Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on October 18, 2011, 01:20:18 am
-
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_1d_x
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5149972341/canon-eos-1d-x-overview
It appears to be a replacement for both the 1d4 and 1ds3.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rob Galbraith, "Going forward, the EOS-1D X will be the only 1-series camera the company makes"
Looks like 18MP is all we are going to get out of Canon in a pro camera?
-
t appears to be a replacement for both the 1d4 and 1ds3.
Hi Bernhard,
I think it's a replacement for the 1D Mark IV. The only reason that they went from a 1.3 crop to almost 24x36mm, with some 18 MP, is to get larger sensels for light sensitivity and dynamic range. The whole AF system seems to be geared at more accurate and wider coverage across the frame, and for speed. Sounds like an improved Mk4 to me.
I wouldn't dismiss the possibility for a 1Ds X just yet ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Rob Galbraith, "Going forward, the EOS-1D X will be the only 1-series camera the company makes"
Looks like 18MP is all we are going to get out of Canon in a pro camera?
Indeed, that's what I read in the various statements. It might for sure be seen by some photographers as a reduced focus on high end, but there might be more to it than just numbers on a spec sheet. As mentioned in other threads, the performance of a camera has to be measured and the 1DX could be a very good performer. Considering the time it took to come up with this new sensor, we should expect at least 13+ stops of DR and very clean ISO 25600.
Globally though, some guys must be laughing out loud in the Nikon HQ, because it very much looks like Canon is following all the trends they defined with the D3/D3s/D700.
Right now, the Canon users needing higher resolution in a single frame from a tough/splashproof body might be a bit concerned. However, my bet is that Canon did also copy the spec sheet of the D700 when they designed the 5DIII. :)
If the Nikon rumors have to be believed, Nikon would also continue in the same direction with a 18MP D4 and a 36MP D800. Then everything will be at peace again between these 2 best enemies in the world. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
18MP 1Ds replacement?
I really don't get this. Is this some kind of a joke?
-
18MP 1Ds replacement?
I really don't get this. Is this some kind of a joke?
I'm with you on this. At first glance it seems to have the same specs as my T2i Rebel, albeit with more dynamic range and less noise which I could care less about. And for $6800? Does any 1D user need full frame? This is insulting to Canon 1Ds users who depend on our cameras for landscapes and architectural work. What are they thinking?
-
I'm with you on this. At first glance it seems to have the same specs as my T2i Rebel, albeit with more dynamic range and less noise which I could care less about. And for $6800? Does any 1D user need full frame? This is insulting to Canon 1Ds users who depend on our cameras for landscapes and architectural work. What are they thinking?
They are thinking that this 18mp camera is better than the previous 21mp camera in ANY aspects. And they are thinking that if you want more pixel, you are free to go MF.
Logical and so real.
I totally endorse Canon move around this part that's clever and courageous.
-
Its pointless debating the pros and cons of Canons decision to release this 'merged' 1 series camera until such time as 'files' become available for pixel peeping.
The mere announcement won't see my selling my 1DS MKIII or 1D MKIV - not until I see a file from the 1DX that blows them both away (and I don't mean at ISO 1 million... but rather at the sort of ISO I tend to shoot at (between 100 and 800).
Edit - It looks like the first file samples (low rez) are starting to appear http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dx/samples/index.html (http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dx/samples/index.html)
-
Again, let's wait for DxOMark measurements before killing this cam on specs alone, this isn't DPreview, is it?
Besides, the 1ds3 remains an excellent camera. I would be interested in understanding what exactly is wrong with it for architecture or landscape applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd assume the 5D3 will carry the megapixels but at half the fps and with the AF of the 7D. Most people who need the AF and speed of the new 1DX do not need more than 18 megapixels.
-
I'd assume the 5D3 will carry the megapixels but at half the fps and with the AF of the 7D. Most people who need the AF and speed of the new 1DX do not need more than 18 megapixels.
I guess that fashion for instance would probably need both the AF speed/accuracy and resolution, but probably indeed not the fps.
Now, it remains to be seen whether he 5DIII will be fully splashproofed or not, that would be important for all round landscape work. I would think that it will be, a la D700.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I guess that it could be that the mysterious 5DIII may be the 1Ds replacement. The 1DX is intended for folks needing high ISO, high FPS and very solid body. A cheaper, lighter and slower specified body for those needing high resolution. May make sense.
Best regards
Erik
18MP 1Ds replacement?
I really don't get this. Is this some kind of a joke?
-
Isn't it overpriced, at roughly $7,000?
Great video specs (50Mbps is fantastic, with continuous recording) - but at a price point that is higher than an AF100 or FS100? Tough sell.
-
Hi,
I guess that it could be that the mysterious 5DIII may be the 1Ds replacement. The 1DX is intended for folks needing high ISO, high FPS and very solid body. A cheaper, lighter and slower specified body for those needing high resolution.
Exactly. The 5DII already made the 1DsIII redundant in several ways.
Rather than being replaced by the 1Dx, the 1Ds series is being discontinued - they've only kept the price of the 1Ds series and put that on the new 1Dx. That's what they mean by replacement :)
A new 5D will be the camera for those who need more MP. I'm guessing it will have some '1Ds-series-features' too, which will probably make it more expensive than the 5DII too.
Edit: I just hope the 1Dx will be the camera to buy for people who think they really need to spend 7000$, and that de 5DIII won't be that expensive.
-
I guess that fashion for instance would probably need both the AF speed/accuracy and resolution, but probably indeed not the fps.
Now, it remains to be seen whether he 5DIII will be fully splashproofed or not, that would be important for all round landscape work. I would think that it will be, a la D700.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm not sure, the AF system in the 7D is already very good, far far better than the 5DII and as most studio work is done stopped down, I think it would be enough. I think the 5D3 will be a 7D (which is somewhat sealed, has a pro build and semi pro AF) but with a zillion megapixels.
The one I'm interested in now is the D4. The 1DX has now pretty much equaled the specs of the D3/s (after years) and has upped the resolution and iso, I very much doubt Nikon are not upping both the body and the IQ so let's just hope to heck they don't see the price of this new canon monster and say 'hey let's get some of this incredible overpricing action!'.
-
very smart Move Canon !
The enhancement in Detail is where the juice is in this camera.
Larger Pixels, seamless microlenses, over 200000 Asa, less moire, better Video, more than 4 gig recording......
very , very good. Kudos for a company NOT listening to the megapixel crowd but instead making a camera that will stand out by usability and quality.
I knew the Japanese are clever people. Proof is done again.
greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Frankly Canon has done what I wish Nikon would have done. If the new D800 really is 36mp I have no use for it - the large files it will generate would mean buying a new computer for me as I have maxed out my current setup. I was looking for the D700 replacement to have exactly what Canon has announced - 18mp. A modest boost in mp for cropping purposes is all I need.
-
Canon wants me to replace my 3-year old 1Ds Mk3 with a camera that has only 18 MP compared to 22 MP? Are they crazy?
-
With this camera, IMO, Canon is clearly stating that the 1-series belongs to the sports shooter. There is nothing on spec that shows improvement for the landscape photographers over the 1Ds mkIII.
They want us to use the 1Dx and upsample...! Notice the words "good enough"...
"With cleaner images, people are going to feel much more comfortable up-rezing an image. Not many people need a 21MP file to begin with, so they're going to love the IQ of this camera and the quality's good enough that those people who do need those huge files will find the images clean enough to use them.'"
Araz
-
Frankly Canon has done what I wish Nikon would have done. If the new D800 really is 36mp I have no use for it - the large files it will generate would mean buying a new computer for me as I have maxed out my current setup. I was looking for the D700 replacement to have exactly what Canon has announced - 18mp. A modest boost in mp for cropping purposes is all I need.
What makes you think that the D800 will be the only camera to be released by Nikon?
The rumored D4 should be exactly what you are looking for.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just shows you that megapixels is not the only, or maybe even major qualifier for all camera buyers any more. The 1DX is very clearly targeted at those who need run-and-gun speed, fast-action-capture, or flexible field-reporting video and still capture in a body that will hold up to a lot of pro abuse. Most of those applications (wedding/sports/reportage/documentary/wild-life) does not require even 18mp (see also: success of reasonably contemporary Nikon D3).
As a related comparison: Pre-owned P21H with warranty: $3990 (back only) (http://www.captureintegration.com/store/demo-digital-backs/)
Also 18mp. Larger sensor. Flexibility to use on a variety of cameras including tech cameras built exclusively for architecture/landscape (shift/rise/tilt on every lens), and bodies with leaf shutter lenses for sync with pro strobes/light-shapers at any shutter speed, and bodies with a waist-level viewfinder (RZ/H). Fast/reliable firewire tethering. Available today rather than 5-8 months (assuming slow/strained availability after launch). But with much lower ISO, much slower max frame rates, less speedy/accurate continuous autofocus, and no video.
Both tools will make instant sense to those who's needs align with the product's specs.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8) (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/")
-
They have not announced any 5Dmk2 replacement yet. It is not unlikely that the 5Dmk3 or whatever will be a high resolution low speed camera, similar to the rumoured D800 from Nikon (possibly 36 mp). So those who wanted lots of megapixels, don't be disappointed just yet.
Anyway, higher pixel count than these 18 on the 1Dx is really only useful for tripod mounted still life photography with very detailed subjects, such as vast landscapes. Thus it is very logical to make a pro model with high ISO and high speed and keep down pixel count -- making the best out of the things the 135 format is good for. If you want high res and is a professional, go to medium format.
High resolution 135 is really only for people who cannot afford digital medium format, so it is more of a niche camera. I hope for it to come though, because I'm precisely one of those amateur photographers that love still life photography and wants but cannot afford medium format, so I want a cheaper alternative :-). And as said, I think 5Dmk3 may be such a product. We'll see.
-
Isn't it overpriced, at roughly $7,000?
Great video specs (50Mbps is fantastic, with continuous recording) - but at a price point that is higher than an AF100 or FS100? Tough sell.
Don't speak about overpriced products !!!
Im using Sigma DSLR ... >:( :-[
-
High resolution 135 is really only for people who cannot afford digital medium format, so it is more of a niche camera.
Interesting way to put it... a niche hosting 99% of the people needing high resolutions. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm with you on this. At first glance it seems to have the same specs as my T2i Rebel, albeit with more dynamic range and less noise which I could care less about. And for $6800? Does any 1D user need full frame? This is insulting to Canon 1Ds users who depend on our cameras for landscapes and architectural work. What are they thinking?
I had an extensive press briefing about the EOS 1D X last week. It is indeed a replacement for both the 1Ds MArk III and 1D Mark IV. The thinking behind going to an 18mp CMOS instead of upping the pixel count above 21.x Mp of the 5D MArk II and 1Ds Mark III is that by lowering the total number of pixels the individual photo sites are "1.25 microns larger... 6.95 microns in the 1Dx" vs 5.7 microns in the 1Ds Mark III" the image quality will be improved -even at low ISO settings. At some point physics sticks its nose in and creates limitations as to how small the individual photosites can be before image quality suffers beyond the ability of the in camera signal processors to rectify to Canon's satisfaction.
The improvements will be seen, according to Chuck Westfall of Canon who briefed me (and I suspect Rob Galbraith as well but he was not in on the briefing that I was) , in the signal to noise ratio, and in a larger dynamic range.
As someone who photographs architecture for clients (as well as industrial, corporate and advertising work) I am surprised to see someone else who shoots architecture complain about a camera which in theory will provide cleaner shadows and greater separation in bright highlights. According to Canon, if you are shooting JPEGs or movies the improvement is a full two stops. As to "raw" s/n differences they did not have specs for yet.
If you shoot portraits or fashion the 33% decrease in mirror black out time between frames (from 90 to 60 milliseconds ) will be welcome.
Auto-focus micro adjustment tool improvements: If you use zoom lenses you'll be able to register adjustments for both the long and wide ends of the zoom range and register individual adjustment settings for different lenses of the same design ( i.e. if your studio has multiple 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II lenses you can fine tune AF lens performance for each lens).
Something not many people are picking up on yet is that for tethered shooting - the choices are USB 2.0 or gigabyte LAN - no Firewire 800, USB 3.0 or even Thunderbolt. The idea behind going with gigabyte Ethernet is faster throughput, it is more ubiquitous, and if you are shootign with multiple cameras makes it far easier (Apparently) to sync all of the cameras via .
As someone who regularly schlepps around hundreds of pounds of lighting and grip gear If I can also get "ISO 100 image quality" at ISO 400, 640 or 800 with lighter weight lighting gear - so much the better.
My take on it is that most of the features are indeed geared toward sports photographers and that wedding ( white dress next to black tux is horrible lighting) and event photographers will also benefit.
In a follow up email I asked about bottom of the camera dimensions which would be of interest to those of us who use body fitting quick release plates. As much as I like Really Right Stuff gear, I'd raqther not have to purchase a new set of plates. The answer from Canon is that some will fit and some will not. Given that the 1Dx body dimesions are slightly taller and the main part of the body slightly thicker (the battery appears to be the same physical size as the one used in the 1Ds MArk III and 1D Mark III & IV) I suspect that if use L shaped plates the ports on the left side of the 1D X body will not line up with the cut outs on an L plate designed for the 1D III/IV and 1DsMkIII.
If you have more questions, I'll try to answer them as I have several pages of notes.
-
Interesting way to put it... a nice hosting 99% of the people needing high resolutions. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
A more polite way of looking at it is that with the 1D X Canon is targeting the vast majority of professional photographers. While for some of the things I use a camera for more pixels would be really nice, I think Canon is looking at how how 22-33mp MFD options are getting into the same price range as a 1Ds MArk III and D3x and asking themselves why should they should spend millions competing for what really is a very small niche market?
-
Ellis
in the pressrelease they state something about "seamless microlenses" - I´d imagine this puts additional light to the sensors and enhances the sensitivty.
Is there any info about this new technology ?
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
A more polite way of looking at it is that with the 1D X Canon is targeting the vast majority of professional photographers. While for some of the things I use a camera for more pixels would be really nice, I think Canon is looking at how how 22-33mp MFD options are getting into the same price range as a 1Ds MArk III and D3x and asking themselves why should they should spend millions competing for what really is a very small niche market?
Sure, no disagreement. I meant that within the photographers needing high resolutions 99% will be using DSLRs and 1% will be using a MFDB.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
=
in the pressrelease they state something about "seamless microlenses" - I´d imagine this puts additional light to the sensors and enhances the sensitivty.
Is there any info about this new technology ?
apparently it is just a new marketing name for old gapless microlenses...
(http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/digitalslr/ID-IV_gapless-microlenses.jpg)
-
Ellis
in the pressrelease they state something about "seamless microlenses" - I´d imagine this puts additional light to the sensors and enhances the sensitivty.
Is there any info about this new technology ?
