full of noise from the pixel peepers whinging about the lack of MP's to wank over. ;)
This section is where actual working photogs can have a more sensible discussion/insight into the camera.
As a food photog who ditched MFDB for Mk2's a year ago (with a very satisfactory outcome), I'm very interested in the 61 point AF for example, as I commonly have PoF outside of the Mk2's 9 points
I do T/S studio stitching a lot too, so 22MP's is fine with me too.
Gonna hold off for a couple of months & let the field tests come, but I'm pretty sure I'll order one before too long.
-
Wrong section mate ...
... whinging about the lack of MP's to wank over.
Has this forum been completely taken over by us Australians?
-
Not at all.
For video it doesn't line skip or produce moire. It also has sound sampling.
Right there, I write the check.
Then the fact that the iso is higher and better autofocus.
Right there, I write the check.
$3,5000 . . . That's the cost of a few cables from RED.
Right there, I write the check.
Seriously, I never like the 5d2 . . . except it shot the most versitile still file I've worked with, though I don't peep into the shadows at microscopic level.
People will complain about 22mp, (no client will know or care), but client's will know and care when you can produce a stunning still image and good video.
Right there . . . I write the check.
IMO
BC
(http://ishotit.com/5d2_paris.jpg)
-
Where in the specs does it say that it doesn't do line skipping to derive video frames? I'm trying to figure out if this camera derives video frames from downsampling full-frame captures, or by something short of that. Because if it does full-frame captures for each video frame, it would be significant.
-
Because if it does full-frame captures for each video frame, it would be significant.
...
At best it would do a remake of the Nikon 12 ftps image sequence (wich is not too bad either). I'd like to see if they are still stucked in 8 bits, a nice little free tour into posterization; what will be the max bitrate? surely low. I'd be very surprise to see something higher than 60 fps. We can expect an audio monitoring, a minimum, thanks Canon ! but won't be XLR conec anyway, and I'd like to have some view of the bottom to see the screw mount in wich I have zero faith it will be more stable (that's not a complain because it's due to the design of those still bodies wich are on the oposite of ideal. The motion camera is long on the axis of the lens, it's for a good reason, while the still camera is perpendicular, very bad for stability). No need to say that there will not have built ND filter, Ô sweet mattebox and I'd be more than surprise if the AF work as well as the B4 Fujinons and be sure that the same robocop zacuteries will be required to make all that work minimaly properly wich means at best double the cost of the camera body, wich makes instant access to some proper video cameras. And oh yeah, those super rock solid mini hdmi...ideal for intensive use on set. And for the moiré festival, it remains to be seen if this device will be moiré-free. 4K ? dream-on. Raw? dream-on 2. What yes wouldn't surprise me is an inboard connection with instant QT send-to-Vimeo function. Yes, a Vimeo and Youtube buttons in the menu. I'm kidding but they are perfectly capable to do it, I'm afraid.
Welcome to comboland. Sorry, multimedia, multimedia.
I'd get 2 cheap 5d2 instead and work with 3 capable cameras.
-
5D mk3 samples look very average. They have the same Canon look. Soft haze, flat colour and low micro contrast and detail. Infact they look no different to my old Canon 5D Mk1 minus some noise - just more MP , they're bigger versions of the same thing.
I could care less about it's movie functions and it's inflated price is ridiculous.
No cheque writing here. My 20 year old relationship with Canon is done.
-
For video it doesn't line skip or produce moire. It also has sound sampling.
Right there, I write the check.
Then the fact that the iso is higher and better autofocus.
Right there, I write the check.
$3,5000 . . . That's the cost of a few cables from RED.
Right there, I write the check.
Seriously, I never like the 5d2 . . . except it shot the most versitile still file I've worked with, though I don't peep into the shadows at microscopic level.
People will complain about 22mp, (no client will know or care), but client's will know and care when you can produce a stunning still image and good video.
Right there . . . I write the check.
IMO
BC
You hit the nail on the head. Well said by someone who's livelihood depends on the tools.
-
The bottom line is what ever works for you, if you think the Canon 5D mkIII works for you, then get it.
-
This is how I look at the cost.
Let's say you bought the 5DII at release at $2,700.
You can't afford to be without a camera, so you wait until you have the 5D3 in your hands to sell the 5DII.
If you can sell the 5DII at $1,500, the net cost is $2,700 - $1,500 = $1,200 Divide by 3 years of use, true cost to use is $400 per year!
Considering that 35mm pro color film & developing is $.33 per frame here in the US - the break even point in using the camera instead of film is 1,200 images per year! (3x400.) With $1 per frame 6x7 color film, it comes to 400 images.
Quite a bargain I'd say. The acquisition price is almost irrelevant. What is important is the true cost of ownership, or acquisition price less the depreciated value at the time you sell it.
Next question: Should I upgrade?
Let's say the 5DII is worth $1,500 right now. Maybe in 2 years you can sell it for $700? Cost per year is $400.
Compare that to the 5D3 at $3,500. Lets say you could sell it in 2 years at $2,000 (where 5D2 was at 3 years). Cost per year of $750.
So incremental cost is $350 per year for the 5D3 instead of the 5D2.
But if the 5DII already has 90K shots, and you might need a new shutter at $400, the net cost of the 5D2 goes to $800 + $400 = $1,200 vs. $1,500 for the 5D3.
So - is the 5D3 worth the incremental $300, or $150 per year? For my purposes, it has always been worthwhile to upgrade based on those types of calculations.
All figured into the cost of running a business.
Best,
Michael
-
This is how I look at the cost.
Let's say you bought the 5DII at release at $2,700.
You can't afford to be without a camera, so you wait until you have the 5D3 in your hands to sell the 5DII.
If you can sell the 5DII at $1,500, the net cost is $2,700 - $1,500 = $1,200 Divide by 3 years of use, true cost to use is $400 per year!
Considering that 35mm pro color film & developing is $.33 per frame here in the US - the break even point in using the camera instead of film is 1,200 images per year! (3x400.) With $1 per frame 6x7 color film, it comes to 400 images.
Quite a bargain I'd say. The acquisition price is almost irrelevant. What is important is the true cost of ownership, or acquisition price less the depreciated value at the time you sell it.
Next question: Should I upgrade?
Let's say the 5DII is worth $1,500 right now. Maybe in 2 years you can sell it for $700? Cost per year is $400.
Compare that to the 5D3 at $3,500. Lets say you could sell it in 2 years at $2,000 (where 5D2 was at 3 years). Cost per year of $750.
So incremental cost is $350 per year for the 5D3 instead of the 5D2.
But if the 5DII already has 90K shots, and you might need a new shutter at $400, the net cost of the 5D2 goes to $800 + $400 = $1,200 vs. $1,500 for the 5D3.
So - is the 5D3 worth the incremental $300, or $150 per year? For my purposes, it has always been worthwhile to upgrade based on those types of calculations.
All figured into the cost of running a business.
Best,
Michael
I agree totally. I kinda did the same calculation but added in " time it took me to get the product color correct from a dslr file" when i bought my mfdb system. Never regreted it ONCE. As many ppl forget its the cost of ownership. I dont care what brand name is on my camera. I buy the equipment that does the best job possible for my needs. I use both MFDB and dslrs + film cameras.