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Stefan,
All (or almost all) modern DSLR cameras use Micro-lens arrays. The purpose is to increase light gathering and to correct for the increasingly oblique angles light rays are coming at the off axis portions of the sensor. This is just Canon's newest iteration of that technology. In an ideal world the individual elements in a micro-lens array lenses would automatically reshape themselves based on the lens being used. I don't that is happening here.
-
What makes you think that the D800 will be the only camera to be released by Nikon?
The rumored D4 should be exactly what you are looking for.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, perhaps but I prefer the smaller body camera :)
-
I like the ethernet port feature. Very nice compared to the old standard FW connection. I guess its for those "massive" video files generated by this new camera.
probably better for people who shoot tethered too, less chance of the cable coming out when moving around a lot
-Dan
-
Canon have already shown that they can step back from the megapixel race with the G series.
-
Different people have different needs and wants from a camera, but this is the kind of photography I do: I shoot 99% of the time at ISO 100. I don't need high ISOs. I shoot 99% of the time in single shot mode. I don't need high FPS. My goal is large prints (17" wide paper) at the highest possible resolution, ideally a minimum of 300 DPI. I would love to have an entire MF setup, but I just can't afford it. I can just about afford my 1DsIII and a couple of really good Canon lenses, and with that I almost reach my DPI goal on 17" paper. So while I have no doubt that the 1DX is a phenomenal camera which will make many photographers very happy, I don't think it's enough to get me to upgrade.
I'm really hoping Canon has something else up their sleeve coming up in the near future. But at the same time I'm very happy with my 1DsIII. My only serious complaint is that manual focus on the low resolution LCD in Live View is an exercise in frustration. Frankly, if Canon had come out with a 1DsIV with the high resolution LCD, HDMI output, and even a slight bump in resolution (24MP, say), that might have been enough for me. But for 18MP I just don't see the point.
-
Thanks for the graph- I did not know that one. So it seems this is just existing technology maybe a bit enhanced.
The shaping of the lenses to adopt for differing focal lenght would also make sense, maybe that could be achieved with a microstepping motor similar to the one which is used to shake the chip for cleaning, or on the Sony´s the IS stabilization.
It will be interesting though to see if the HI mode (up to 204000 Asa) will be better as the older version with 100000 on the Mk4. I think most of it will come from the Pixel increase which is about 50 % more net coverage. This should be significant.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
Larger Pixels are great
pixel race sucks , well done Canon
if you want more pixel buy a MF
-
A more polite way of looking at it is that with the 1D X Canon is targeting the vast majority of professional photographers. While for some of the things I use a camera for more pixels would be really nice, I think Canon is looking at how how 22-33mp MFD options are getting into the same price range as a 1Ds MArk III and D3x and asking themselves why should they should spend millions competing for what really is a very small niche market?
Any pro knows that most of our work does not require more than 18MP - but - most of our clients and semi-pro-amateurs will never buy that. Then there are some of us that sell very large fine art prints where 36MP would be very welcome as an alternative to MF. But maybe Canon thinks that market just isn't big enough, I think they are wrong. Bottom line - i just don't get the price ..... a 1D mk4 replacement for $6800? I have purchased the latest Canon pro bodies every time they have released one since the original 1Ds - this is the first one I have no interest in.
I don't mean to rant, and this camera may be perfect for many pros, personally I am just very disappointed.
-
sports without 1.3 crop - not much gain compared to 1DM3.
Canon wants you to buy new longer expensive glass...
-
Thanks for the graph- I did not know that one. So it seems this is just existing technology maybe a bit enhanced.
The shaping of the lenses to adopt for differing focal lenght would also make sense, maybe that could be achieved with a microstepping motor similar to the one which is used to shake the chip for cleaning, or on the Sony´s the IS stabilization.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
No you'd need lenses which change their shape which would mean liquid filled elements and some very clever electronics on a nanotube scale to make it work.
-
Hej,
Perhaps Canon has invented a negative gap?
Best regards
Erik
apparently it is just a new marketing name for old gapless microlenses...
(http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/digitalslr/ID-IV_gapless-microlenses.jpg)
-
It's interesting now to see how Canon's product strategy further unfolds. If we take them at their word then (for now) the 1D line will not exceed 18MP. Clearly it wouldn't be rocket science to put a 30-40ish MP sensor into essentially the same camera, but differentiated by lower frame/read out rates, at a similiar price level. But maybe Canon are thinking that the people who want or need much more than 18MP don't need a speed gun, can't justify the cost of MFD, and would be satisfied with a 5D level camera specced like the rumored D800. What I find intriguing is the idea that the 1.3X crop may not be dead. I think Canon are at a bit of a disadvantage with their 1.6X crop compared to Nikon, Pentax, Sony and others using 1.5X. While I can't see them moving away from 1.6X for the XXXD and XXD lines, for cost reasons, 1.3X would be a good way to differentiate the next 7D iteration from its rivals like D300S and A77 etc. Given the price point they are able to deliver a FF sensor at in the 5D2, surely they could do a 1.3X "1D lite" at about the same price level as the 7D now. They could use an updated version of the 1D4 1.3X 16MP sensor for a significant gain in image quality and lower noise. The other reason I think they might do this is that Canon seem to have been quiet on the EF-S lens front recently.
-
Am I the only one wondering if Canon's Nov 3rd "The Story Begins" announcement will be about a new higher resolution solution?
(http://www.bangkokimages.com/Portals/0/Canonannouncement.JPG)
-
Any pro knows that most of our work does not require more than 18MP
So very strange - i've been a professional for over 16 years, and i would say the opposite!
My guess would be that most professionals have 1 or two "35mm" bodies. I would say that most photographers take nearly all of the jobs that are offered to them. And, very importantly, i would say that most of their clients do not fully realise what they're after until they get the images in front of their noses. For example, sometimes they ask you to shoot portrait, and then after the shoot it turns out that they'll use the image landscape. Sure, if everything goes to plan (composition, brief, exposure, layout not changing etc etc) then your 18 mpx will be fine ... but as professionals we're paid to solve people's problems, and often those problems come after the shoot. (Many times when shooting with my 1ds III, i've wished for bigger files, so as i can give a client a "post shoot" alternative.)
If i'm right about most photographers clients / needs, then this camera is not the one that they should save for, and have in their bag. And, if Canon do as they say, it will sadly be the only "professional' grade Canon camera.
Personally, i don't want something similar to the 5d. It's not rugged enough, the AF is not good enough (when my mortgage is at stake) - in short it is not "professional' enough.
According to Canon, Moore's Law is dead ... but i bet Nikon don't think that.
I moved over from Nikon to Canon because i wanted a replacement to the d1x ... it would be ironic if i went back to canon because of the 1dx.
-
While I can't see them moving away from 1.6X for the XXXD and XXD lines, for cost reasons,
never. there are ef-s lenses!
-
For example, sometimes they ask you to shoot portrait, and then after the shoot it turns out that they'll use the image landscape. Sure, if everything goes to plan (composition, brief, exposure, layout not changing etc etc) then your 18 mpx will be fine ... but as professionals we're paid to solve people's problems, and often those problems come after the shoot. (Many times when shooting with my 1ds III, i've wished for bigger files, so as i can give a client a "post shoot" alternative.)
you would really shoot only portrait, if they ask you to?
-
The rumours market for Canon is very interesting at the 1D/5D level...
There is talk of the 1Ds replacement being something completely different...
There's talk of the 5D becoming two different cameras, one with more video than the other (and I suspect that one will have more MP than the other)
But it is clear that Canon have finally delivered on the 1Ds/1D merger.
I'm willing to bet that they've done their homework on market share and what those who buy 1D/1Ds cameras want. Maybe the sales of the 1Ds dropped to such a low level when the 5DII came out that it became clear that there were very few that were buying the 1Ds for what it represented.
-
Not that this matters in terms of actual use, but I'm curious about the following statement on DPreview (w.r.t. new DIGIC processors)
Another benefit of more processing power, combined with an improved sensor is an expansion of ISO range, says Westfall [...]
I'm assuming this means the processors are responsible for better high ISO performance in raw mode. How does more processing power improve ISO range? From my limited knowledge, I thought ISO noise was reduced by slower readouts from sensors; faster processors shouldn't help with that (unless it's from reading channels in parallel more slowly). I can see how faster processors can reduce noise in a JPEG via better NR algorithms, but this statement beats me.
-
Multiple Exposures shooting
The EOS-1D X offers a number of multiple exposure options for creative photography, in-camera. It can take from two to nine exposures to create one multiple exposure image, with four distinct settings for exposure control: Additive (where, like with a traditional film-based multiple exposures) the total exposure amount adds up as the exposures are taken (thereby requiring manual exposure compensation for each frame); Average, where the exposure is controlled automatically; (Comparitive) Bright, a setting suited for uniformly dark scenes with distinct bright subjects; and (Comparitive) Dark, which is suitable for eliminating bright sections or reflections. Images can be checked on the LCD during shooting. An existing image can be chosen for the first exposure and the EOS-1D X offers a number of other settings for highly controlled multiple exposure photography of the highest caliber.
In-camera HDR photography?
Every feature about the camera sounds great. I only wish it had 22mp because that gives me a 2-page spread without interpolation.
-
So very strange - i've been a professional for over 16 years, and i would say the opposite!
My guess would be that most professionals have 1 or two "35mm" bodies. I would say that most photographers take nearly all of the jobs that are offered to them. And, very importantly, i would say that most of their clients do not fully realise what they're after until they get the images in front of their noses. For example, sometimes they ask you to shoot portrait, and then after the shoot it turns out that they'll use the image landscape. Sure, if everything goes to plan (composition, brief, exposure, layout not changing etc etc) then your 18 mpx will be fine ... but as professionals we're paid to solve people's problems, and often those problems come after the shoot. (Many times when shooting with my 1ds III, i've wished for bigger files, so as i can give a client a "post shoot" alternative.)
If i'm right about most photographers clients / needs, then this camera is not the one that they should save for, and have in their bag. And, if Canon do as they say, it will sadly be the only "professional' grade Canon camera.
Personally, i don't want something similar to the 5d. It's not rugged enough, the AF is not good enough (when my mortgage is at stake) - in short it is not "professional' enough.
According to Canon, Moore's Law is dead ... but i bet Nikon don't think that.
I moved over from Nikon to Canon because i wanted a replacement to the d1x ... it would be ironic if i went back to canon because of the 1dx.
i agree, professional photographers need a lot more resolution (for what i do at least).
advertising photography that requires any kind of compositing (which is almost all the shooting i come across now days) requires larger files. sure the 1dsmk3 was sweet when you used the shots as cropped, but i often have to shoot one shot that will be used for billboard, DPS and vertical page. try shooing a lifestyle shoot and get multiple shots to do this- you always get one shot out of thousands that stands well above the rest- the chances of getting that shot out of shoot portrait and landscape is nill. this is why i bought my contax/p65 combo- i could shoot with the resolution that was high enough for a portrait out of a landscape, big enough for cropping in heavily ( sometimes the client asks for a full length shot, but after the shoot decides to crop into the face!). and remember that the canon frame is so long, that cropping a vertical is like using only a 1/3 of the file.
have you noticed the large wall displays while walking through airports lately- the canon res shots look soft and often over "upressed" , and the obvious medium format displays look crisp and beautiful, almost real. the difference at that size is like night and day.
but here is the dilemma i face. shooting with a contax is stepping back into the dark ages- the files are absolutely amazing, more than big enough for all the work i do. but i need heaps of light, i have to focus by eye (but i do with canon as well as their focus point off the center one are soo hit and miss!) and i only shoot a frame a second- so i miss many shots when you get those short bursts of expressions.
So a 30mp+ canon would be a far better outcome for me. 5-6fps and less iso is fine- i just need a larger file out of a faster camera.
but ill still buy one of these 1dx cameras though.
paul
-
but here is the dilemma i face. shooting with a contax is stepping back into the dark ages- the files are absolutely amazing, more than big enough for all the work i do. but i need heaps of light, i have to focus by eye (but i do with canon as well as their focus point off the center one are soo hit and miss!) and i only shoot a frame a second- so i miss many shots when you get those short bursts of expressions.
So a 30mp+ canon would be a far better outcome for me. 5-6fps and less iso is fine- i just need a larger file out of a faster camera.
Sound like a 36 mp Sony with focus peaking at 1/2 the cost.... ;)
-
By all means this new 1Dx is the successor to the 1D Mk4 - all the additions are here to serve sports shooters. The 1Ds MK4 was just discontinued, let's be honest.
I'd have believed Canon when they wouldn't have pushed the sports side only. What about satisfactory 10fps, yet something around ~27 megapixels (Sony does 24MP@12fps)?
-
Am I the only one wondering if Canon's Nov 3rd "The Story Begins" announcement will be about a new higher resolution solution?
(http://www.bangkokimages.com/Portals/0/Canonannouncement.JPG)
You might not be the only person wondering about what will be announced there but in all likelihood any hardware announced there will not be centered around a higher resolution still photography camera.
-
Ellis, did they mention anything about the 5 month waiting period? It's very uncanon.
-
Yes, and of course I JUST bought a 1D Mark IV a couple of days ago, having searched hard for one. Figures..... That said, the 1Dx almost seems more marketed toward cinematography in overall capabilities. Does this mean the 1Ds convept is dead?? or does it just kill off the 1D series...
-
In-camera HDR photography?
This was not discussed in the NDA briefing I was part of and it surely would have been mentioned if it were.
Every feature about the camera sounds great. I only wish it had 22mp because that gives me a 2-page spread without interpolation.
What size page? if you mean a 'double truck of two standard 8.5 x 11 inch pages @ 300dpi (i.e. 17" x 11" at 300 dpi) that requires only 5100 x 3300 pixels which equals 16.83mp and either way you'll have to crop a little off of the sides or a little off of the top to fit the 1:1.50 camera frame aspect ratio to the 1:1.55 aspect ratio of an 11 x 17 inch spread. doign this math tells me that Canon knew exactly withthe mp resolution. I suspect cinema aspect ratios also played into this sensor density decision.
-
Frankly Canon has done what I wish Nikon would have done. If the new D800 really is 36mp I have no use for it - the large files it will generate would mean buying a new computer for me as I have maxed out my current setup. I was looking for the D700 replacement to have exactly what Canon has announced - 18mp. A modest boost in mp for cropping purposes is all I need.
In my view Canon has done what was forced by Nikon to do and this is a great victory for Nikon. It was Canon that leaded the "mpx war" till now and fead so many consumer minds with it, but it was them that lost most of the "knowledgeable" pro market share to Nikon (and all those expensive and profitable lenses with it) and their lower resolution cameras, ...that did everything better! In my view if they would continue this, they would soon loose the demanding photographer's market completely. It may also prove that they where too late in doing this confession, I mean its not easy for your customers to forgive you for keeping them in confusion all this time and then end up producing a much better camera by following an opposite direction path... is it? They could have followed that path years ago... couldn't they? I thing that the new camera will prove to be a MUCH better camera than anything they ever did, the 1DS3 included, in all aspects of photography (DR, noise, color, etc), but I also think that when Nikon's interchangeable sensor D3 replacement will appear will find them with their pants down once more. I also think that the new 5D will use a same resolution (or even the same) sensor, I also think that all those 36mpx rumors for the D700 replacement is total crap (you can't believe the crap we read on web), do they really expect Nikon to change a winning policy? They won't for sure! I am sure they will stay behind Canon in resolution in all their competitive products, but one high res interchangeable sensor for the D3 successor and I also expect Nikon to replace the D300 with a low res FF camera. I am also sure I will proove to be right on all the above! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Ellis, did they mention anything about the 5 month waiting period? It's very uncanon.
Beyond mentioning that it is was extremely unusual, no. It was a surprise. My suspicion is that it was done to let big sports agencies and news organizations start making budgetary decisions for 2012 which of course is an Olympics year, and the Olympics aspect of the timing was discussed. I'm not going to speculate further on their timing decision.
-
"I also think that when Nikon's interchangeable sensor D3 replacement will appear will find them with their pants down once more."
uhhhh...
"...you can't believe the crap we read on web"
Outside of the noxious gas that politicians emit that is the best job of contradicting oneself in two consecutive sentences I've ever seen! Full marks for that!
-
"I also think that when Nikon's interchangeable sensor D3 replacement will appear will find them with their pants down once more."
uhhhh...
"...you can't believe the crap we read on web"
Outside of the noxious gas that politicians emit that is the best job of contradicting oneself in two consecutive sentences I've ever seen! Full marks for that!
Remember that dear Ellis.. remember that... it will come back to you soon... ;) Let me just tell you that the sensor will be in a small box like a very small cell phone that will be slotted from the left side of the camera (opposite side than CF cards) as you look through the viewfinder and it will "click" in position. 8) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Looks like evolution rather than revolution, Canon trying to eke out a little more performance from the same tech path they've been following for the last decade or so. They have probably run into some limits though, high frame rates with large pixel counts put huge processing demands on off-chip ADC's, which is inimical to high ISO performance. Sony got around that with the parallel processing of the Exmor line, Nikon in the D3 by throwing more processors at it and having lower pixel count. It will be interesting to see what, if any, advances they have made on taming pattern noise, which has not really improved (and in some cases like the 5D2 is worse) for several generations.
It's nice to see that they are finally getting color info into the 1 series AF.
Personally I would have been happier with a higher pixel count, matching the pixel size of the 1D4. For wildlife photography, where one is often focal length limited, it's the pixel size rather than count that matters, and 18MP on FF is a big step back from 16MP on APS-H. Basically, Canon is telling those people whose lens kit was predicated on APS-H that they have to buy new lenses to use the 1Dx in the same way they use the 1D4 and have the same subject resolution. At that point, it becomes a serious question whether to keep with Canon.
-
you would really shoot only portrait, if they ask you to?
No, of course not, but if 60 - 80% of the shots are portrait, then chances are that the best shot of the shoot will be portrait. All very good until they decide to go landscape. If the camera is higher res, then no problem. If it's the 1dx, then you're in the same amount of trouble you were in way back in 2007, when the 1DS III came out (the same year that the iPhone made it's debut - by comparison).
-
Bernard, perhaps but I prefer the smaller body camera :)
Are you calling the 1DX small?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Entry level medium format is now nearly at the same price as the 1Ds traditionally launched at... and you get a lens with the kit to boot.
For the everyday commercial photographer that needs resolution, Canon's abandoning of that market suggests that medium format will soon return as the format of choice.
-
Looks like evolution rather than revolution, Canon trying to eke out a little more performance from the same tech path they've been following for the last decade or so. They have probably run into some limits though, high frame rates with large pixel counts put huge processing demands on off-chip ADC's, which is inimical to high ISO performance. Sony got around that with the parallel processing of the Exmor line, Nikon in the D3 by throwing more processors at it and having lower pixel count. It will be interesting to see what, if any, advances they have made on taming pattern noise, which has not really improved (and in some cases like the 5D2 is worse) for several generations.
It's nice to see that they are finally getting color info into the 1 series AF.
Personally I would have been happier with a higher pixel count, matching the pixel size of the 1D4. For wildlife photography, where one is often focal length limited, it's the pixel size rather than count that matters, and 18MP on FF is a big step back from 16MP on APS-H. Basically, Canon is telling those people whose lens kit was predicated on APS-H that they have to buy new lenses to use the 1Dx in the same way they use the 1D4 and have the same subject resolution. At that point, it becomes a serious question whether to keep with Canon.
I guess having three different size of sensors was one too many..., this is another wrong decision they had to deal with. However, the problem with the wideangles that they now overcome is in my view even more important than teles, at least with teles somebody can always get a TC and work around it (especially if ISO performance is much improved). Cropping won't be a problem either, not with 18mpx anyway, you can print up to 4x6 feet with it and cropping to 1/4th is 2x3, who needs more? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Are you calling the 1DX small?
Cheers,
Bernard
+++1. Its practically the same resolution for God's shake, not even 10% of a side of print for the same res, but who needs the same printing res if he can print better and larger with lower res? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Beyond mentioning that it is was extremely unusual, no. It was a surprise. My suspicion is that it was done to let big sports agencies and news organizations start making budgetary decisions for 2012 which of course is an Olympics year, and the Olympics aspect of the timing was discussed. I'm not going to speculate further on their timing decision.
As far as I know, companies don't plan their budget based on supplier announcements. Or at least companies that have not gone bankrupt yet because of poor mgt. :)
My guess would be some internal fight between marketing pushing for an announcement closely timed to those of Nikon and engineering keeping claiming they needed more time to release a product without 1d3 AF like issues. :)
Canon selected a difficult path here. The camera will mostly feel like an evolution from the photographer's standpoint, yet their attempt to include many existing Nikon technologies (color AF,...) at once must represent a very significant technological challenge with many possibilities for issues and engineering delays.
Lack of mgt arbitration and you get the perfect paper launch with nearly 6 months between announcement and availability.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... with 18mpx anyway, you can print up to 4x6 feet ... who needs more?
Maybe somebody who prints at higher than 72dpi?
-
Entry level medium format is now nearly at the same price as the 1Ds traditionally launched at... and you get a lens with the kit to boot.
For the everyday commercial photographer that needs resolution, Canon's abandoning of that market suggests that medium format will soon return as the format of choice.
Can MF do high ISO or sports? Is it suitable for wildlife and long teles? Please.., the Eos can do studio and fashion ,not as good as MF, but it can! MF is for different aspects of photography like it has always been and DSLRs are good for the rest and will never do as well what MF does best. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Maybe somebody who prints at higher than 72dpi?
Who says that if you print a little higher than ANY DPI (say 77 than 72) with a worst camera will make a better print? ;D Maybe an ignorant...? ;) If it was so, Your cell phone would print better than a good crop from a D700 ....buddy! :-* Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I am rather surprised with the specs of this camera. ( :o see that ISO!) Personally 18 Mp is fine for most of my photography. Sure my landscape work could use a few more however the IQ would have to be very good. Packing more Mp into the same area causes problems. Yes modern cameras deal with this quite well, but I am still a bit Leary of high megapixel DSLRs. I tend to do a lot of low light work, more out of necessity than personal choice. In such situations I am always looking for low noise. If I can expect a camera such as this to let me shoot at crazy high ISO's like 12,800 and get good quality, low noise images, I'm in.
For any work of mine requiring more resolution, medium format with more affordable cameras surfacing, is looking more and more attractive. I do hope Nikon will follow Canon's lead here. Although I personally am looking forward to a D400. Perhaps with some of the features included from their Nikon 1 line.
One last thought is, although I like Canon consolidating their line, perhaps it would be best to do it in their beginner DSLRs (you too Nikon) Do we need all of those? As this forum shows, some photographers would like the choice. Just like Nikon's D3x and D3s. Some may not need the high ISO, but want high res, so they go for the D3x, or the opposite may be true. Giving some options is good. Too many of course, not so much.
-
I guess having three different size of sensors was one too many..., this is another wrong decision they had to deal with. However, the problem with the wideangles that they now overcome is in my view even more important than teles, at least with teles somebody can always get a TC and work around it (especially if ISO performance is much improved). Cropping won't be a problem either, not with 18mpx anyway, you can print up to 4x6 feet with it and cropping to 1/4th is 2x3, who needs more? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I guess you don't do nature photography...
-
I think it is undeniable that the 5D eroded the market for the 1Ds and that with a 5D MkIII (presumably over 21MP & with improved video capabilities) and the 1DX Canon has at least 90% of their professional/advanced amateur target market covered.
Nothing in any of PR precludes a new, very high MP full frame "studio/landscape" design that is not a 1 series...
-
For any work of mine requiring more resolution, medium format with more affordable cameras surfacing, is looking more and more attractive. I do hope Nikon will follow Canon's lead here.
Hum... How about deciding who is leading based on who will be the first to put cameras in the hands of working photographers? :-)
As far as MF becoming more affordable:
- is it still the case when you look at backs finally offering good usability?
- does that take into account the price of a full system?
- does that take into account the opportunity cost of all the images you will not be able to take because of various limitations (lens focal range, limited AF, concern with physical robusteness, slowness of operation,...)?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You might not be the only person wondering about what will be announced there but in all likelihood any hardware announced there will not be centered around a higher resolution still photography camera.
maybe new small desktop printers in 12 different colors, earning canon some 26 trillion dollar?
-
I guess you don't do nature photography...
I do all kinds of photography, some more some less but even with the ones I do less, I've done enough to know what I am talking about. If resolution is the only way around heavy cropping, then I would suggest to start by cropping the sensor (ie an APS-c camera), it will benefit reach and portability as well. I know many people that do nature with Nikon, nearly none of them uses a D3X for it, mostly their favorite is the D300S. What a Canon user did before the 1d4? Don't tell me that nature started with the D4. There is no way for a manufacturer to produce a camera that will satisfy all, but again there are not many customers for a camera that only do one thing with their camera and those that are doing only one thing, are an insignificant quantity when the manufacturer does his market research. Canon 1 series has many problems that has to deal with, competition from Nikon took a huge part of their sales to start with..., internal competition from the 5d2 took some more..., they can't survive the series with 2 models and 2 sensors running, they did the right thing to face the competition the best they could and wisely decided to lower costs by replacing 2 products with one, in this decision they gave priority to satisfy the larger part of their customers and after doing that they tried to do their best for the rest, the result is not a better camera for nature..., is a better camera that can also do nature the best it can. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I belong to the camp that is hugely dissatisfied with this successor to 1Ds line !
However thinking about this more and judging from the jubilation on other forums (In fact this is the only thread I have found so far where majority have voiced their dissatisfaction, possibly because the nature of Lula crowd), I think the writing was on the wall.
The biggest customers of Pro series cameras are not individual photographers, but news and sports organizations who buy these cameras in boatloads. What do they buy? Obviously they need speed and AF and also high ISO. So they go out and buy 1D series cameras. Who buys 1Ds series? Landscape and high-end commercial and fashion photographers. A sizable percentage of them just go to MF anyway. So the market is comparatively pretty small.
Now that we look back, I think this was the reason that Canon upgraded 5D Mark II to 1Ds sensor. Canon is a mass market company, not a specialty or niche provider. What they could not sell in 1Ds3, they sold in 5D.2 in boat loads. 1Ds probably was not making money for canon even before 5D was introduced, so there is no need to keep it alive.
It seems to me that they will come up with the next version of 5D with higher resolution in the price range where there is a mass market but that is only a guess. So I have to be contended with the 21MP that I have.
I would be happy to switch over to Nikon or Sony, only if their lens lineup was as logical as Canon's.
-
If resolution is the only way around heavy cropping, then I would suggest to start by cropping the sensor (ie an APS-c camera), it will benefit reach and portability as well. I know many people that do nature with Nikon, nearly none of them uses a D3X for it, mostly their favorite is the D300S.
Would be OK if Canon offered the top end amenities (AF, frame rate, weather sealing, firmware sophistication, etc) in an APS-C body, as is the case with the D300(s); however, Canon has chosen to differentiate the 1 Series by only offering these things there and not in an APS-C body (or the 5D series). So not a solution (for me).
-
Would be OK if Canon offered the top end amenities (AF, frame rate, weather sealing, firmware sophistication, etc) in an APS-C body, as is the case with the D300(s); however, Canon has chosen to differentiate the 1 Series by only offering these things there and not in an APS-C body (or the 5D series). So not a solution (for me).
Canon does all of this in the 7D ... which is actually a step ahead of the Nikon D300s in just about every category and function except maybe total # of AF points ...
Jack
.
-
I belong to the camp that is hugely dissatisfied with this successor to 1Ds line !
However thinking about this more and judging from the jubilation on other forums (In fact this is the only thread I have found so far where majority have voiced their dissatisfaction, possibly because the nature of Lula crowd), I think the writing was on the wall.
The biggest customers of Pro series cameras are not individual photographers, but news and sports organizations who buy these cameras in boatloads. What do they buy? Obviously they need speed and AF and also high ISO. So they go out and buy 1D series cameras. Who buys 1Ds series? Landscape and high-end commercial and fashion photographers. A sizable percentage of them just go to MF anyway. So the market is comparatively pretty small.
Now that we look back, I think this was the reason that Canon upgraded 5D Mark II to 1Ds sensor. Canon is a mass market company, not a specialty or niche provider. What they could not sell in 1Ds3, they sold in 5D.2 in boat loads. 1Ds probably was not making money for canon even before 5D was introduced, so there is no need to keep it alive.
It seems to me that they will come up with the next version of 5D with higher resolution in the price range where there is a mass market but that is only a guess. So I have to be contended with the 21MP that I have.
I would be happy to switch over to Nikon or Sony, only if their lens lineup was as logical as Canon's.
That sums it up right there. This camera is quite clearly an action camera, not a static "fine art" camera.
If massive mpx is what a person wants, to maximize large, static "fine art" or billboard shots, they should go medium format. This simple truth is most professionals aren't trying to create "fine art" with their cameras. Hell, even most nature photographers don't have any real need to blow-up their photos to massive proportions, and surely most news/sports photographers don't either.
So what is Canon supposed to do? Create a specialized super-high mpx camera to satisfy a very small "fine art" sector (but who basically can't afford medium format) ... or should Canon build an overall workhorse of a camera that will satisfy far more professionals overall?
The simple truth is an all-new 18mpx, rapid-fire, low-light-capable camera, with leading-edge AF and excellent rugged durability ... all supported by the best overall lens lineup of anyone ...is simply going to sell more cameras to more total professionals (not necessarily "specialty" professionals) than would any other option.
I think they did the right thing, really.
Jack
.
-
Personally I think they should call it the 1DX3, just to confuse people even more as to whether it's really a Canon or a Nikon camera. Who comes up with these names?
Mike.
-
That sums it up right there. This camera is quite clearly an action camera, not a static "fine art" camera.