-
Last time I looked, this was the MF Photo forum, not the video forum, not the HI-ISO shoot in the dark forum, not the I shoot sports forum, and not the $500 a year is nothing forum.
Also, I might as well light up the elephant that has crept into our dark circus tent: Just about everyone here has a 5D2, anyway, and will have a 5D3. It's called backup. So the question is not whether to get the 5D3, it's whether it's worth bothering to set up the MF kit.
So why doesn't some kind soul here put a model against a wall, get a makeup artist to do up her face with something that doesn't look like either cement or shrinkwrap, light her eyes properly, find a 5D3, 5D2 and some Phase, set the poor 5D to STILL PHOTOS and ISO 200 shoot the poor anorexia victim to exhaustion with studio flash and/or modeling lights, and then develop with LR and C1, and show the results so we can judge skin tone and color?
Edmund
PS. I never saw anything more idiotic than Nikon's fake circus shoot for the D4, with studio flash etc. Some years ago I was assigned to shoot a couture show in the Cirque d'Hiver in Paris. I couldn't see the clothes, it was so fashionably dark, my camera was an old 1Ds, but the pictures got printed quarter page in some magazine anyway. Nikon's ad won't tell me what their camera will do in the real world - why do they bother faking it when they have a good product?
-
Well, that was useful!
One key reason that this thread is here is the amateur whining in the other thread.
At least folks are a bit more professional here. And as you mentioned, these are tools that most photogs will consider alongside higher resoltution tools.
The posts you mentioned were directed at actual comments up thread.
-
Well, that was useful!
One key reason that this thread is here is the amateur whining in the other thread.
At least folks are a bit more professional here. And as you mentioned, these are tools that most photogs will consider alongside higher resoltution tools.
The posts you mentioned were directed at actual comments up thread.
Speaking of professionalism, the only pictures I take these days are made while chasing my 1 year old *indoors* with the Nikon D3x, no flash, and an 85mm set at F2.5. After a few months of this, I've finally figured out how the AF needs to be set, and yes it can actually do that! And yes, I think this has definitely improved my own speed at age 56 :)
Edmund
Edmund
-
Last time I looked, this was the MF Photo forum, not the... Etc, etc, etc.
Whatever.
-
Videographers can have their 5DIII. If they spend 20k for a videocamera and more, $3.5k is peanuts. For still photographers this camera is very late and pricy. With grip it costs almost as much as a 1DIV.
For the asking price it should have an articulated screen, AF in LV and video, non crippled 1DX AF and integrated wireless connection.
I'm pissing, err... I'm passing.
Eduardo
-
Speaking of ...........
Since i have Canons, RED's, Nikons, Leica, Phase/Contax and sony I think I'm somewhat camera agnostic.
Except at the end of the year I see a trend on what I used most, what I billed most from each project, what camera I go to most.
In the end, it's always the Canons and usually the 5d2.
It just works, the video is ok, the stills are great, the camera is kinda cheap and plastic but it just works, under continuous light, low light, a billion watts of strobe . . . it just works.
For still work, that I do for myself on lower paying editorial, I'll shoot the Contax because I like it. I'm not sure if it's a better file, I just like the camera, but for work, that pays real money it's always the other cameras that get more use.
In fact I'd use the Canon a lot more for video except for dialog it's difficult to sound sample and moire was an issue. With the 5d3 that might be in the past.
This week we're shooting and are moving 14 cases of stuff. Heavy cases of stuff, with the RED's, continuous lights, PL mounts, sticks, sliders, Canons, studio strobe. 14 cases!
We thought about bringing the Contax because after 14 what's another case?, but it's still another 75 bucks to fly it each time, another set of things to charge and another thing to work with.
So it stayed home even though some of the imagery "might" be better with a digital back.
Now with the 5d3, if it all works well, we can leave the large RED's at home, the PL mounts at home, the HMI's at home and shoot this gig and a lot of others with just a Scarlet, the 5d2's and some LED's and lower watt HMI's. The strobe lights also stay home and the best part is the Canon lenses fit on the Scarlet.
$3500 might seem high for such a camera, but in the digital world it's bloody cheap. We just spent 5 grand on drives last week, just for off site backup, so when it comes to cost of a camera that shoots a professional grade still and video, this is exactly where professional cameras are going. I'm almost positive of that.
BTW: price even some cheap PL mount lenses and you'll be quite happy that the 5d3 will shoot video.
Money matters and as my segment has moved to additional and added forms of content, there is a lot of expense involved, people to hire, different skill sets to learn. Does spending 10x the price to get the the same or close usability of a 5d3 make a difference to the bottom line . . . you bet.
But the bet I'll make is Canon will sell the s*** out of these cameras. Maybe not like the 5d2, but remember that camera was on backorder forever.
IMO
BC
P.S.
Of the three images I posted the first was shot with a single hand held LED and a fill card, the second with a hand held LED and no room light, the third with a bron hmi.
That's not just cost effective, to me that's bloody amazing.
-
Now with the 5d3, if it all works well, we can leave the large RED's at home, the PL mounts at home, the HMI's at home and shoot this gig and a lot of others with just a Scarlet, the 5d2's and some LED's and lower watt HMI's. The strobe lights also stay home and the best part is the Canon lenses fit on the Scarlet.
$3500 might seem high for such a camera, but in the digital world it's bloody cheap. We just spent 5 grand on drives last week, just for off site backup, so when it comes to cost of a camera that shoots a professional grade still and video, this is exactly where professional cameras are going. I'm almost positive of that.
BTW: price even some cheap PL mount lenses and you'll be quite happy that the 5d3 will shoot video.
Absolutly. But what I find very frustrating is the design part, not the brain, nor the price. There are lots of things to like-love about the Canons, motion included...and as much frustration. Everybody talks about convergence, multimedia and new ways, lenguages and requirements; but we are stucked again in a still body design quickly adapted for motion. It's almost like this 5D2 was accidental.
You won't tell me that those big companies can't put their best designers-engineers on the drawing board and come with a totally different design that instead of complicating the setting would help the image maker to free himself from complications in both still+motion imagery.
But no. So, amazing? Yeah, and at the same time amazingly frustrating.
And they don't do it because if they would bring such a camera on stores at 3000 bucks, they could close immediatly their video-pro and still-only factories. They protect their own production, understandable, giving us tools that are on the way but aren't there. Unless an independant manufacturer like Red will not force them to accept the game-rule, we'll keep going to see this situation.
I'm sure that there is an engineering solution that would fit both still and motion imagery requirements, and I'm sure they have the designs already developped in secrecy; but IMO the response will not be in a 50 years old still camera design nor in an Alexa cine design. Something new has to come and to me Red Epic-Scarlet is the closest but Red isn't cheap, it's a serious investment for the photographer although a gift for the motion prods. So it's compromises and more compromises but nothing that really answers satisfactory to the today's requirements, or the convergence claims if you wish, in a world that spend less money in production costs.
You were talking about the Canon XL1, this indeed a very good example of a tool extremely well designed that frees the shooter from hasssles and useless complication setting. If those new camera could just featured the half of the XL1 design goodies, I'd be more than happy. But today, convergence: rien du tout ! Toujours la même éternelle chanson.
That's why I think that those chirurgical upgrades, more of the same but one more conector here, a little less moiré there, 2 more megapixels over there, highly compressed codecs on still bodies arquitecture that were designed just after the Lumière brothers, aren't that exiting at all. We are indeed in a transitory period.