If massive mpx is what a person wants, to maximize large, static "fine art" or billboard shots, they should go medium format. This simple truth is most professionals aren't trying to create "fine art" with their cameras. Hell, even most nature photographers don't have any real need to blow-up their photos to massive proportions, and surely most news/sports photographers don't either.
So what is Canon supposed to do? Create a specialized super-high mpx camera to satisfy a very small "fine art" sector (but who basically can't afford medium format) ... or should Canon build an overall workhorse of a camera that will satisfy far more professionals overall?
The simple truth is an all-new 18mpx, rapid-fire, low-light-capable camera, with leading-edge AF and excellent rugged durability ... all supported by the best overall lens lineup of anyone ...is simply going to sell more cameras to more total professionals (not necessarily "specialty" professionals) than would any other option.
I think they did the right thing, really.
I agree. I think the right thing to do on top of this is to release a 5Dmk3 which is a high megapixel camera, and I think that is exactly what they are going to do eventually.
Unlike in professional photography, among amateurs landscape photography is a very large genre, perhaps the largest. Many amateur photographers are also technically interested, and many want lots of megapixel (not all know how to make use of them though :-)). There are more amateurs than there are professionals, so this market is big, but a $6800 camera like the 1DX is too expensive for it. But say a $3500 30-40 megapixel camera which could be slow and have simplistic AF would fit in well. This camera would also be selling to professionals that has special needs for high resolution. The unfortunate thing about this is that there will be no high res camera with flagship quality robustness and weather proofing, but probably will be "good enough".
-
snip......
So what is Canon supposed to do? Create a specialized super-high mpx camera to satisfy a very small "fine art" sector (but who basically can't afford medium format) ... or should Canon build an overall workhorse of a camera that will satisfy far more professionals overall?
snip.......
I think they did the right thing, really.
Jack
.
This week working with 6 and 7 young assistants all were impressed with the news of the new Canon, much more than a high megapixel Nikon, or a medium format back.
I was surprised of the overwhelming positive response, though I agree as I never have cared for computer pixel peeping and given my options use my p21+ vs my p30+, use my 5d2 as much as my 1ds3's and even from time to time use my original 1ds1.
But getting back to the 1dx, it fits the market for this next generation of photographers as they don't care about $40,000 mega money, mega pixel still cameras with limited iso, that are slow and stills dedicated.
They mostly own 5d2's and Nikon d3x/d700s and if they're going to spend over 6 thousand for a camera, the new Canon will be the one, because they believe it's a camera that finally proves megapixels are not near as important as overall usability and longer term investment.
In fact all of these young photographers work in LA and New York regularly and on high profile projects and in their young short careers, they've noticed that even the highest level photographer is squeezed on time, has to up their production quantity and given the nature of having to shoot stills and video in parallel know that the aspect of going to high clean iso and tether through ethernet, is more than a small step forward.
(FWIW, most of these assistants having learned on digital have also added film to their personal repretioire shooting everything from contax rangefinders to twin lens mamiya and rollei's, so the old ways and older formats are not lost on them.
Still, when it comes to writing the check, all said if they find the extra money and the Canon comes out glitch free, that is the direction they will go. They all know that in the rare instance some client demands 6 million pixels, they can always rent for the week.
Time will tell, but I personally think this was a brave, smart move by Canon.
IMO
BC
-
I dont want to shoot in the dark!
I dont want to shoot at 14 fps!
I dont want to shoot movies!
I currently own a 1Ds3 and I cant see an upgrade path for me. Perhaps if Canon bought out a 3D series with a high res sensor. The 5DII had great image quality and great value for the $$ but lets be frank, compared to a 1Ds, the body and AF was rubbish. Perhaps these issues could be addressed with the 5DIII.
Currently, not a happy camper!
-
Yes, and of course I JUST bought a 1D Mark IV a couple of days ago, having searched hard for one. Figures..... That said, the 1Dx almost seems more marketed toward cinematography in overall capabilities. Does this mean the 1Ds convept is dead?? or does it just kill off the 1D series...
I doubt a serious DP is going to want to use a DSLR for video anymore. There are many great digital S35 full frame cine cameras on the market since the original 5Dmk2, 7D and the RED ONE started the large sensor trend. If canon is depending on that market they are in deep trouble.
-
Personally I think they should call it the 1DX3, just to confuse people even more as to whether it's really a Canon or a Nikon camera. Who comes up with these names?
Hi Mike,
The naming convention is consistent with how Canon have named almost all of their (D)SLRs. What's really puzzling to me is the jump from Mark IV to X, it suggests to be a deliberate ending of the line (not likely that we'll see an 1DY and 1DZ). Let the speculation begin ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
I dont want to shoot in the dark!
I dont want to shoot at 14 fps!
I dont want to shoot movies!
I currently own a 1Ds3 and I cant see an upgrade path for me. Perhaps if Canon bought out a 3D series with a high res sensor. The 5DII had great image quality and great value for the $$ but lets be frank, compared to a 1Ds, the body and AF was rubbish. Perhaps these issues could be addressed with the 5DIII.
Currently, not a happy camper!
Maybe our upgrade path is going to be with Sony :-)
-
Whilst I can understand some people's angst about the lack of new pixels in this camera, are people missing something important here ?
Is Canon implying that c.20mp is as far as they can go with their current lens offerings ?
The 21mp Canons already reveal the deficiencies of the current EF range, including the L series glass. So maybe capping the EOS range at c.20mp makes sense ? A 30mp sensor might just not actually deliver better results if the lenses available aren't capable of delivering sufficient resolution.
This leads to the interesting dilemma they might be in, stay with their core "35mm" market or expand into the riskier territory of building a brand new 'MF' high resolution system. especially as it's a difficult time to spend vast amounts on R&D.
-
Whilst I can understand some people's angst about the lack of new pixels in this camera, are people missing something important here ?
Is Canon implying that c.20mp is as far as they can go with their current lens offerings ?
The 21mp Canons already reveal the deficiencies of the current EF range, including the L series glass. So maybe capping the EOS range at c.20mp makes sense ? A 30mp sensor might just not actually deliver better results if the lenses available aren't capable of delivering sufficient resolution.
This leads to the interesting dilemma they might be in, stay with their core "35mm" market or expand into the riskier territory of building a brand new 'MF' high resolution system. especially as it's a difficult time to spend vast amounts on R&D.
It is a very relevant question. Lens resolving power is the main limiter of how far you can go with resolution. However, when I have looked into resolution tests made on APS-C cameras (which have really small pixels) and estimated the increased resolution loss in the fullframe corners etc I think a reasonable "upper limit" for full-frame 135 with the sharpest lenses are today say 45 megapixels, concerning bayer and deconvolution techniques it may be worthwhile to go even a little higher than the lenses can resolve. There's always possible to have low-res binning modes too (like canon mRaw and sRaw) in situations you don't need the resolution, such as in action photo or when the used lens is not really that sharp.
By having APS-C-sized pixels on a full-frame sensor you can also make a camera with built-in "crop modes", which sports and wildlife photographers probably would like, so when you don't have the reach in the lens you can get some additional by enabling a crop mode, and have the resolution that a crop camera would have.
-
If they were to keep the two separate cameras, I think this would be a solid update. I still keep waiting for them to say - April fools...
I shoot with a P65+. I was hoping Canon would release a 40MP(ish) 1Ds that I could use in conjunction with the P65 for when I need more mobility and fast shooting.
There was always talk of them creating an entirely new model with high MP count but they describe this one as their new flagship so it doesn't sound like it's going to happen.
I really think this is a poor move when you can jump into a base level Hasselblad for about the same price.
And naming it after the Nikon equivalent is just ridiculous. It really looks like a joke.
To me, it looks like Canon is in real trouble. Perhaps they were effected more by the Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster than was thought.
-
I completely agree with torger's prediction on this, but would like to add the following: If a manufacturer releases one model camera, it should not be seen as their comment on the desirability of releasing a different model designed to fulfill an entirely different purpose, whether that second model is aimed at a large or small niche market or otherwise, (and niche market essentials are usually addressed in some fashion), while it is reasonable for any professional or amateur photographer to choose the affordable solution which best preforms for them, without regard for the divergent needs of any number of other folks with diffent requirements. If Canon misses the boat on providing an updated, manual focus friendly, low iso oriented, very high definition model, there's always Sony or Nikon. Sure...I would be so delighted to be the proud owner of an Arca rm3di or Alpa Max, complete with P-1 IQ-180 back and all of the trappings, but not being a high rolling pro or one otherwise sufficiently advantaged, I rather doubt that such lies in my immediate future. What I would really appreciate, (but am to much of a cynic to hope for), is an open platform 24/35 36mp or higher comos back, with magnifiable live view and possibly focus peaking. I wouldn't think this would require massive development costs, as Canon, Sony, and Nikon already have the essentials, and could probably cost effectively provide more reliability and usability than that currently found in recent lower end mfdb's. Actually, from my perspective doing only landscape, and not having to fear loosing megabucks by missing opportunities to do other types of imaging endeavors, acquiring a product with the precision build of a good technical camera seems to be a much better long term investment than does spending for a multitude of bells and whistles I have no use for on a slr which has no built in movements.
-
looking at the specs of the 1DX It is clear Canon changed a lot to their professional body line.
New AF - faster processor- built in lens corrections- new exposure control- wifi - quality video etc.
Also it is full frame.
To make a 40MP DSLR they are almost ready.
Just wait- find- develop the right 40MP chip- put it the new body- change the camera name and ready you are!
in this new lineup they only have to make one body that fits all. That cuts the costs.
for sure an 1DXs will come.
About lens quality - today Canon as well as Nikon are taking lens quality even more serious -as they also get more expensive-choose a shift lens and you are well served.
-
I shoot dancing in low light conditions and this camera seems to be the fulfillment of my dreams. I am a Canon 1D Mark III user and the settings that I have to use to work are ISO3200, 2.0, 1/400. I really appreciate the good high ISO performance that this camera seems to offer. I will test it as soon as possible.
For other working purposes I will keep my P30+ and maybe upgrade it to a P45+ or P65+ (depending on the deals that I find). Actual price of a P30+ (with some warranty left) is not far from the price of a 35mm camera, sometimes it is also cheaper.
I am really happy with a lower resolution camera with higher image quality. Too often there is confusion between IQ and MP. In my opinion people looking for higher quality should move from 35mm to a medium format system. But I can perfectly understand that often a better AF, higher FPS, stronger body, faster response camera is needed.
I am a Canon (and Nikon, Leica, PhaseOne) user and I am very happy with the specification of this new product.
Just my 2 cents.
-
looking at the specs of the 1DX It is clear Canon changed a lot to their professional body line.
New AF - faster processor- built in lens corrections- new exposure control- wifi - quality video etc.
Here is some more in depth information, revealing even more changes to the camera (e.g. viewfinder with transparent LCD and new focus screen) and sensor design (e.g. additional/better transistors per sensel):
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/eos_1d_x_explained.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/eos_1d_x_explained.do)
Cheers,
Bart
-
I doubt a serious DP is going to want to use a DSLR for video anymore. There are many great digital S35 full frame cine cameras on the market since the original 5Dmk2, 7D and the RED ONE started the large sensor trend. If canon is depending on that market they are in deep trouble.
There is a huge market for serious DPs shooting films with cameras such as the the current Canons. Why? The vast majority of film makers are not shooting $50 million hollywood features. They do corporate work, ads, shorts, low budget films etc and the video capable DSLRs allow them to make much better looking films than was previously affordable. Other times, big budget productions use them as their form factor is very versatile [House being a well known example] and with the sensor being bigger than 35mm cinefilm cameras like the 5DII also give a different look that may be desirable.
-
Whilst I can understand some people's angst about the lack of new pixels in this camera, are people missing something important here ?
Is Canon implying that c.20mp is as far as they can go with their current lens offerings ?
The 21mp Canons already reveal the deficiencies of the current EF range, including the L series glass. So maybe capping the EOS range at c.20mp makes sense ? A 30mp sensor might just not actually deliver better results if the lenses available aren't capable of delivering sufficient resolution.
This leads to the interesting dilemma they might be in, stay with their core "35mm" market or expand into the riskier territory of building a brand new 'MF' high resolution system. especially as it's a difficult time to spend vast amounts on R&D.
Maybe this is true with elder lenses, but it seems like you haven't been paying attention to the new L glass Canon's been developing ... (100mm macro, 70-200, a soon-to-be-announced 200-400, a new 500mm, 600mm, etc.) ... they're superb and in a class by themselves.
Jack
.
-
I agree. I think the right thing to do on top of this is to release a 5Dmk3 which is a high megapixel camera, and I think that is exactly what they are going to do eventually.
Unlike in professional photography, among amateurs landscape photography is a very large genre, perhaps the largest. Many amateur photographers are also technically interested, and many want lots of megapixel (not all know how to make use of them though :-)). There are more amateurs than there are professionals, so this market is big, but a $6800 camera like the 1DX is too expensive for it. But say a $3500 30-40 megapixel camera which could be slow and have simplistic AF would fit in well. This camera would also be selling to professionals that has special needs for high resolution. The unfortunate thing about this is that there will be no high res camera with flagship quality robustness and weather proofing, but probably will be "good enough".
It seems reasonable that the 5D series may well be the "less-robust, more mpx" series in their lineup. Really, such a bifurcation makes perfect sense:
* Absolute robustness implies "heavy use, always moving, constantly subjected to elements."
* Super fine resolving power implies "calm, still use, single-image taking."
I think this basic logic is why the faster, more robust, weather-sealed cameras do not have the same number of megapixels as "art" cameras ... and it is also why the large-sensor, high-mpx "art" cameras do not have the same weather-sealing/rugged durability of action cameras. Each represents two totally different ways of shooting with two totally different markets, so it would make perfect sense to have these realities reflected in two totally different model types of camera.
The new 1DX is clearly focused on the largest professional sector, which represents very busy, high-volume, working professionals who have a greater need for speed, low-light, huge battery capacity, and rugged durability than they have a need for a "fine art" camera that is designed to be perfectly stationary, handled with kid gloves, and that does everything slowly.
Perhaps the 1D/1Ds bifurcation proved too confusing, and now the solo 1DX is now going to represent the rugged professional camera, while the 5DMKIII is going to be the less-rugged, but very high mpx camera, so we'll see.
Jack
.
-
So when can we get a RAW file from this camera to analyze? :-)
Much about claimed noise levels and dynamic range these days is about in-camera raw-to-jpeg processing. A RAW file gives a more honest view of how the sensor actually performs. I hope they don't have lots of line noise in there...
-
So when can we get a RAW file from this camera to analyze? :-)
Thats the question I would like answered as well. Till we see a RAW file (or rather a few of em') its all just speculation...
I imagine raw file samples will be quite slow in coming given its 6 months away from official release. I noticed in the online videos I saw of CPS members handholding the camera at the NZ press event that the CF door was taped shut. I can only assume Canon does not yet want real 'files' out there for pixel peeping. Maybe still working on firmware....