-
I pre-ordered the Nikon 800E when it was announced and was looking forward to it. However, I took a look at sample Canon 1DX images rezzed up and compared side-by-side to the Nikon 800.
Canon 1DX ISO 400 rezzed up was better on noise than NIKON 800 100 ISO. If the 5D3 performs as well as the 1DX - which I would expect from previous history - I am going to cancel my 800E order.
Did you manage to get you hands on stable-firmware Raw's?
You didn't just compare based on low-res JPGs, did you?
Such high-end decision should be based upon serious tests. ::)
-
Absolutly. But what I find very frustrating ........
This is always the question.
Do you want to be liked or respected?
Now I don't really like the 5d, but I gotta respect that it can do what it does for the price.
Now that it sound samples and cuts moire heck it's almost free considering it's the closest thing to a convergence camera you can buy.
As far as RED I "like" the RED One's kind of the same as the Contax's with a medium format back. The thing is you can't use both of them for everything, just some things.
Nothing wrong with that.
As far as the Scarlet, way too many buttons, way too complicated an interface. The good thing about the scarlet is your back doesn't hurt at the end of the day, just your head.
But back to the subject. I know in this forum of "count the megapixels", 22 ain't gonna make anybody drool, but if this camera get's close to what they say it can do, then it's going to be respected, though I bet nobody likes it.
In the end Canon won't care, cause they'll sell a trillion of em'.
In the end the users won't care, cause they'll shoot movies and tee vee shows and and bill boards, some on the cheap . . . some with big budgets, but they'll use em'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnlPgo9TaGo
But the real truth is nobody is going to sell you a combination arriflex and hasselblad for 3500 singles. Even if they could they'd be foolish, so . . .
IMO
BC
-
But the real truth is nobody is going to sell you a combination arriflex and hasselblad for 3500 singles. Even if they could they'd be foolish, so . . .
IMO
BC
Why? A box, an HDMI plug, and wifi for control, no mirror, no shutter except a protection device, not even a shutter button or an LCD screen, just a sensor and encoder, no AF etc, no lens, buy your own, do your own focus, get your own external recorder, $3K end user with Scarlet sensor, machined out of a block of aluminium.
This remind you of something? Yes ... of the first cameras.
Edmund
-
Quite frankly. Do you find that the camera designs today that we operate are on the level of what current electronic - technology capability is allowing?
I remember Bernard talking breifly about how camera makers are releasing very progressive updates with a bombing of marketing expectations, (and everybody bites) when in fact it's a carefully planed road-maps with agreements between themselves to make us buy the maximum possible device in the shorter possible time. This is a delicate and fascinating topic.
Of course that they have those 3-4 K convergence cameras right now, and they are developing a lot in the 3D. Don't think that what they release is the best they can do at one point, but only the best they want to do for maximum profit at one point, all in agreement with their competitors partners. It may be even possible that they decide wich and when a company has to disappear. We only see the surface and official press buletins.
What they can do is way ahead what we touch right now. And if they sold a 5D2 at 2000 bucks in stores, is that this kind of camera technology cost them absolutly nothing to produce. Our industry is vastly in the hand of giants, that dictate the politics they want to and decide when and how. It's a good and a bad thing at the same time.
About what James wrote, it's good to know about the Scarlet interface.
-
Fred,
Your a passionate cat, but does it really matter?
I mean the red ain't a still camera a blad don't do movies but this camera can do both for the cost of 2 weeks rent in manhattan.
IMO
BC
-
Quite frankly. Do you find that the camera designs today that we operate are on the level of what current electronic - technology capability is allowing?
I remember Bernard talking breifly about how camera makers are releasing very progressive updates with a bombing of marketing expectations, (and everybody bites) when in fact it's a carefully planed road-maps with agreements between themselves to make us buy the maximum possible device in the shorter possible time. This is a delicate and fascinating topic.
Of course that they have those 3-4 K convergence cameras right now, and they are developing a lot in the 3D. Don't think that what they release is the best they can do at one point, but only the best they want to do for maximum profit at one point, all in agreement with their competitors partners. It may be even possible that they decide wich and when a company has to disappear. We only see the surface and official press buletins.
What they can do is way ahead what we touch right now. And if they sold a 5D2 at 2000 bucks in stores, is that this kind of camera technology cost them absolutly nothing to produce. Our industry is vastly in the hand of giants, that dictate the politics they want to and decide when and how. It's a good and a bad thing at the same time.
About what James wrote, it's good to know about the Scarlet interface.
I worked in Japan for a camera manufacturer with the product teams. I do not recognize any of what you wrote about the camera industry.
-
Mmmm...
-
Fred,
Your a passionate cat, but does it really matter?
I mean the red ain't a still camera a blad don't do movies but this camera can do both for the cost of 2 weeks rent in manhattan.
IMO
BC
No, this is not that important at all. In fact I'm enjoying filming with what I got like crazy, even if there are things that sometimes indignate me. It doesn't stop me to learn, produce and being each time more passionate about the all imagery language, specially when there are less and less barriers between the still image and the motion one.
Just that I sometimes feel very tired of those constant updates in wich I don't know really the real gain involved. Generally I observe that significant steps aren't occuring at each novelty. The best way to explain what I feel is, you know, those bombings of junkmails we receive all the time: how to get bigger muscles, better erection, better car, better girlfriend etc...
Something like that. So I see this brand new camera and...
It's true that I'm particularly concern recently on how to get things easier, with higher reliability, and with the less hassle possible and the less possible accessories and devices. I've always been alergic to ads-on.
But yeah, all this doesn't matter that much indeed. I enjoy a lot.
-
I worked in Japan for a camera manufacturer with the product teams. I do not recognize any of what you wrote about the camera industry.
May I ask what kind of function you were occupying? The only people who would know are top executives and strategists, probably no more than 5-10 people.
Besides, my comment was more nuanced than the summary provided by Fredjean. I had also clearly mentioned the fact that many of these features are made possible by a stack of technologies relying heavily on a small set of suppliers (typically specialized chips). The availability of these key components is required to unlock some innovations and it is not always clear who is driving the roadmap forward.
In the end though, demand from brand manufacturers in Japan remains the key factor affecting the whole supply chain and there is at least an implicit agreement and alignement of roadmaps. It simply cannot be otherwise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Besides, my comment was more nuanced than the summary provided by Fredjean. I had also clearly mentioned the fact that many of these features are made possible by a stack of technologies relying heavily on a small set of suppliers (typically specialized chips). The availability of these key components is required to unlock some innovations and it is not always clear who is driving the roadmap forward.
That's correct, I wrote in a messy way, as often in english. Bernard did write an interesting imput on that, in a form of introduction but my post were not suposed to copy or talk in the name of Bernard and my thoughts on that are purely personal. I just refered to this post because we were talking about the same subject and because I agree with Bernard's thoughts on that, although I've been less nuanced here.
-
I hate these stupid threads, When the camera comes shoot a test. Until then it just a waste of time
-
Megapixels are overrated.
I totally agree!!! :)
-
I want to add to bcooter.
As long as we speak about cameras like 90% in this thread I wonder what they do.
For me specs are specs.