-
Would be OK if Canon offered the top end amenities (AF, frame rate, weather sealing, firmware sophistication, etc) in an APS-C body, as is the case with the D300(s); however, Canon has chosen to differentiate the 1 Series by only offering these things there and not in an APS-C body (or the 5D series). So not a solution (for me).
I believe they will do that in the near future..., maybe this new DSLR is a 180deg direction change for Canon..., I do believe so, but its only a hatch. I think they got the message from the market during the last 4 years, it wasn't a clear message for the first couple of years, but I am sure they where well surprised with the marketing results during the last couple of years. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
The new 1DX is clearly focused on the largest professional sector, which represents very busy, high-volume, working professionals who have a greater need for speed, low-light, huge battery capacity, and rugged durability than they have a need for a "fine art" camera that is designed to be perfectly stationary, handled with kid gloves, and that does everything slowly.
Perhaps the 1D/1Ds bifurcation proved too confusing, and now the solo 1DX is now going to represent the rugged professional camera, while the 5DMKIII is going to be the less-rugged, but very high mpx camera, so we'll see.
Jack
I have all these needs, I shoot almost every day of the week and each shoot is thousands of frames. I also want MP. I want the detail and the quality. i want the very best I can get. I know a lot of photographers in the same boat.
My MF Rig does all this and doesn't need to be handled with kid gloves. Is it any slower? No. Even when I shoot with a dSLR I work tethered and it's really not that much faster. It is easier to shoot given it's size and therefore makes it desirable to use for certain applications but it's not a reason not to use MF which keeps up and the quality blows it out of the water.
The thing is this. I think we are witnessing a moment in time where 35mm is returning to it's roots. Because they became capable such a capable camera they crossed into the regions where MF and even large format users used them instead. Now, the dSLR's can't compete with the MF and as MF prices come down - why even try to compete? Stick to what they do, within the boundaries and make it as brilliant as you cancamera. Dare I say it, the technology race has stopped with the dSLR, it's boundaries set and the required market, which was still a mystery has now been made.
So maybe this really does make Canon market leaders after all...
-
Canon does all of this in the 7D ... which is actually a step ahead of the Nikon D300s in just about every category and function except maybe total # of AF points ...
Jack
.
7D is a comparison for D7000, D300s is different..., it's D700 body (better quality than 5d2), not much for a sensor, for modern tech, but a hell of a body... there are people that need this. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Personally I think they should call it the 1DX3, just to confuse people even more as to whether it's really a Canon or a Nikon camera. Who comes up with these names?
Mike.
;D IMO the best quote! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I dont want to shoot in the dark!
I dont want to shoot at 14 fps!
I dont want to shoot movies!
I currently own a 1Ds3 and I cant see an upgrade path for me. Perhaps if Canon bought out a 3D series with a high res sensor. The 5DII had great image quality and great value for the $$ but lets be frank, compared to a 1Ds, the body and AF was rubbish. Perhaps these issues could be addressed with the 5DIII.
Currently, not a happy camper!
But offering this aspects you don't need, it doesn't mean that it won't prove to be better than your 1DS3 in what you do! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
The thing is this. I think we are witnessing a moment in time where 35mm is returning to it's roots. Because they became capable such a capable camera they crossed into the regions where MF and even large format users used them instead. Now, the dSLR's can't compete with the MF and as MF prices come down - why even try to compete? Stick to what they do, within the boundaries and make it as brilliant as you cancamera. Dare I say it, the technology race has stopped with the dSLR, it's boundaries set and the required market, which was still a mystery has now been made.
Uhmm... maybe I'm not so well-informed on the subject, but to me it seems like the other way around, that the 135 DSLRs will continue to eat chunks of the medium format market. The Nikon D3x and Canon 5Dmk2 and 1Ds3 already did. Having a decent but not high res but high speed DSLR in the lineup is not new, Nikon has had D3s, and the 1Dx is a modern version of that. Many rumours around Canon/Nikon strategies of coming model goes in the direction that there will be a 1Dx type of flagship (ok res, high speed) and a lower cost high res DSLR. With 30-40 megapixel cameras at around $3500 135 DSLRs will present a medium format budget alternative also in the future, perhaps even stronger than before.
And has really MF prices come down to the level of DSLRs? Last time I checked a pre-owned 39 megapixel P45+ costs around $15,000, and that's only the digital back. You need a body and lenses too. Of course there's more to it than just megapixels (DOF, bokeh quality, camera movements etc), but I see no reason why DSLRs would not continue to grab even more of the medium format market by reaching a "good enough" level at a lower price.
-
7D is a comparison for D7000, D300s is different..., it's D700 body (better quality than 5d2), not much for a sensor, for modern tech, but a hell of a body... there are people that need this. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
As being used to both 7D and D7000 I'd say that it is a poor comparison. D7000 has fine electronics (sensor quality considerably better than 7D) but it is not a professionally sized housing, it is too small to be intended to be used with full size lenses. 7D on the other hand is larger and more robustly built with better button placement, clearly intended to work well with larger and heavier L glass. Having the cameras side by side this becomes evident. Actually I think the 7D body has a nicer more robust feel to it than the 5Dmk2. If its build quality is as good as D300s I cannot say, probably D300s is a bit better as many say, but surely 7D is by Canon intended to work as a professional tool while being accessible to amateurs, a typical "prosumer" kind of product. 7D is a popular camera for bird photography for example, using the crop size to get extra reach and having a very competent auto-focus system.
Problem with D300s today is that the tech is so old and electronics of D7000 is so good so many prefer using D7000 anyway when they need Nikon APS-C although the ergonomics and robustness is better in the D300s.
-
Canon does all of this in the 7D ... which is actually a step ahead of the Nikon D300s in just about every category and function except maybe total # of AF points ...
Jack
.
And from working with both I prefer the D7000 over the D300s as an APS-C camera. I haven't worked with an EOS 7D. Most of my work is shot with a 1Ds Mk III but I also regularly use a 1D Mark IV and have made extensive use of the D3, D3s and D3X. While I'd prefer that the EOS 1Ds X had at least the photo-site count of the 1Ds Mk III / 5D Mk II, What I am looking forward to in the 1D X are the improvements in the operational ergonomics, metering and autofocus.
-
As being used to both 7D and D7000 I'd say that it is a poor comparison. D7000 has fine electronics (sensor quality considerably better than 7D) but it is not a professionally sized housing, it is too small to be intended to be used with full size lenses. 7D on the other hand is larger and more robustly built with better button placement, clearly intended to work well with larger and heavier L glass. Having the cameras side by side this becomes evident. Actually I think the 7D body has a nicer more robust feel to it than the 5Dmk2. If its build quality is as good as D300s I cannot say, probably D300s is a bit better as many say, but surely 7D is by Canon intended to work as a professional tool while being accessible to amateurs, a typical "prosumer" kind of product. 7D is a popular camera for bird photography for example, using the crop size to get extra reach and having a very competent auto-focus system.
A personal preference or criteria, ....is personal. It should be therefore respected. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
"I noticed in the online videos I saw of CPS members handholding the camera at the NZ press event that the CF door was taped shut."
The cameras that are out there are essentially hand built prototypes - lots of things are not finalized including firmware. Nikon and Canon started this program of taping media doors shut after a popular photo blogger was caught putting in his own media cards and shooting frames which he then shared on his site, after being specifically warned not to do that after an NDA meeting with Nikon back at the 2005 PMA show in Orlando. I didn't witness this but the people at Nikon's PR agency told me about it immediately afterward.
-
I am surprised no one is making a bigger deal out of Canon moving away from a split CF /SD media combination to a dual CF configuration.
-
I am surprised no one is making a bigger deal out of Canon moving away from a split CF /SD media combination to a dual CF configuration.
I prefer CF media looking forward to the future. Larger storage capacity is possible, and much harder to lose in the field.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I prefer CF media looking forward to the future. Larger storage capacity is possible, and much harder to lose in the field.
I've been told that CF media was being phased out to be replaced by the tiny SD... I feel glad that 1Dx uses CF so it will live longer. I also prefer the CF size, small but not so small it becomes scary, which I think SD is... :-)
-
If massive mpx is what a person wants, to maximize large, static "fine art" or billboard shots, they should go medium format.
Hum... you have never used a MFDB for cold weather landscape shooting away from the road, have you?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
* Absolute robustness implies "heavy use, always moving, constantly subjected to elements."
* Super fine resolving power implies "calm, still use, single-image taking."
Landscape photography often involves both "super fine resolving" and "constantly subjected to elements." I bought a 1DsIII instead of a 5DII because I expected to be out with it in bad weather and hiking on possibly rough terrain.
As I said before, I know that this new camera will be perfect for many photographers and that's great, but I was really hoping for more MP and the usual rugged 1-series body (with all the other 1-series goodies that come with it). That I would buy.
-
I have all these needs, I shoot almost every day of the week and each shoot is thousands of frames. I also want MP. I want the detail and the quality. i want the very best I can get. I know a lot of photographers in the same boat.
My MF Rig does all this and doesn't need to be handled with kid gloves. Is it any slower? No. Even when I shoot with a dSLR I work tethered and it's really not that much faster. It is easier to shoot given it's size and therefore makes it desirable to use for certain applications but it's not a reason not to use MF which keeps up and the quality blows it out of the water.
The thing is this. I think we are witnessing a moment in time where 35mm is returning to it's roots. Because they became capable such a capable camera they crossed into the regions where MF and even large format users used them instead. Now, the dSLR's can't compete with the MF and as MF prices come down - why even try to compete? Stick to what they do, within the boundaries and make it as brilliant as you cancamera. Dare I say it, the technology race has stopped with the dSLR, it's boundaries set and the required market, which was still a mystery has now been made.
So maybe this really does make Canon market leaders after all...
The 1ds was a bit of a stop gap machine when regional commercial photogs needed to go digital but couldn't justify the cost outlay and technical limitations that MF had in the last decade. But, these problems have been largely solved and you can today buy a new 30mp back for $8k - exactly what the 1ds series launched at. By serving that niche (and yet probably not making much money on it) Canon dominated a market that had formerly been dominated by MF film. Even so, this wasn't their original market of sports and journalism where Canon had made long roads into. And those commercial photographers have always had their eye on digital MF, waiting for it to become more attainable.
Even if a high MP 5D comes out, I can't see this same lot just jumping right on that... the 5D's a fine camera, but it doesn't have the star power to it that a lot of commercial photogs want. ie, a camera the art director himself wouldn't have.
-
Hi Mike,
The naming convention is consistent with how Canon have named almost all of their (D)SLRs. What's really puzzling to me is the jump from Mark IV to X, it suggests to be a deliberate ending of the line (not likely that we'll see an 1DY and 1DZ). Let the speculation begin ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
A 1D(x), then (y) and then (z)? ;D Wouldn't this make it an XYZ approach? ??? Huh, I got it! Their approach starting from now is a "three-dimensional" one! ;) Or is it a "lost in space" one? :D Time will tell. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
...What's really puzzling to me is the jump from Mark IV to X, it suggests to be a deliberate ending of the line (not likely that we'll see an 1DY and 1DZ). Let the speculation begin ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
The Official Explanation given for the EOS 1D X nomenclature is as follows (and I swear I'm not making this up) "X has three meanings: for extreme performance in extreme conditions; for the Roman Numeral way of writing ten as this is the tenth generation of EOS cameras; and X is for cross-over as the EOS 1D X replaces both the 1Ds Mark III and 1Ds Mark IV."
With this triple layer of meanings and symbolism a wonder that they didn't then call it the "EOS 1D XXX" - but I suspect the marketing department wouldn't have allowed that. ;D
-
Landscape photography often involves both "super fine resolving" and "constantly subjected to elements." I bought a 1DsIII instead of a 5DII because I expected to be out with it in bad weather and hiking on possibly rough terrain.
As I said before, I know that this new camera will be perfect for many photographers and that's great, but I was really hoping for more MP and the usual rugged 1-series body (with all the other 1-series goodies that come with it). That I would buy.
I agree on all points. The 1DsIII has survived the cold, heavy rain, constant rain, snow and mud (yes mud!). I really don't think a lesser body, eg 5DII would have survived some of the elements I was in. That's why I'm a bit concerned about the 1D series now becoming a sport's camera.
What is the path for Canon landscape photographers?
Araz
-
I agree on all points. The 1DsIII has survived the cold, heavy rain, constant rain, snow and mud (yes mud!). I really don't think a lesser body, eg 5DII would have survived some of the elements I was in. That's why I'm a bit concerned about the 1D series now becoming a sport's camera.
What is the path for Canon landscape photographers?
Araz
Sell your equipment and buy this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax_645d___a_first_review.shtml
-
As I'm reading through the posts and trying to predict Canon's long term strategy (and consequently my own)... the following points are clear in my head:
- The 1-series now belongs to the photographer who needs speed, high ISO, robustness and image quality (this covers a large market share)
- As of the 1DX announcment, Canon has segregated the pro high res photographer (studio/landscape) to a non 1-series body. The studio/landscape market is also large, and it's one that Canon served for many years with a 1-series body i.e. 1Ds, 1DsII, 1DsIII
Now for some speculation:
- I'm convinced that the pro studio/landscape photographer will not be abandonned by Canon
- Canon has a big announcment on Nov 4th which I think will meet the needs of the pro high res market
- Do you think Canon may enter the MF market?
Araz
-
No. I don't think so. They may compete with the MF market, however.
BR
Erik
- Do you think Canon may enter the MF market?
Araz
-
Personally I would have been happier with a higher pixel count, matching the pixel size of the 1D4. For wildlife photography, where one is often focal length limited, it's the pixel size rather than count that matters, and 18MP on FF is a big step back from 16MP on APS-H. Basically, Canon is telling those people whose lens kit was predicated on APS-H that they have to buy new lenses to use the 1Dx in the same way they use the 1D4 and have the same subject resolution. At that point, it becomes a serious question whether to keep with Canon.
My question would be where would you go? The only 1.3 crop system is from Canon, and moving to Nikon would basically be the same as moving to the 1DX, since you're not getting anything significantly better. If you really need a good balance of pixel density and image quality, the 1Div is pretty hard to beat for the time being.
-
7D is a comparison for D7000, D300s is different..., it's D700 body (better quality than 5d2), not much for a sensor, for modern tech, but a hell of a body... there are people that need this. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
What makes the 7D body inferior to the D300s besides the dual card slots?
-
- Canon has a big announcment on Nov 4th which I think will meet the needs of the pro high res market
Actually I think that it will be a video announcement.
Ken
-
7D is a comparison for D7000, D300s is different..., it's D700 body (better quality than 5d2), not much for a sensor, for modern tech, but a hell of a body... there are people that need this. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Exactly.
-
What makes the 7D body inferior to the D300s besides the dual card slots?
Nearly everything... ergonomics, construction, viewfinder, AF, sealing ...you name it. It doesn't mean that 7d is poor, rather d300 is top! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Nearly everything... ergonomics, construction, viewfinder, AF, sealing ...you name it. It doesn't mean that 7d is poor, rather d300 is top! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
I don't find my D300 to be any better than my 7D for what you mentioned...I must have a good 7D or poor D300. Ergonomics are debatable though, the focus switch on my Nikons always gets flipped over to a different mode. Then again the rotary dial on my 7D is possessed too.
Viewfinder is identical at .63x, both with LCD superimposition. AF, debatable depending on how you have it set up but no complaints on either camera.
Sealing, never taken the D300 in the rain, but I have in 5C rain and -42C for the 7D, so no complaints there either. Thom Hogan's review of the weather seals on the D300 didn't make it sound like it was much better than the 7D's, from what I can read. Construction, both are plastic over magnesium frames, so unless bits are falling off the 7D I don't see much difference there.
Only complaint I have about the Canon junior bodies are the grips. They have no weather seals and violate the seal on the battery compartment. Nikon's way makes more sense to me.
-
I don't find my D300 to be any better than my 7D for what you mentioned...I must have a good 7D or poor D300. Ergonomics are debatable though, the focus switch on my Nikons always gets flipped over to a different mode. Then again the rotary dial on my 7D is possessed too.
Viewfinder is identical at .63x, both with LCD superimposition. AF, debatable depending on how you have it set up but no complaints on either camera.
Sealing, never taken the D300 in the rain, but I have in 5C rain and -42C for the 7D, so no complaints there either. Thom Hogan's review of the weather seals on the D300 didn't make it sound like it was much better than the 7D's, from what I can read. Construction, both are plastic over magnesium frames, so unless bits are falling off the 7D I don't see much difference there.
Only complaint I have about the Canon junior bodies are the grips. They have no weather seals and violate the seal on the battery compartment. Nikon's way makes more sense to me.
Good!
-
7D is a comparison for D7000, D300s is different..., it's D700 body (better quality than 5d2), not much for a sensor, for modern tech, but a hell of a body... there are people that need this. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
You don't know what you're talking about.
I am not talking about the 5D2; I am talking about the 7D.
The 7D is better than the 5d2 in many respects also (if not every respect, except sensor). Better video, AF, weather-sealing, functionality, etc.
Most independent tests give the 7D the edge in just about every function over the D300s.
Jack
.
-
I have all these needs, I shoot almost every day of the week and each shoot is thousands of frames. I also want MP. I want the detail and the quality. i want the very best I can get. I know a lot of photographers in the same boat.
My MF Rig does all this and doesn't need to be handled with kid gloves. Is it any slower? No. Even when I shoot with a dSLR I work tethered and it's really not that much faster. It is easier to shoot given it's size and therefore makes it desirable to use for certain applications but it's not a reason not to use MF which keeps up and the quality blows it out of the water.
The thing is this. I think we are witnessing a moment in time where 35mm is returning to it's roots. Because they became capable such a capable camera they crossed into the regions where MF and even large format users used them instead. Now, the dSLR's can't compete with the MF and as MF prices come down - why even try to compete? Stick to what they do, within the boundaries and make it as brilliant as you cancamera. Dare I say it, the technology race has stopped with the dSLR, it's boundaries set and the required market, which was still a mystery has now been made.
So maybe this really does make Canon market leaders after all...
I think you said a mouthful here.
When DSLRs first came out, there was a definite uprising in technology in each successive generation ... to where each new season there was a marked gain in performance from the season before ... but now I think the "really noticeable" progress in image quality from DSLRs has reached a plateau ... so where does a camera company go from there?
The answer is into making their DSLRs more useful than those produced by competitors (faster, better AF, better build, better connectivity, longer lifespan, more starage capacity before switching batteries/cards, etc.)
Canon seems to be addressing a host of other real-world needs besides a bigger sensor, since image quality has pretty much become excellent across the board now.
Jack
.
-
Hi,
The Nikon D300 is something like four years old, so it's quite natural that the much newer 7D it is more advanced than the D300.
Best regards
Erik
You're don't know what you're talking about.
I am not talking about the 5D2; I am talking about the 7D.
The 7D is better than the 5d2 in many respects also (if not every respect, except sensor). Better video, AF, weather-sealing, functionality, etc.
Most independent tests give the 7D the edge in just about every function over the D300s.
Jack
.
-
Hi,
The Nikon D300 is something like four years old, so it's quite natural that the much newer 7D it is more advanced than the D300.
Best regards
Erik
The original Nikon D300 came out about the time of the Canon 40D and 50D and was better than both.
Then the 7D came out and trumped them all. Then Nikon upgraded to the D300s, which is comparable to the 7D, but still falls short in most respects.
The Nikon D7000 has a new and improved sensor, but ultimately it is a toy in body and functionality compared to the 7D.
Jack
.
-
Uhmm... maybe I'm not so well-informed on the subject, but to me it seems like the other way around, that the 135 DSLRs will continue to eat chunks of the medium format market. The Nikon D3x and Canon 5Dmk2 and 1Ds3 already did. Having a decent but not high res but high speed DSLR in the lineup is not new, Nikon has had D3s, and the 1Dx is a modern version of that. Many rumours around Canon/Nikon strategies of coming model goes in the direction that there will be a 1Dx type of flagship (ok res, high speed) and a lower cost high res DSLR. With 30-40 megapixel cameras at around $3500 135 DSLRs will present a medium format budget alternative also in the future, perhaps even stronger than before.
And has really MF prices come down to the level of DSLRs? Last time I checked a pre-owned 39 megapixel P45+ costs around $15,000, and that's only the digital back. You need a body and lenses too. Of course there's more to it than just megapixels (DOF, bokeh quality, camera movements etc), but I see no reason why DSLRs would not continue to grab even more of the medium format market by reaching a "good enough" level at a lower price.
MF quality blows a dSLR out of the water. DSLRs will always eat into the market for those that are happy with the results from those cameras. But once you've used an MF I think you will find it difficult to go back if what ever you are shooting justifies it or has the need for it.
List price for a brand new Blad HD4 31 with 80mm lens is somewhere around £8K. It's an exceptionally capable camera and really not that much more than a 1d x and lens for a working Pro.
I really think this is the cross roads (or yet another) for photographic technology. The end of the tech race that was happening. I think it's the genius of Canon to see the market as it is and have the guts to call the shots. That market which they have created, captured or realised is an exceptionally large one.
-
List price for a brand new Blad HD4 31 with 80mm lens is somewhere around £8K. It's an exceptionally capable camera and really not that much more than a 1d x and lens for a working Pro.
Oh, I see. I did not really look into SLR-type of MF but I guess that is indeed an option. I'd rather have technical camera though so I get tilt/shift movements, better wide angle lens designs and modularity without lock-in (lens, body, back from different brands). Having an SLR type of design you have other advantages though, so it is a matter of taste.
-
MF quality blows a dSLR out of the water. DSLRs will always eat into the market for those that are happy with the results from those cameras. But once you've used an MF I think you will find it difficult to go back if what ever you are shooting justifies it or has the need for it.
Facts please.
The only domain where a MFDB is signficantly superior to a top DSLR like the 3 years old D3x in terms of image quality is more pixels and apparent pixel sharpeness due to the lack of AA filter. The very latest models like the IQ160 and IQ180 have a bit more DR also (maybe the H4D-60 but nobody seems to own one), but all the other backs have similar or less DR. They have less DR but give the impression that they have more because they have been calibrated for under-exposure.
Now, there are very good reasons to use a MF solution including the quality of some lenses, aspect ratio,... but based on data and facts, image quality is IMHO not one of them anymore unless you are willing to spend 30.000+ US$.
They are also very good reasons why a D800 at 36 mp without AA filter would be a much superior solution for landscape, including:
- lighter and more compact system,
- much wider software support (DxO,...),
- more robust and splash proof,
- much cheaper system once lenses are factored in (think of the price of a MF 28 mm lens),
- more DoF everything else being equal due to the smaller sensor,
- more lenses including T/S, wider lenses, longer lenses, lenses offering more shallow DoF,...
- a much more flexible and generic solution with a fast AF, video, good high ISO image quality,...
The only thing coming close is the 645D but it lacks live view and is heavier and larger.
So I am sorry, but the advise "canon user, buy an MF camera if you are not happy about the 18mp 1DX and stop bitching" is IMHO simply very poor advise that is not based on first hand experience shooting landscape more then a few 100 yards from a car.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
They are also very good reasons why a D800 at 36 mp without AA filter would be a much superior solution for landscape, including
But, is that a fact?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
-
@ John Koerner: I bet few serious pros could pick out a 7D shot from a D300s, after appropriate post-processing, and I doubt that any "shortcomings" in features wouldn't be outweighed by personal preferences - that is, given a bit of time to shoot, Nikon shooters would prefer the D300s, and Canon shooters the 7D. One big difference: the D300s is an minor upgrade, not a new model. Something more interesting may be coming down the road from Nikon.
The new Canon, if it's just what it seems to be, will be an excellent sports shooter (which is to mean, street, wildlife, handheld shooter) just like the successor to the D3 series, whenever that gets here, and I suspect that's close to the sweet spot for most photographers. Higher res cameras seem to me to need tripods and much slower working speeds to maximize IQ. But, I think a complete system needs both. I think Canon will offer both, but we don't know when. Same with Nikon. One thing -- it seems to me that those two companies should involve themselves with some serious Photoshop plug-in company and commission specific software that can provide such things as demosaicing for their high res cameras, so they can get rid of the AA filter...A purpose-built piece of software that doesn't have to be applied to a multi-manufacturer range of cameras might be very interesting, if done by a serious company, and by serious, I don't mean the Nikon, Canon, or Sony software divisions.
I see some problems for the Canon from APS-C rivals like the D7000, which offers very similar resolution and high-ISO performance, at 1/4 the price. I don't fully understand Canon's pricing for this new camera. In fact, the biggest problem I see for this new camera may not involve performance, but perceived value. *What if* Nikon's next offering is a 30+ megapixel with D7000 ISO performance, followed by an updated D4 with performance similar to the Canon's. If you're buying a new system, which would you choose? Nikon may have stolen a competitive march here, depending, of course, on what they come up with.
Somebody here said they like the new camera because more pixels would mean more processing power, etc. I think that's a non-factor for most people - RAM is cheap and getting cheaper all the time. If your computer can't handle 30mp, you need a new computer, and if you're willing to spend almost $7,000 on a camera body, you can probably afford it.
-
But, is that a fact?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
Yes, it is a fact that it "would". :)
Besides, note that the D3x already is all of that today, minus a bit of compactness and weight. ;D
Now, the truth is that... I don't really care. To each your own and those who prefer shooting landscape with an MF camera should definitely do so.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So why is Canon promoting their new pro -sports/press- body while you have to wait 6 months before it is in the shops?
my guess:
A nikon D4 is coming very soon and Canon wants to tell the Canon guys… Hey we are almost there too with something for you- don't go away!
-
...
I see some problems for the Canon from APS-C rivals like the D7000, which offers very similar resolution and high-ISO performance, at 1/4 the price. I don't fully understand Canon's pricing for this new camera. In fact, the biggest problem I see for this new camera may not involve performance, but perceived value. *What if* Nikon's next offering is a 30+ megapixel with D7000 ISO performance, followed by an updated D4 with performance similar to the Canon's. If you're buying a new system, which would you choose? Nikon may have stolen a competitive march here, depending, of course, on what they come up with.
Somebody here said they like the new camera because more pixels would mean more processing power, etc. I think that's a non-factor for most people - RAM is cheap and getting cheaper all the time. If your computer can't handle 30mp, you need a new computer, and if you're willing to spend almost $7,000 on a camera body, you can probably afford it.
If you read the comments from Chuck Westfall, it would seem that the price on the 1DX is not yet set in stone.
What if the early announcement is part of their market research into what is an appropriate and acceptable price tag?
-
If you read the comments from Chuck Westfall, it would seem that the price on the 1DX is not yet set in stone.
What if the early announcement is part of their market research into what is an appropriate and acceptable price tag?
Hum... the way products are normally designed and priced is:
1. Spec definition, including the target price point based on various forms of market research
2. Design in parallel with process planning and sourcing -> actual fixed and variable costs
3. Market re-assessment to finalize the price based on actual cost and projected sales figures, themselves resulting from the level of expected perceived value for the customers, competitive situation, local economic situation,...
Phase 3 does exist but the degree of tuning possible compared to the target price point in phase 1 is rather limited for obvious reasons, probably rarely more than +/- 15-20%.
Canon lowering significantly the final release list price of the 1DX is therefore unlikely because it would essentially be a clear admission that the value for the customer is in fact lower than they expected it would be. Corporations typically don't do that, especially after performing what is close to a 180 degrees shift of philosophy to align themselves with the approach of their most fierce competitor.
Now, it could be that they maintain the list price but lower the dealer price which would result in a lower street price. This would be a similar failure in terms of design process, but would be less visible which would be important for a Japanese company like Canon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Emil,
With high end gear like this, I am not persuaded that smaller pixels on a smaller sensor help much for telephoto reach, though it is very appealing in my lower-budget realm. A full 36x24mm format sensor plus a 1.4x TC (and one stop increase in ISO speed) would very closely reproduce the performance of 1.3x smaller sensor with 1.3x smaller (so about one stop slower) photosites used with the same lenses. (Alright, a 1.3x TC would give an even closer match.
The main advantage of a smaller sensor in this sort of comparison is cost, so it seems that Canon now judges the extra cost of the larger sensor is not very significant in a body that is so expensive for other reasons. Maybe the cost reduction of not having two very high-end bodies wins out.
P.S. I join the prediction/ hope for a 5D Mk3 with higher res., good 100% coverage VF, etc. at somewhere under $3,000: for competing with DMF, the 5D class of bodies more than matches up for ruggedness, AF, metering, etc.
-
Emil,
With high end gear like this, I am not persuaded that smaller pixels on a smaller sensor help much for telephoto reach, though it is very appealing in my lower-budget realm. A full 36x24mm format sensor plus a 1.4x TC (and one stop increase in ISO speed) would very closely reproduce the performance of 1.3x smaller sensor with 1.3x smaller (so about one stop slower) photosites used with the same lenses. (Alright, a 1.3x TC would give an even closer match.
The main advantage of a smaller sensor in this sort of comparison is cost, so it seems that Canon now judges the extra cost of the larger sensor is not very significant in a body that is so expensive for other reasons. Maybe the cost reduction of not having two very high-end bodies wins out.
The major difference is image quality accross the frame. An APS sensor with a higher density of pixels will tap into the highest definition center part of the tele lens while a FF sensor coupled with a 1.4 converter will have significantly lower image corner quality. Whether that matters or not depends on the application, but it is something to be aware of.
P.S. I join the prediction/ hope for a 5D Mk3 with higher res., good 100% coverage VF, etc. at somewhere under $3,000: for competing with DMF, the 5D class of bodies more than matches up for ruggedness, AF, metering, etc.