In the end we are story tellers, I always tell my students, "it doesn't matter if you hammer a nail in with brand x or brand y, it has to go in, so choose the hammer that will get it in the quickest, in the end it's about the painting that will hang from the nail and that doesn't care"
As photographers and videographers we tell a story, in the past I often walked even during holidays with a 645 and canon through la, ny etc, just because I wanted to have the best quality at all times, very soon you figure out that with the 645 you just miss too many shots due to speed, boot up time, higher iso being noisy or not available etc, so now a days the MF travels with me for the photoshoots and when we drive around its with me for landscapes or when I know I have the time and for the rest of the time it's the DSLR that does the shooting, I always end up with my images, they tell the story and when walking I travel light and respond fast so being more comfortable, no need for backpacks etc.
The upgrade will be personal, compared the price of the rest of my gear the investment to upgrade is not that much, the benefit of having higher resolution out after pressing the record button with video is huge (we do more and more video), cleaner iso is a no brainer (I'm often shooting at 3200/5000 wishing I could go higher without noise) and better AF is just cool for when I do sports (hobby).
All the complaints about megapixels I don't get, do you really need more than 22?
Magazine spreads can be done with less than 16, big prints can be done with good quality 22MP especially when the AF is up to the task and you use a good quality sensor.
But as mentioned before there is just one thing important when you upgrade, will it help to do your work faster and better, for me with video it's a no brainer so yes I upgrade, with higher iso they talk about 2 stops meaning iso800 now will be iso3200 on the mkIII and that's great so also a no brainer and there it already stops for me, the rest is bonus ;)
I do agree that canon is pricing their cameras a bit "weird" lenses have gone up incredibly, on which I have to add that I don't upgrade my lenses because for example my 70-200f2.8l is works great en is already sharp enough wide open and closed down and I don't think the new one will tell a better "story" ;) and now also the always affordable 5d series are pushed into the realm of the older 1 series, meaning a LOT of first starting consumers wanting full frame will go to Nikon and when you're into a brand switching will be almost impossible, unless you have money to burn.
-
Yes, but I think that we can't talk about a camera, specially a camera that is supposed to be strong in motion, with just manufacturer specs.
Things have to be putten into the context of the all workflow pipeline.
We're all talking about clean, no brainer, simple etc...because that's what we all want.
But I think that Cooter also expresses something cyclic: You've been shooting during mounths with those Red, and you're looking at the 14 cases for the X' time...and you look at the Canon
and it's just so attractive. Cooter might buy the Canon, and after X time dealing with it, you look at your Red and it just looks so attractive, right or not?
Yes, there is no one ideal tool but the ideal is to have different tools.
About usability etc...
- Codec party. When I work with R3D files, I can cut with the proxies, although that's only when you don't have clients next to you because those proxies aren't looking good, then the only thing you have to do is re-linking at some point to the Raws for grading, for ex in Da-Vinci and output a master in 444 and a copy in 422. That's what I'd call simple, clean etc...
Now take one of those highly compressed codecs that feature generally dslrs. You'd have to transcode. You can not re-link to AVCHD 8 bits for grading because the all thing is falling appart.
Time consuming, more manipulation, more complicated. Of course it's done, but that's not what I'd call simplier. Also, outputing a high bitrate 10 bits copy for grading from a highly compressed 8 bit codec is a bigger file than a R3D and you don't gain any information but just empeach more degradation. You're in fact working in "false" 10 bits. There are no such things and as MR pointed in a recent article, the use of external recorders on those cameras is a choice to meditate because there is very little gain in quality but only in the workflow.
- Have you ever tried to work with long heavy cine lenses on those dslrs and pull focus in action? Here the all thing is falling appart. It's just not stable enough. The solutions to overcome that are very costly. Try for example to film surfers that aren't on the closest waves, from the beach with a 500mm equivalent on a tripod and follow the action with a dslr...fun guarantee. Actually talking about that, this summer I went to the Landes coast, a french world championship spot for surfing and there were filmakers. None were working with dslrs and their equipment was really heavy.
examples like those abund. So the only thing is to know the range of action of those still cameras, what can be reasonably done with them. Of course the higher isos exploitable, the better. That's the strengh. But then, 8 bits... means that it depends very much what kind of subject you'd have in front of you. At the minimum plane color scale, snow, lake, uniform wall and depending on the light inclination, isos, you'll posterize at one point or another. It's not fun and avoiding it on set is difficult and not always possible. So yeah, being able to shoot at very high isos and in fact that your footage looks almost daylight and then in post you make it looks night again, would be for me the best solution with those dslrs if what you want is not a festival of dirt and banding artefacts. I applaude if this Canon can really jump to very high isos the clean way.
What I mean to resume is that those Canons are good and a lot can be done indeed, but the moment you go out of their confort zone, the all thing is falling apart easily and time, money and brain consuming hassles are there, but they are just different than with heavier equipment. So it depends very much on your needs, budget and personal approach. The best thing is to adapt the pipeline to those dslrs but not the other way because it won't work so well.
In the end, the work is done with whatever. I think it's just important to be aware of what to expect and the pro-cons of each tool.
-
I do agree that canon is pricing their cameras a bit "weird" lenses have gone up incredibly...
Not much more than the change of exchange rate between the Yen vs Euro/US$ between the times when these products were released.
I guess that some day you've got to pay the price of currency devaluations that have helped both the US and Europe with export a lot?
Canon's price increase make sense, what is pretty amazing is the Nikon pricing. I am not sure how they do it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not much more than the change of exchange rate between the Yen vs Euro/US$ between the times when these products were released.
I guess that some day you've got to pay the price of currency devaluations that have helped both the US and Europe with export a lot?
Canon's price increase make sense, what is pretty amazing is the Nikon pricing. I am not sure how they do it.
Cheers,
Bernard
There have been some interesting quotes in the years between the 5D2 and 5D3 from Canon, one being that they can build a camera with pretty much any combination of features but getting it all into a package that they can put on the market at a reasonable price is a real challenge.
Another abstract filet of information that is surfacing in my brain is that there was a quiet period (1990s?) when Canon was the only big-name camera manufacturer to make a profit.
Then again, it may be that Nikon is just using cheaper materials than Canon.
-
Then again, it may be that Nikon is just using cheaper materials than Canon.
The ability to optimize the price of sourced components is obviously the largest contribution to the profitability of consumer electronic manufacturers.
I have had the chance to spend 10 mins with a D800. At least the external materials feel just as solid as anything else I have used. I can obviously not comment on the many parts that are not externally visible.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
May I ask what kind of function you were occupying? The only people who would know are top executives and strategists, probably no more than 5-10 people.
Besides, my comment was more nuanced than the summary provided by Fredjean. I had also clearly mentioned the fact that many of these features are made possible by a stack of technologies relying heavily on a small set of suppliers (typically specialized chips). The availability of these key components is required to unlock some innovations and it is not always clear who is driving the roadmap forward.
In the end though, demand from brand manufacturers in Japan remains the key factor affecting the whole supply chain and there is at least an implicit agreement and alignement of roadmaps. It simply cannot be otherwise.
Cheers,
Bernard
I was commenting on Fredjean's take. It sounds like a great conspiracy of companies handing down the crumbs and padding their profits. Companies don't sit on their best technology. Certainly companies don't want to lose money, but likewise they will introduce new technology if they think they can break even and further their market presence. There is advantage in actually producing technology beyond "great" profits. I have not seen what Fredjean is implying.
Roadmaps are marketing documents for customers and investors. They can be changed and are changed with shifts in the market. The top executive do not make the technological choices, those are really made by the product teams. The executives take that information and make strategic plans. You can not have it both ways of a top-down structure and then say it is only structured within existing technology. Sure, the supply chain is important, but so is developing new technology--it is a very competitive business. Even the suppliers are looking for edges.
I worked in technical documentation which included manuals, GUI development, and international press releases. I would be assigned to the product team for the products I worked on. The teams included members from engineering, marketing, quality assurance, and customer service.
So what is your experience in the camera manufacturing business?
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=63296.0#new
-
Re my credentials, I was the photo columnist for Publish.com. Ziff paid me very well indeed for my opinions, just like some people here are paid for their pictures, doesn't mean they're the best, but they'd better deliver.
My opinions on the tech stuff were at that time backed up by personal research (I can read, write, and even do simple sums thanks to my EE/CS degree and PhD qualifiers), and extensive and continuing interviews with both marketing droids and leading hardware designers, eg. Poulson at Hasselblad, Karbe at Leitz, and Ohara at Canon; and a lot of little guys who prefer to be anonymous. I happen to speak and even read some japanese actually, some days it helps, ne?
So, yes, just about everybody confirmed that cameras are designed to avoid cannibalization, and that some stuff is always held back, so that there is always something which one is sure the next generation will be able to do better; also cheaper models have some features disabled in software as a lot of people discovered for themselves back in the days when.
Which leads us to the interesting question of the 5DII. People in the business who did teardowns of the 5D II explained to me that Canon knew exactly what they were doing and dongled the hardware, disabling certain abilities related to high quality video export on purpose. My own opinion is that the AF was also made weak to avoid cannibalizing the 1D models. But you say, why did Canon make the 5DII when they also make video cameras? In my personal opinion the 5DII was the concrete expression of Canon's anger at Sony entering the still camera business, which Canon saw as breaking the existing agreed-upon equilibrium.
There are no exact answers to many of these questions. I have my opinions,but no camera exec I have ever met has been shy about telling me the intimate details discovered by reverse engineering the competition.
Edmund
I was commenting on Fredjean's take. It sounds like a great conspiracy of companies handing down the crumbs and padding their profits. Companies don't sit on their best technology. Certainly companies don't want to lose money, but likewise they will introduce new technology if they think they can break even and further their market presence. There is advantage in actually producing technology beyond "great" profits. I have not seen what Fredjean is implying.
Roadmaps are marketing documents for customers and investors. They can be changed and are changed with shifts in the market. The top executive do not make the technological choices, those are really made by the product teams. The executives take that information and make strategic plans. You can not have it both ways of a top-down structure and then say it is only structured within existing technology. Sure, the supply chain is important, but so is developing new technology--it is a very competitive business. Even the suppliers are looking for edges.
I worked in technical documentation which included manuals, GUI development, and international press releases. I would be assigned to the product team for the products I worked on. The teams included members from engineering, marketing, quality assurance, and customer service.
So what is your experience in the camera manufacturing business?
-
There are no exact answers to many of these questions. I have my opinions,but no camera exec I have ever met has been shy about telling me the intimate details discovered by reverse engineering the competition.
Edmund
Reverse engineering and controlling a series of product lines was not what I was objecting to. Why does every camera deserve to have exactly the same features at every price level. I hope folks don't think these companies actually start from scratch when they make firmware for a new camera model. And features can be disable because the hardware cannot support them or support them very well.
Our industry is vastly in the hand of giants, that dictate the politics they want to and decide when and how.
This idea, so often expressed, that there is some great capitalistic machine manipulating the market and consumers for their own profit. I find that is, on one hand, comical as it is giving too much credit the the folks running the companies (I have not found them that competent) and, on the other, nothing about the reality of the business nor the people in it. While it is very fashionable to bash companies for greed, what plays out in the financial industry in Wall Street, does not really translate into camera divisions of Japanese companies--the holding company or boards of directors are a completely different matter as they have nothing to do with the operation of those divisions, at least on the level of the products. The folks I have met in my career are really interested in making the best product for their customers--customers are quite a constant in their thoughts. But this business is not a charity either. It is struggling with low margins and bankrupt companies do not make good products at all.
BTW, I did not work for Canon, but I have never known our engineers or marketers lower the performance of a spec. because of another model. It is not that it could not be done, but the pressure to have better and better numbers to push new products is much greater than helping existing models compete. The focus is always on the next release, not the ones that have passed.
-
So, maybe it's time for Panasonic to change their engineer team because it seems that a bunch of young hackers are entering the brain and discovered how to make it work like a pro camera.
Those guys are actually solving a big factory issue Panasonic never gived a damn to fix for "their loyal customers" (guess why). So people in their garage are currently taking an on-purpose limited camera to free it from limitations, and not only that, the latest software is completly redesigning a newer powerfull brain with much less hassles and enormous dev perspectives. A bunch of hackers...yeah, people are starting to move forward the way they want.
Just my 2 cents thoughts.
Ps: if the company you refer to was Pentax, then I'd agree that this is a prety helphy company in terms of politics and transparency. Pentax being a small company, but when things start to be big, that's a all different story.
-
...snip...
BTW, I did not work for Canon, but I have never known our engineers or marketers lower the performance of a spec. because of another model.
...snip...
I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe.. And not particularly in case of Canon (however I think MKIII is a good example contradicting what you just wrote), but in general. I'm sure these are the practices.. Why not make some more profit out of old tech in which R&D you already invested if you still can actually make the profit? Apple philosophy anyone? And that's the richest company now. Even if there were companies striving to deliver always the best product with no holding back, these times are gone- I'm sure they adjusted to current market. Thanks Steve.
And coming back to Canon- it took them 3,5 year to deliver MKIII camera. Specs of MKIII is a fruit of 3,5 year development.. Canon... seriously? Ok, MKIII will probably be a good camera and heck, I don't know, for now I'm not buying D800 because I want to see how they perform head to head with MKIII. But I can't and won't believe that they are not holding back and that is the best they can do. Sad truth is that the products we see is simply a calculation of 'how much can we earn on making the smallest adjustments possible (although we could deliver more)'. That's the current trend and it's pretty obvious. And yes, it is irritating.
-
I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe.. And not particularly in case of Canon (however I think MKIII is a good example contradicting what you just wrote), but in general. I'm sure these are the practices.. Why not make some more profit out of old tech in which R&D you already invested if you still can actually make the profit? Apple philosophy anyone? And that's the richest company now. Even if there were companies striving to deliver always the best product with no holding back, these times are gone- I'm sure they adjusted to current market. Thanks Steve.
And coming back to Canon- it took them 3,5 year to deliver MKIII camera. Specs of MKIII is a fruit of 3,5 year development.. Canon... seriously? Ok, MKIII will probably be a good camera and heck, I don't know, for now I'm not buying D800 because I want to see how they perform head to head with MKIII. But I can't and won't believe that they are not holding back and that is the best they can do. Sad truth is that the products we see is simply a calculation of 'how much can we earn on making the smallest adjustments possible (although we could deliver more)'. That's the current trend and it's pretty obvious. And yes, it is irritating.