I wouldn't consider MF as a satisfactory target in terms of physical ruggedness for many types of landscape work, very far from it. The D700 level is the least you should ask for.
I personally believe that Canon will have shot for that, but we'll only know for sure when the cameras are announced/delivered/tested in the field by actual landscape shooters.
There are for sure different types of landscape shooting. If you think grand canyon from the rim, a few hundreds of meters from a car when there isn't too much wind, then yes any camera will do... heck a naked sensor would almost cut it. If you think Japanese/New Zealand/US North West backcountry in a tent with high possibility of rain and/or snow... then ruggedness is not just important, it is actually essential.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The major difference is image quality accross the frame. An APS sensor with a higher density of pixels will tap into the highest definition center part of the tele lens while a FF sensor coupled with a 1.4 converter will have significantly lower image corner quality.
This "using the best part of the image by cropping" does not persuade me. Firstly, good telephoto lenses do not have much IQ fall-off across he frame: normal to wise lenses suffer this more. Secondly, the TC takes that good central part and enlarges it; it does not use the lower quality part from further off-axis. But if the use of a TC is a problem, there is also the option of using a longer, slower lens, like 400/4 vs 300/2.8, giving similar front element size, and differing mostly by extra diverging lens elements at the back of the 400/4. If anything, the higher f-stops that one gets to use with the larger sensor and it's higher usable ISO could reduce abberations and improve IQ.
P. S. my overall feeling is that format size should be chosen to get lenses that fit your speed and cost trade-offs with minimum F-stops in the sweet spot of around f/4 for zooms, f/2 to f/2.8 for primes. Using a smaller format that needs lower minimum f-stops makes abberations worse (and sacrifices DR when the f-stop is low enough to allow minimum ISO to be used); using a larger format and then having to use slower lenses like f/5.6 zooms to stay within a cost and weight budget just wastes the larger more expensive sensor by having to shoot at higher ISO too much of the time. (Of course I am a fan of formats smaller than either 36x24mm or "1.3x" because my wildlife lens budget ends at about 200/2.8 or 300/4, and yet I want up to "500mm equivalent" telephoto reach and beyond.)
-
There are a variety of tradeoffs. I would always rather have the lens bare rather than use a TC; there is a slight quality degradation, especially in bokeh, and AF performance definitely suffers (in part because Canon deliberately slows the AF travel when a TC is detected. So given the choice between a smaller sensor and the bare lens vs a larger sensor with a TC, I would prefer the former (assuming AF is adequate on the smaller sensor camera, which it has not been with Canon; don't have a 7D but understand that it is better than the xxD series while not quite up to 1D performance level). What I like about higher density is flexibility in framing through crop; rather than having to switch between an APS-C and APS-H body for reach, I have both in the larger frame sensor, and often when shooting action there is no time to switch. There is less chance of being caught with an unusable focal length. 40D density would be adequate for me, and the 1D4 has that, the 1Dx does not. And I don't want to trade my 500/4 for the 600/4.
A lot of this is down to personal preferences; those are mine. Other major issues for me are AF performance and pattern noise. Looks like Canon has made some effort on the former, time will tell if it has made strides on the latter (though I doubt it given the sensor design info available to date).
-
I'm also a bit worried about pattern noise. I hope they have taken it seriously this time around. As I use third-party raw developer software I am dependent on real sensor quality, not software fixups in Canon DPP to hide poor hardware quality. I use Canon and is probably not going to change due to lens investment. I refuse to be a fanboy of a company that lock in the customers and lock out third party development by secret protocols (Nikon etc is no better of course), so if they do something bad I say it :-). To me a high res 5Dmk3 with okay body would be good enough, but after reading this thread I realize that there are those that really need the sturdy 1D body and high res.
As a landscape photographer I am also hoping for an upgrade of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm (90 mm is sharp enough thanks to the focal length allow for simple design, I just want more flexible movements as on the new TS-E 17 and 24), I use tilt and shift quite extensively, and with more resolution on the sensor optimizing DOF with tilt becomes more important. Today I think Canon has an edge by having the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II, and they would strengthen that edge by upgrading the 45 and 90.
As a sidenote, it is interesting to see that Hasselblad has solved tilt/shift in their lens lineup by a teleconverter adapter with tilt and shift. Quite elegant, but if you are interested in maximum lens performance it is better with dedicated tilt/shift lenses, or have it builtin in the body as technical cameras.
-
Canon have discontinued the 1ds. Them saying otherwise is marketing BS.
With many professionals trying to save money by buying the 5D II, its sales cannibalised that of the 1ds. These sales to professionals were probably dwarfed by amateurs or semi pros buying the 5D in truck loads. The 1d line kept selling well due to the news and picture agencies buying in such bulk. And that left the 1ds with few sales - and Canon have killed it off.
So the professional news / agency guys have the 1dx.
Amatures or pros trying to save money have the 5d.
Professionals wanting to have high res, rugged build, the best AF, and being willing to pay for the main tool in their tool box ... have lost their camera.
I'm really hacked off with Canon - i'm not looking for a loss leader - but i do want support for the photographer who see's value in buying a professional camera with high MP, rather than than a company that is just a consumer brand, that just so happens to have a camera suited to picture and news agencies.
after reading this thread I realize that there are those that really need the sturdy 1D body and high res.
-
Hi,
My guess is that we may see a new Canon with 30+ MP much like the Nikon D800 (rumored to be released pretty soon). It may even be called EOS 3D.
Now, there is not a world of difference between 18 MP and 21 MP, so I guess that existing D1sIII users would be quite happy with the D1X, a very slight downgrade in resolution and probably some upgrade in image quality.
Best regards
Erik
Canon have discontinued the 1ds. Them saying otherwise is marketing BS.
With many professionals trying to save money by buying the 5D II, its sales cannibalised that of the 1ds. These sales to professionals were probably dwarfed by amateurs or semi pros buying the 5D in truck loads. The 1d line kept selling well due to the news and picture agencies buying in such bulk. And that left the 1ds with few sales - and Canon have killed it off.
So the professional news / agency guys have the 1dx.
Amatures or pros trying to save money have the 5d.
Professionals wanting to have high res, rugged build, the best AF, and being willing to pay for the main tool in their tool box ... have lost their camera.
I'm really hacked off with Canon - i'm not looking for a loss leader - but i do want support for the photographer who see's value in buying a professional camera with high MP, rather than than a company that is just a consumer brand, that just so happens to have a camera suited to picture and news agencies.
-
Hi,
My guess is that we may see a new Canon with 30+ MP much like the Nikon D800 (rumored to be released pretty soon). It may even be called EOS 3D.
Now, there is not a world of difference between 18 MP and 21 MP, so I guess that existing D1sIII users would be quite happy with the D1X, a very slight downgrade in resolution and probably some upgrade in image quality.
The thing is that 1DsIII is old and 1DX is new and will perhaps exist into 2016. 1DsIII was high res when it came, but now we are expecting more. Nikon D3x has shown that you can push the 135 format closer to medium format quality, and I think many hiking landscape photographers hoped for a continued effort to do so. 1DX is clearly not such an effort, and by discontinuing the 1Ds and not having a clear statement on what the intention is on the high res side people get worried. If Nikon do announce that rumoured 36 MP D800 without AA filter and Canon does not come up with any high res camera at all then there will be an interesting situation.
-
This new camera will be only available 6 months from now, so during this time Canon will gauge the reaction of the market, especially the pro-market, to which the 1 series caters to. They are most likely working on a high res camera, but are threading carefully, with the worldwide crisis and all.
It makes sense to merge the 1.3 and the FF sensor pro-camera lines, and Canon themselves have hinted at that more than once, in the past. 18 megapixels is certainly more than enough for PJ, sports, and even lots of landscape/fine art/advertising jobs, so the 1DX will cater for many professional photographers. They are at a point where they could finally manage to marry a FF high res sensor (18 megapixels) and fast frame rates.
What seems to indeed be "missing" is the "super high res" FF sensor, the "true" successor of the 1DS and 5D lines; I think that these two will be also merged, resulting in a camera that combines a "really high megapixel" FF sensor with pro-build quality and specs. To be honest, the 1DS cameras were just too big and heavy, why the incorporated power grip? Maybe Canon will take the best from the 5D/1DS/7D lines and create a new camera, with pro-build quality and specs, but with the size of the 5D or 7D. All they need to do is take the 5D and build it with the 1DS or 7D quality, updating the autofocus, metering, etc. It would be something like the 7D size and build, but with highres FF sensor.
Speaking for myself, I would be happy if they released such a camera; it is much better to lug around a "7D like camera" than the 1DS monster...
-
What I like about DSLRs is the versatility.
What I would like to see is a high res sensor with pixel binning. Say 36/18PM or something similar with no AA filter.
I could the shoot high res landscapes with my Zeiss primes and use high ISO pixel binning for wildlife with a big white super telephoto.
But perhaps I am dreaming. :)
-
Seems to me that every time we get a sensor with a pixel frequency going above a certain point that the quality goes backwards. Just a suggestion here. Has Canon perhaps not made a 36 or 39 or whatever MP sensor because it cannot be made at 24 X 36 mm?
In the past we didn't expect 35mm to do everything. Thats why we used MF and 4X5 or 8X10. We also didn't spend days bleating because the new Ilford or Kodak 35mm film was not a leap up into 8X10 quality.
You want more pixels then buy MFDB. You want high ISO and portability then use DSLR. You want it all in one camera? Good luck with that.
-
Facts please
So I am sorry, but the advise "canon user, buy an MF camera if you are not happy about the 18mp 1DX and stop bitching" is IMHO simply very poor advise that is not based on first hand experience shooting landscape more then a few 100 yards from a car.
Sorry, where exactly did I ask people to stop bitching? Where do I say if you are not happy...?
I've shot a P65+ for some time now and it blows anything dSLR I've tried out of the water. Colour, tonality, resolution. I've found nothing *in actual use* that can beat it. Trust me, if it did I would be using it. Why wouldn't I if it were cheaper, smaller, easier to use? More recently I've been using the IQ160, which is barely, noticeably different and the IQ180 which is in another league entirely. Bear in mind you can pick up a used P65 for £13K - the prices of these are coming down quite quickly.
Judging on previous backs, 16mp, 22mp and 30mp, it won't be long before 60mp, new, comes down in price and becomes a lot more accessible, perhaps even the standard. Hasselblad may be able to package an H4D-60 as they do now with the HD4-31 in a price point sub £10K complete. I'm sorry but an 18mp dSLR will NEVER be able to compete with that in too many regards for me to even consider it.
Even when it comes down to pixels alone. When the AD needs to crop the heck out of your shot because the client wants to change the direction of the campaign after it has been shot then you're really not going to go far on 18MP. 60 MP cropped down to 18MP looks great at double page. 18MP cropped down to 6 looks terrible at double page.
Shoot tethered with a team of AD's, CD's, Clients etc watching a 30" monitor. Do it with a P65 and then do it with an 18MP dslr. Watch their reaction when you zoom in to 100%....
18MP is limited and it seems by Canon's move and statement that this REPLACES as the flagship it may well be where the flagship dSLR may settle. I for one will not be going down this track, and you can argue till your blue in the face - MF is the way forward for demanding high end work and I say this as someone who was going to invest in the new 1Ds system and hoping for 30MP at least and I do indeed hope they produce something like the 3D describe in posts above for the times I need more mobility.
Canon made that camera for the people who bought the 1 series cameras and I bet the 1D outsold the 1Ds by a lot. It a subset
-
It is quite a large difference between a P65+ at 41x54mm and 60 MP and an entry level medium format hasselblad at 33x44mm and 31 MP.
I think the resolution limit for the 135 format is around 45 megapixels. For medium format it is probably around 100 megapixels. The main limiter for both formats is lens resolving power.
I really want to do medium format, but to be worth the disadvantages I want full-frame, 40+ megapixels and a technical camera with high resolution lenses. This is not cheap. The SLR-like low-cost medium format with sub 40 MP, crop sensor, and no camera movements is less interesting, it is too little difference compared to 135 format.
In 4 - 5 years the market may be different, but now it seems to me that it is too early to move to medium format. The attractive systems are too expensive, and the affordable ones offer too little, unless in the unlikely event that both Canon and Nikon decide to stop at ~20 megapixels.
What would be a really great development in medium format world would be a digital back with a great live view, with a ~300 ppi screen. Perhaps it is impossible with CCD technology, and perhaps too much termal noise problems, I don't know. Anyway, if you had a good live view, you could use traditional technical cameras with bellows and focus precisely, and no need for sliding back with ground glass and loupe etc. No need for expensive high precision helicon focusing lenses. Lower cost technical medium format systems could then be made. So far there is no medium format back that has a good live view though...
-
There are a variety of tradeoffs. I would always rather have the lens bare rather than use a TC ...
I completely agree, about trade-offs in general and TC avoidance in particular; I just wanted to point out that the arguments in favor of sensors of higher resolution (I mean lp/mm, not pixel count) are not as simple when one considers all the lens choice options. And overall, Canon's high end lens system is more adapted to the FOV choices it gives with 36x24mm ... but that is clearly not true for every photographer's needs.
For some, a better option might be a camera of the same resolution as the 1D Mk3 ( or even a bit higher), simply adding more pixels to fill the 36x24 frame. The biggest downside would be a lower frame-rate (Canon does seem to have fallen a bit behind Sony there). Frame rate could be restored with a Nikon-like high speed crop mode (1.3x "APS-H" mode, or more likely a 1.4x "virtual TC"), but that would have a low light handling disadvantage in situations where the larger format could use the same f-stop, like when a f/2.8 zoom would be used in either format.
This all seems to point to Canon's choice working better for most PJ and sports (so long as the big lenses can be used mostly at a fixed location), though another choice would serve some uses better, like wildlife photography when one seeks more portability without sacrificing camera ruggedness, telephoto reach, and such.
-
Seems to me that every time we get a sensor with a pixel frequency going above a certain point that the quality goes backwards. Just a suggestion here. Has Canon perhaps not made a 36 or 39 or whatever MP sensor because it cannot be made at 24 X 36 mm?
In the past we didn't expect 35mm to do everything. Thats why we used MF and 4X5 or 8X10. We also didn't spend days bleating because the new Ilford or Kodak 35mm film was not a leap up into 8X10 quality.
You want more pixels then buy MFDB. You want high ISO and portability then use DSLR. You want it all in one camera? Good luck with that.
My opinion coincides with yours, I'm with you to believe that extremely high resolution on FF sensors will negatively affect IQ! It will advance on the future in small steps as tech advances, but the larger angle that the light rays hit the sensor towards the edges and corners of the frame makes light reception from the pixel much more difficult. A larger pixel has a significant advantage on this as is one with less well depth and this exactly why I believe, that the DSLR in topic here by Canon will put all existing 1D Canons into shame IQ-wise. I also believe that all those rumors about 36mpx Nikons, are gonna stay rumors! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
My opinion coincides with yours, I'm with you to believe that extremely high resolution on FF sensors will negatively affect IQ!