This is just insinuation. Please offer proof. You sound like a bitter customer because somehow Canon is not doing what you want.
-
So, maybe it's time for Panasonic to change their engineer team because it seems that a bunch of young hackers are entering the brain and discovered how to make it work like a pro camera.
Those guys are actually solving a big factory issue Panasonic never gived a damn to fix for "their loyal customers" (guess why). So people in their garage are currently taking an on-purpose limited camera to free it from limitations, and not only that, the latest software is completly redesigning a newer powerfull brain with much less hassles and enormous dev perspectives. A bunch of hackers...yeah, people are starting to move forward the way they want.
Just my 2 cents thoughts.
Ps: if the company you refer to was Pentax, then I'd agree that this is a prety helphy company in terms of politics and transparency. Pentax being a small company, but when things start to be big, that's a all different story.
Well, now you have your solution. Simply hack your camera and make it into a super duper pro version.
-
Well, now you have your solution. Simply hack your camera and make it into a super duper pro version.
In case you hadn't noticed people have been doing this to a lot of Canon cameras as well. Especially the 5D2.
As they say "Magic Lantern was developed by independent filmmakers and tailored for video production on 5D Mark II."
Edmund
-
In case you hadn't noticed people have been doing this to a lot of Canon cameras as well. Especially the 5D2.
As they say "Magic Lantern was developed by independent filmmakers and tailored for video production on 5D Mark II."
Edmund
That is great. More power to them.
-
What I would like Canon and any other camera brand for that matter is to develop something groundbraking every 4-5 years or so. If not groundbraking then at least leave the clients with the feeling that what is offered is a significant progress. And as time goes by, we are seeing more and more incremental progress with new releases. That is Apple philosophy which, as it turned out, works great in pair with our uberconsumptonism. There are areas in which the breath of the competition doesn't allow such practices. Compare the specs of a computer processor you can buy now and 4-5 years ago. Or a graphic card, a mobile phone.. Now compare 5DMKII and MKIII. Who knows, maybe MKIII will do the magic and will be much much better- but from the tech specs it doesn't seem so and I seriously doubt it.
Why Canon / Nikon didn't come up yet with a camera that is shooting motion to RAW? I'm sure eventually it will happen and oh, the coincidence! They will deliver these solutions in a few months time span or even at the same time. Why 5DMKII has a somewhat lousy AF (at least when you compare with the technology they had at that time)?
I'm sure with Nikon / Canon budget a camera similar to RED Scarlet could be developed and cost even less. Probably even better camera than what's Scarlet offering. But they won't because the market for that product is not that big, the money is not there. And what these companies are after is not making the best cameras possible but the biggest / easiest money possible. What's unfortunate for us is that making the best cameras doesn't equal biggest income.
This is just insinuation. Please offer proof. You sound like a bitter customer because somehow Canon is not doing what you want.
-
The folks I have met in my career are really interested in making the best product for their customers--customers are quite a constant in their thoughts. But this business is not a charity either. It is struggling with low margins and bankrupt companies do not make good products at all.
I don't doubt this the least bit but engineers do their job in the context of a budget and product specifications defined for them by product planning division (製品企画).
My view is that the alignement of high level specs per "generation" between manufacturers and the timing thereof is a very understandable practice that aims at ensuring long term profitability. It is also a practice that is close to unavoidable as mentioned before.
You seem to read in these statements some implication that camera manufacturers would be seen as evil because of such practices. That's at least not how I look at it.
Bythe way, cross company agreements about the enveloppe of the playing field is a well known fact in other industries as well. Just look at the agreement that did bind Japanese car manufacturers for year about the power of their engines. They had decided not to go above 280hp. Honda decided to break away from this with the Honda legend for unknown reasons, maybe because they considered that it hindered their competitiveness against foreign car manufacturers, maybe for other reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bythe way, cross company agreements about the enveloppe of the playing field is a well known fact in other industries as well.
I'm sure Bernard is very familiar with the term keiretsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu)...it's a particularly Japanese way of doing business. Back in 2003 I went to Japan to judge a photo contest. It was interesting...at the time I did a little bit of research and found out some interesting facts. I found out that the single largest source of revenue for Canon was integrated chips. They made and sold internally, a ton of chips for all their products. The other interesting thing was at that time, Nikon's single largest source of revenue was stepper motors, used in the manufacture of integrated chips. Guess who was Nikon single largest customer? Canon...
There is no question that major corporations in Japan cooperate a lot more than US companies...some of that cooperation would be illegal in the US due to FTC rules...but there's also no question that corporation in Japan will sometimes do things outside of the norm for a variety of reasons...
Japan is a really different place and it's economy is so very dependent on export. Most of the time Japanese companies will "do the right thing" for the Japanese best interests...but not always.
I do think that Nikon and Sony have a very, very uneasy relationship. Nikon, unlike Canon don't make their own chips...so Nikon relies upon Sony for their camera sensors...at the same time Sony cameras are making an impact on the industry. That makes Nikon (and Canon) rather skittish...also note the recent gyrations in Japan within the industry; Recoh buying Pentax and Olympus being so severely investigated–although I thought it was interesting that the media in Japan wrote stories in advance that Olympus offices where going to be raided, before the raids...
I really doubt anybody outside of Japan really knows what's going on inside of Japan.
-
I do think that Nikon and Sony have a very, very uneasy relationship. Nikon, unlike Canon don't make their own chips...so Nikon relies upon Sony for their camera sensors...at the same time Sony cameras are making an impact on the industry. That makes Nikon (and Canon) rather skittish...
Actually, I am not sure that the reality is what you describe.
Sony semi-conductor owes its success in DSLR sensors design mostly to nikon whose sales paid most of the tech dev of their sensors.
Simply put, we would not have the sensors we have today if Nikon hadn't sold those tens of millions of DSLRs. Sony cameras by themselves are very far from generating the amount of sales needed to justify these investments.
Japanese companies value long term relationship and mutual respect. I am pretty sure that Sony Semi-Conductor knows how important Nikon is to their business.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder how These threads would sound when there were 33mps ;)
I think deep in most brains it's still imprinted that if there are not more mps in a camera or a bigger screen on the new iPhone it's not a real upgrade.
Except for the pricing I'm very happy with the new specs, and until I see one in action I can't give a real comment of course but I expect nothing less than a big step up in video and stills.
-
Jeff,
I am very skeptical about this persistent talk that Nikon is at a disadvantage with respect to Canon because it colaborates with Sony to get good sensors, with the claim sometimes made that Sony just designs sensors in isolation and then Nikon has to just choose from the models that Sony has to offer. Firstly, Nikon is by far the largest customer for DSLR sensors from Sony's sensor division, far larger than the (persistently loss-making last I heard) Sony DSLR division, so even simple market forces mean that Nikon has a lot of say on the direction of Sony's sensor development. Add to that indications from well-connected sources like Thom Hogan that Nikon does to some extent share some of its technology in the design of sensors that are also partly designed and also manufactured for Nikon by partners like Sony.
Compare this to today's dominant example of a company that is heavily dependent on outsourcing components and design elements for its products: Apple, which indeed has spent the last fifteen years or so moving away from in-house manufacturing and designs towards working with the biggest, most efficient, most competent designers and producers of low-level components (like shifting to Intel processors), and using its volume purchasing power to get early access and best pricing on those components. Apple even works with phone-making arch-rival Samsung for many components such as screen panels and fabrication of processors for the iPhone and iPad. It has been argued that Tim Cook played a major part if Apple's revival and massive growth by his emphasis on moving away from doing too much in-house to more cost-effective out-sourcing where appropriate.
The examples of Olympus turning to Panasonic for help (by the way, its recent debacle is nothing to do with the camera division, but bad investments made many years ago and ten covered up by senior management of what is primarily a maker of medical equipment and microscopes) and Pentax bouncing from Samsung to Hoya to Ricoh simply, both show the impracticality of trying to go it alone in the digital era against competitors with far greater resources in the electronic side of modern photography. Canon is far bigger and better endowed on the electronics side than Olympus or Pentax or even Nikon, but still smaller and weaker than Sony or Panasonic or Samsung in that respect.
So it is unclear whether Canon has the resources to continue its DIY approach to sensor development. The trend of the last five years ago has been Sony starting from well behind Sony/Nikon in CMOS sensors and moving forward at a faster pace to now be signifiantly ahead of Canon! at least in the judgement of many observers.
Heck, if the Nokia/Toshiba/Sony/whoever team behind the 808 PureView sensor are really reading all 36MP of each video frame off the sensor for processing down to 1920x1080 on a second chip at up to 30fps, even that team appears to be well ahead of Canon in that respect of electronics capabilities. And that is what a Nokia engineer has explicitly claimed, with his talk of handling about 1.2 billion pixels per second read out from the sensor. Needless to day, Nokia could not have achieved that with an all in-house, DIY approach. Likewise, I very much doubt tha Olympus could have achieved the improvements in sensor performance and continuous AF capabilities touted for the OM-D E-M5 without a major (but as-yet unnamed) electronics partner.
-
I don't think sensor design is that hard, actually, compared to processors; it can be done with a small team because essentially a sensor is a replicated structure. That is why small firms like Dalsa can do so well.
However, all these companies are making sensors using the same fabbing equipment and CAD design tools- it's pretty obvious that they have very few degrees of freedom and their endproduct will converge.
Edmund
Jeff,
I am very skeptical about this persistent talk that Nikon is at a disadvantage with respect to Canon because it colaborates with Sony to get good sensors, with the claim sometimes made that Sony just designs sensors in isolation and then Nikon has to just choose from the models that Sony has to offer. Firstly, Nikon is by far the largest customer for DSLR sensors from Sony's sensor division, far larger than the (persistently loss-making last I heard) Sony DSLR division, so even simple market forces mean that Nikon has a lot of say on the direction of Sony's sensor development. Add to that indications from well-connected sources like Thom Hogan that Nikon does to some extent share some of its technology in the design of sensors that are also partly designed and also manufactured for Nikon by partners like Sony.
Compare this to today's dominant example of a company that is heavily dependent on outsourcing components and design elements for its products: Apple, which indeed has spent the last fifteen years or so moving away from in-house manufacturing and designs towards working with the biggest, most efficient, most competent designers and producers of low-level components (like shifting to Intel processors), and using its volume purchasing power to get early access and best pricing on those components. Apple even works with phone-making arch-rival Samsung for many components such as screen panels and fabrication of processors for the iPhone and iPad. It has been argued that Tim Cook played a major part if Apple's revival and massive growth by his emphasis on moving away from doing too much in-house to more cost-effective out-sourcing where appropriate.
The examples of Olympus turning to Panasonic for help (by the way, its recent debacle is nothing to do with the camera division, but bad investments made many years ago and ten covered up by senior management of what is primarily a maker of medical equipment and microscopes) and Pentax bouncing from Samsung to Hoya to Ricoh simply, both show the impracticality of trying to go it alone in the digital era against competitors with far greater resources in the electronic side of modern photography. Canon is far bigger and better endowed on the electronics side than Olympus or Pentax or even Nikon, but still smaller and weaker than Sony or Panasonic or Samsung in that respect.
So it is unclear whether Canon has the resources to continue its DIY approach to sensor development. The trend of the last five years ago has been Sony starting from well behind Sony/Nikon in CMOS sensors and moving forward at a faster pace to now be signifiantly ahead of Canon! at least in the judgement of many observers.
Heck, if the Nokia/Toshiba/Sony/whoever team behind the 808 PureView sensor are really reading all 36MP of each video frame off the sensor for processing down to 1920x1080 on a second chip at up to 30fps, even that team appears to be well ahead of Canon in that respect of electronics capabilities. And that is what a Nokia engineer has explicitly claimed, with his talk of handling about 1.2 billion pixels per second read out from the sensor. Needless to day, Nokia could not have achieved that with an all in-house, DIY approach. Likewise, I very much doubt tha Olympus could have achieved the improvements in sensor performance and continuous AF capabilities touted for the OM-D E-M5 without a major (but as-yet unnamed) electronics partner.
-
I don't think sensor design is that hard, actually, compared to processors; it can be done with a small team because essentially a sensor is a replicated structure. That is why small firms like Dalsa can do so well.
Small firms like Dalsa may do well with CCD designs that perform fairly well when given enough light to make good use of the well capacity, but Dalsa and Kodak have fallen well behind bigger competitors like Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung etc. in active pixel CMOS sensors, and thus in reducing read noise and offering other modern features like high frame rates, higher speed crop modes, and video capabilities.
Look at the latest Dalsa CCD of 36x24mm, 24MP, 6 micron pixel pitch that some people have got excited about: http://www.teledynedalsa.com/public/sensors/datasheets/FTF6040C_datasheet-20110328.pdf
Well capacity of 39,000 electrons, amplifier noise level of 11 electrons, electrical DR of 71dB or a bit under 12 stops, linear dynamic range even less at 69.5dB and described honestly as "a linear dynamic range of over 11 bits", 3.6fps. This is distinctly worse in every respect than what 24MP Sony/Nikon sensors or 22MP Canon sensors have been offering for several years, never mind what this years's new models will show when tested. This is even true at low ISO, where some people cling to the out-of-date idea that full frame type CCDs have an advantage due to higher fill factor and well capacity.
P.S. the per pixel performance is no better, and in some respects like well-capacity is even worse, than in the same-sized pixels of this Dalsa sensor from two years, earlier, April 2009, the familiar 48x36mm, 48MP one in some DMF backs:
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/public/sensors/datasheets/FTF6080C_datasheet_20090420.pdf
-
I think deep in most brains it's still imprinted that if there are not more mps in a camera or a bigger screen on the new iPhone it's not a real upgrade.
I completely agree than many worthwhile improvements can be overlooked in a one-dimensional obsession with resolution improvements, and the 5D3 might be a good example of that, especially for people like wedding photographers and amateur sports photographers. But on the other hand, I am bemused by the intellectual contortions that some people are going to in order to claim that the higher resolution of the D800 is useless in 35mm format, despite solid evidence that some Nikon and Canon lenses can deliver a clear resolution improvement when the sensor resolution is increased to this level: 16MP in DX being the same sensor resolution in lp/mm as 36MP in FX is only the same lp/mm resolution as the Nikon D7000 and distinctly less than the Canon 7D.
And after all, this is not primarily a forum for wedding photographers or sports photographers or DSLR videographers, and even less so for black cat in coal mine photographers: it is in name at least a forum that attracts many landscape and nature photographers, some of whom are interested in pushing the limits of highly detailed images, and of cropping latitude for wildlife and macro enlargements, so resolution is surely one legitimate measure, just as it was when many photographers cared about Kodochrome 25 or Velvia or Kodak Tech. Pan or T-max 100 or Ilford Pan F plus or Delta 100. And some of those monochrome films probably resolve as much or more than the D800; almost surely several of them outresolve any 22MP Bayer CFA sensor in 35mm format, which is another reason that talk of 35mm format lenses not being able to benefit from going beyond 22MP does not fit the facts.
-
Don't get me wrong, I love more MPs :D
But I would first want to invest in Dynamic Range, cleanness and smoothness.
Next generation more MPs or MF for that.
But we will see what happens when the camera is here.
-
This is just a rant. You are making insinuations because the companies are not doing what you want them to do. You clearly have no idea about economics--you state the Canon/Nikon can make a RED cheaper than RED, but then say they won't because they will lose money. What do you expect. You also have no idea about margins. Go look at how well the camera divisions are doing at these companies--the annual reports are online.
What I would like Canon and any other camera brand for that matter is to develop something groundbraking every 4-5 years or so. If not groundbraking then at least leave the clients with the feeling that what is offered is a significant progress. And as time goes by, we are seeing more and more incremental progress with new releases. That is Apple philosophy which, as it turned out, works great in pair with our uberconsumptonism. There are areas in which the breath of the competition doesn't allow such practices. Compare the specs of a computer processor you can buy now and 4-5 years ago. Or a graphic card, a mobile phone.. Now compare 5DMKII and MKIII. Who knows, maybe MKIII will do the magic and will be much much better- but from the tech specs it doesn't seem so and I seriously doubt it.
Why Canon / Nikon didn't come up yet with a camera that is shooting motion to RAW? I'm sure eventually it will happen and oh, the coincidence! They will deliver these solutions in a few months time span or even at the same time. Why 5DMKII has a somewhat lousy AF (at least when you compare with the technology they had at that time)?
I'm sure with Nikon / Canon budget a camera similar to RED Scarlet could be developed and cost even less. Probably even better camera than what's Scarlet offering. But they won't because the market for that product is not that big, the money is not there. And what these companies are after is not making the best cameras possible but the biggest / easiest money possible. What's unfortunate for us is that making the best cameras doesn't equal biggest income.
-
Don't get me wrong, I love more MPs :D
But I would first want to invest in Dynamic Range, cleanness and smoothness.
Next generation more MPs or MF for that.
Indeed ... And it is this acknowledgement of a mixture of priorities which make me believe that, as usual, it is the internet peanut gallery that has got it wrong, not major players like Canon and Nikon, who with the D800 and 5D3 will probably both do very well, albeit it with somewhat different audiences.
Actually, your comment about "next generation more MP" suggests something like Intel's "tic-toc" strategy: if alternate generations of products push forward alternately in different aspect of performance rather than trying to improve everything a bit, then each generation will be able to offer a clearer upgrade incentive to at least one key target market ... and photographers wil be able to save some money by upgrading only every second DSLR generation, while still avoiding a gear inferiority complex. (Did film photographers upgrade cameras or film choices every three or four years? Or even every six to eight years as with my proposal of every second DSLR generation?)
P. S. this does not change my speculation that Canon has chosen aspects other than resolution this time around because it is for now not in the position to match Sony/Nikon for per pixel performance at the highest resolution levels, so has instead looked to its strengths in other areas.
-
I don't doubt this the least bit but engineers do their job in the context of a budget and product specifications defined for them by product planning division (製品企画).
My view is that the alignement of high level specs per "generation" between manufacturers and the timing thereof is a very understandable practice that aims at ensuring long term profitability. It is also a practice that is close to unavoidable as mentioned before.
You seem to read in these statements some implication that camera manufacturers would be seen as evil because of such practices. That's at least not how I look at it.
Bythe way, cross company agreements about the enveloppe of the playing field is a well known fact in other industries as well. Just look at the agreement that did bind Japanese car manufacturers for year about the power of their engines. They had decided not to go above 280hp. Honda decided to break away from this with the Honda legend for unknown reasons, maybe because they considered that it hindered their competitiveness against foreign car manufacturers, maybe for other reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, the camera business is very competitive. Companies are looking for every break they can get. You are right about the supply of parts, but likewise, the companies want to be different. They want their products to shine. One problem with this digital revolution is that products do not have a long shelf live--you could make a film SLR body and sell it for ten years or more. Turn over has to be faster. This is not the camera companies choice, but a factor forced on them by the market. Ideally with an expensive camera, they want to keep that on the market as long as possible to get as much ROI as possible. With the natural improvements in technology, it does pay to put the best, within the constraints of cost, in the product--we were always looking for the next greatest thing. This new quick cycle is what I would say is the demise of most of the camera companies in Japan. Not only would we reverse engineer our competitor's products, but we took a great interest on their sales. We would speculate on which company would fall next.
If there is, as the Japanese like to call it, a gentleman"s agreement, I do not know about it. I had no indication, beyond what was available or possible, our engineers were not "dumbing down" the products. On the contrary, they were always looking for edges in performance. The worst was soon after one of our releases, one of our competitors did something better and cheaper--hard to sell a products under that situation.
The industry is certainly close. You have been in Japan to see how all this works. But not that close. industrial espionage was real and we were very careful about the leaking of information--if everyone is in cohorts, why bother?
-
Well yes I think with their power they could actually develop a Scarlet-like camera and even make it cheaper. BUT they won't because there is not enough to win/ gain- after all you don't expect half a million cameras of this caliber to be sold even if they are better deal than RED..and RED was first and established it's position. And there's always risk involved in any new technology... it's not so easy now, but it could have been if someone was thinking a bit outside the box (or should I say outside the scheme which works- the incremental upgrades...). As for new Canon cine camera- that's just re-inventing the wheel, they had the technology so they thought- why not make a camera, since not much R&D is involved..the product of this thinking is a camera neither for pros nor for amateurs.. it may be a rant, it may be that I am insinuating, but the fact is that the manufacturer's don't necessarily deliver what the users need- same goes for Phase One, Hassy, Nikon, Canon. That's true, I don't have any idea about economics, but you have no idea as well if the companies are holding back and not delivering what they could or not. The whole discussion- it's all speculation.
-
That is why Canon had the 5d Mk II and now it is Nikon turn with their D800. Canon could put out a 35+ mgs. full fame, just look at their 7D and how many mgs it is putting out for a APS-C format cmos. Sound like a big game to me.
-
I had no indication, beyond what was available or possible, our engineers were not "dumbing down" the products. On the contrary, they were always looking for edges in performance. The worst was soon after one of our releases, one of our competitors did something better and cheaper--hard to sell a products under that situation.
Hey,
I mostly agree about the dumbing down part. Anyway, that would be a purely internal decision within a given company and the focus would be line up mgt.
My point is more about high level specs, like the availability of video, the focus on 1080p, the pace of resolution increase,...
Some of that might be gone following the release of the D800. Samsung is coming pretty strong, the whole of Japan consumer industry is very sensitive about the way Korean manufacturers have taken ownership of the TV market in a few years and it could be that some guys in Nikon decided that it was time to break away from a Japan centric world and move forward.
Cheers,
Bernard