The IQ180 has 5.17 um pixel pitch. That makes 32 megapixels on 135 format. The rumoured 36 MP is indeed high, but I would not consider it as crazy high. The pixel pitch will still be larger than on the typical APS-C camera.
I don't have enough technical knowledge but I would guess that medium format IQ advantage may be more due to CCD technology and focus on base ISO performance rather than they would have large pixels, because those new backs don't have... for the 135 format, video, live view and at least decent high ISO are so important features that it may affect base ISO performance.
-
the few people i know waiting on this camera are now not ordering one (myself included)
they want 60fps full HD and a sensor in the 30's with a pixel size similar to the 7d but full frame, better AF would be nice but not a deal breaker.
everyone wants different things from a camera and a lot of people will be upgrading but i'm going to have to wait for an 's' version if there is one.
hopefully nikon will force canon's hand here by releasing something soon with a similar spec.
-
Canon have discontinued the 1ds. Them saying otherwise is marketing BS.
I thought their press release was fairly unambiguous on this point.
"...the EOS-1D X will be a high-speed multimedia juggernaut replacing both the EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS-1D Mark IV models in Canon’s lineup."
-
Even when it comes down to pixels alone. When the AD needs to crop the heck out of your shot because the client wants to change the direction of the campaign after it has been shot then you're really not going to go far on 18MP. 60 MP cropped down to 18MP looks great at double page. 18MP cropped down to 6 looks terrible at double page.
how often would this occur? and would the AD use the 6MP crop out of 18 which looks terrible? if yes, then you shouldn't care either. if no, then what's the problem?
-
When DSLRs first came out, there was a definite uprising in technology in each successive generation ... to where each new season there was a marked gain in performance from the season before ... but now I think the "really noticeable" progress in image quality from DSLRs has reached a plateau ... so where does a camera company go from there?
we said this when 6mp dslrs arrived: who needs more? more than enough! and ibm told bill gates, some years ago: who needs a pc?
same old story, rg. reaching a plateau...
-
The IQ180 has 5.17 um pixel pitch. That makes 32 megapixels on 135 format. The rumoured 36 MP is indeed high, but I would not consider it as crazy high. The pixel pitch will still be larger than on the typical APS-C camera.
I don't have enough technical knowledge but I would guess that medium format IQ advantage may be more due to CCD technology and focus on base ISO performance rather than they would have large pixels, because those new backs don't have... for the 135 format, video, live view and at least decent high ISO are so important features that it may affect base ISO performance.
The light sensitive area is further back for MF, this decreases the problem since it eases out the reception angle (makes the pixel reception angle narrower), in FF the light sensitive area is at the same dinstanse from the lens mount as in APS-c, this magnifies the problem at the extra area that FF covers. Its not a matter of area, it's a matter of "pixel light reception angle/capability), I hope this helps. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I thought their press release was fairly unambiguous on this point.
"...the EOS-1D X will be a high-speed multimedia juggernaut replacing both the EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS-1D Mark IV models in Canon’s lineup."
So the press release says that they've 'replaced' the 1ds ... i would say that they've axed it.
I think that they should have the balls to say so, rather than 'spin it' as a replacement.
As someone else said, this camera will probably be in production till 2016 - which means that their 'professional line' of cameras would top out at 21-18 MP for 9 years ... that's not what i call 21st century progress! :o
-
The light sensitive area is further back for MF, this decreases the problem since it eases out the reception angle (makes the pixel reception angle narrower), in FF the light sensitive area is at the same dinstanse from the lens mount as in APS-c, this magnifies the problem at the extra area that FF covers. Its not a matter of area, it's a matter of "pixel light reception angle/capability), I hope this helps. Regards, Theodoros.
Ah, you mean the lens colour cast sometimes seen in medium format technical cameras? :-)
There is nothing that stops you from making a lens with longer tube and retrofocus if you want to, that is to put the closest lens elements farther away than the bayonet mount, which actually can be seen in many lenses. Having a short flange focal distance just gives you more flexibility in lens design. One advantage with technical view cameras is exactly that they have no mirror so you can put lens elements closer to the sensor, which can be an advantage for wide angle lenses. Actually you could not fit a Rodenstock wide angle digital lens on a Canon - the back of the lens would collide with the mirror - despite retrofocus design of the lens.
-
So the press release says that they've 'replaced' the 1ds ... i would say that they've axed it.
I think that they should have the balls to say so, rather than 'spin it' as a replacement.
As someone else said, this camera will probably be in production till 2016 - which means that their 'professional line' of cameras would top out at 21-18 MP for 9 years ... that's not what i call 21st century progress! :o
Well said, yes it seems that way indeed.
-
Ah, you mean the lens colour cast sometimes seen in medium format technical cameras? :-)
There is nothing that stops you from making a lens with longer tube and retrofocus if you want to, that is to put the closest lens elements farther away than the bayonet mount, which actually can be seen in many lenses. Having a short flange focal distance just gives you more flexibility in lens design. One advantage with technical view cameras is exactly that they have no mirror so you can put lens elements closer to the sensor, which can be an advantage for wide angle lenses. Actually you could not fit a Rodenstock wide angle digital lens on a Canon - the back of the lens would collide with the mirror - despite retrofocus design of the lens.
Not bad, not bad at all! But this is way out of what most of the users are prepared to do and even more, ...what do you do with ultra wide angles and how do you cope with the reduced resolution that the larger image circle will produce? Since I know that you ...know the answer, I propose to leave this for a private conversation, otherwise we may ...close the thread and annoy others that are not prepared to follow. :) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Canon Nov 4-5th.
I just got an invitation to this even from a cinema equipment house that I shop at for video things. I will attend friday (I live in LA).
I am thinking that this unveiling won't be a still camera.
Ken
-
Sorry, where exactly did I ask people to stop bitching? Where do I say if you are not happy...?
Sorry if I did put words in your mouth you had no intention to pronounce.
I've shot a P65+ for some time now and it blows anything dSLR I've tried out of the water.
What DSLRs have you tried?
I don't doubt the superiority of the P65+, IQ160 (same sensor) and IQ180, I doubt the value considering the price. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When DSLRs first came out, there was a definite uprising in technology in each successive generation ... to where each new season there was a marked gain in performance from the season before ... but now I think the "really noticeable" progress in image quality from DSLRs has reached a plateau ... so where does a camera company go from there?
Canon seems to be addressing a host of other real-world needs besides a bigger sensor, since image quality has pretty much become excellent across the board now.
Jack,
That is actually pretty funny.
There is nothing natural about reaching a plateau at 21mp and 11.5 stops of DR. If you had a broader view of the offerings out there from brands like Sony, Pentax and Nikon you would realize that the plateau is only real in the Canon world.
To my eyes, DR is the most important characteristics of a digital camera, and DR has never progressed as much in 10 years as in the last 3 years thanks to the D3x for FF, D7000/K7 for APS-C. How can that have remained un-noticed to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jack,
That is actually pretty funny.
There is nothing natural about reaching a plateau at 21mp and 11.5 stops of DR. If you had a broader view of the offerings out there from brands like Sony, Pentax and Nikon you would realize that the plateau is only real in the Canon world.
To my eyes, DR is the most important characteristics of a digital camera, and DR has never progressed as much in 10 years as in the last 3 years thanks to the D3x for FF, D7000/K7 for APS-C. How can that have remained un-noticed to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
A friend of mine used to say all the time: "Photography is all about DR", of course his reference is on the technical aspect, but isn't he right? I would even concentrate his saying to highlight DR only! The reason of my quote though is that you forgot to mention "The king of highlight DR", the DSLR called ...film(!) and of course the real reason of quoting is that you forgot the queen as well, ...her majesty Fuji S5pro! It looks though, that this new Dslr from Canon is gonna be different than before, I suspect its highlight DR is going to be close to reference by todays standards, its only a Hatch, but its oriented from the ...."Nikonish" approach to things, that this Canon looks to have. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Jack,
That is actually pretty funny.
There is nothing natural about reaching a plateau at 21mp and 11.5 stops of DR. If you had a broader view of the offerings out there from brands like Sony, Pentax and Nikon you would realize that the plateau is only real in the Canon world.
To my eyes, DR is the most important characteristics of a digital camera, and DR has never progressed as much in 10 years as in the last 3 years thanks to the D3x for FF, D7000/K7 for APS-C. How can that have remained un-noticed to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
It is a bit risky to quote DxoMark dynamic range numbers since they say almost nothing about actually usable photographic dynamic range. The 13.9 stop range of D7000 just means that at 13.9 stop the noise level is as high as the signal level, which of course is unusable in a photograph. At 18% SNR the noise is higher for D7000 than for the 5Dmk2, which only has 11.5 total range. 18% SNR is available on DxoMark and I think it is a better indicator on which sensor that has the better "photographic useful dynamic range". But it is not safe to use that either -- the 5Dmk2 has pattern noise which is disturbing to the eye so in total D7000 probably has better useful dynamic range anyway. (Pattern noise is not measured by DxoMark but is something that subjectively reduces DR greatly.)
The typical useful range is 7 stops or so if I remember correctly, and if it has improved significantly with the D3x etc I don't really know, perhaps it has, but DxOmark DR measurements cannot be used as the answer to that question, one have to make subjective tests. Expose a landscape scene manually ETTR at base ISO (bracket and check for clipping in postprocessing to make sure ETTR as much as possible, cameras don't have raw histograms so you cannot fully trust their histograms), and then push the shadows in a raw software (preferably in a third party developer that don't make any hidden software fixups of sensor problems) and make a subjective comparison. I haven't seen any such test (but perhaps there is somewhere, I'd like to have a link if so).
Most that do subjective tests use auto-exposure (and in the worst cases look only at camera-generated JPEGs) which means that the cameras that expose "safely" (leave much highlight room) will appear to have worse dynamic range than they have. Of what I have heard Nikon D7000 auto exposure exposes more to the right than what cameras use to, and will thus look like it has even more range than it has in such a test. I do think that the D7000 would win against most Canon cameras anyway. The Canon 7D useful dynamic range sucks badly due to pattern noise (I use a 7D quite much so I battle this problem quite often), and the 5Dmk2 has similar problem but not as large. It shall be interesting to see if they have addressed the problem in 1D-X.
Medium format backs are often said to have a lot more useful dynamic range than 135 cameras. It would be interesting to see an fair and exact comparison there. The extra sensor size should only give a minor advantage in photon shot noise reduction, so the rest of the claimed extra range must come from superior sensor/electronics, or imagination ;-).
-
So the press release says that they've 'replaced' the 1ds ... i would say that they've axed it.
I think that they should have the balls to say so, rather than 'spin it' as a replacement.
As someone else said, this camera will probably be in production till 2016 - which means that their 'professional line' of cameras would top out at 21-18 MP for 9 years ... that's not what i call 21st century progress! :o
I don't want to disagree with you, but I don't think they are trying to 'spin' anything. They say replace, and that surely means the 1Ds will be 'axed' if you like. How can they make it clearer? What we do not know yet is what other cameras they will bring out in the coming months that may be better for your purpose than a 1Ds if, as I assume, you want more megapixels. If you think Canon will not have a 'professional' camera of more than 18MP for the next 5 years I think you will turn out to be wrong. It just will not be a 1Ds.
Jim
-
I am afraid that I will prove to be right after all, Canon did the right thing, but in the mean time has created a huge market support that they taught it otherwise. This market may have an unpredictable reaction, ...because they were taught otherwise! So, ...after all, although the company could see the catastrophe coming and they reacted with a superb product, it may prove that their market simply wished as they were taught up to now! History will prove the rest, I wish I am wrong... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
If you look at the history of Canon's 1D and 1Ds there has been a tendency of roughly double up of resolution.
1D Mark II = 8.2MP
1Ds Mark II = 16.7MP
1D Mark III = 10MP
1Ds Mark III = 21MP
However 1DMIV came in 2009 and then 1DMX in 2011 with no update on 1Ds line. At first I thought Canon was just pushing 1DMX on the marked for the Olympics, announcing a 1DsMIII replacement later on. But it looks like the 1Ds line stops here, the price tag of the X model is about the same as the 1DsMIII was.
I think Canon is doing the right thing with merging them, allot of people were unhappy with their 1DsMIII purchase when 5DMII appeared one year after, with very similar output files and even more features.
It is clear that 5DMII has been and still is a huge seller, I think they are going to reacting on that. Up the price on a updated 5DMII as they have done with the update of 1DMIV with 1DMX.
Think about it, Canon will sell boat loads of 1DMX to people replacing a old 1D for the price of the 1Ds. The same might happen with 5DMII update, if they up the features a little more than we might have anticipated, they will get away with a higher price tag on the 5DMII replacement as well.
If you ask me I think this is good for every one, lets see what they really do, I might be totally wrong...
-
Many people here are writing as though it's a universal truth that 18MP should be enough for any professional DSLR user, and that the market for a new, say, 32MP 1Ds is too small to justify it. I think that if there was a market for a 16MP 1Ds in 2004 and a 21MP 1Ds in 2007, then there's a market for a 32MP 1Ds now, whatever it's called. Both of those cameras were initially offered at $8,000, and I think enough people would pay that now for a 32MP 1Ds.
I have to agree with a previous poster who said essentially that it is not possible that Canon has forever maxed out at 18MP or 21MP for their professional DSLRs. We'll just have to wait and see what they come out with next.
-
As you know from my other comments, I was also very upset when Canon announced the 1DX as the replacement for the 1Ds - but then I remembered something an industry friend told me last month.
I have a friend who as always been very accurate in his predictions on Canon gear in the past. So I asked him last month what he has heard. He did not mention the 1Dx camera, but said Canon is going to introduce a 32MP camera next year that will be a larger format than 35mm, retailing for about $10K. Although he is usually right in his predictions, in this case I doubted that they would come out with a completely new format. But now after this announcement of the death of the 1Ds - maybe that is indeed the plan. Maybe along the lines of the Leica S2 size sensor? Or maybe a mirror-less box like RED's MF plans? In any event it sounds crazy but maybe they will surprise us.
Maybe Canon's serious move into the cine camera business next week in Hollywood will shed some light on their other plans?
-
As you know from my other comments, I was also very upset when Canon announced the 1DX as the replacement for the 1Ds - but then I remembered something an industry friend told me last month.
I have a friend who as always been very accurate in his predictions on Canon gear in the past. So I asked him last month what he has heard. He did not mention the 1Dx camera, but said Canon is going to introduce a 32MP camera next year that will be a larger format than 35mm, retailing for about $10K. Although he is usually right in his predictions, in this case I doubted that they would come out with a completely new format. But now after this announcement of the death of the 1Ds - maybe that is indeed the plan. Maybe along the lines of the Leica S2 size sensor? Or maybe a mirror-less box like RED's MF plans? In any event it sounds crazy but maybe they will surprise us.
Maybe Canon's serious move into the cine camera business next week in Hollywood will shed some light on their other plans?
That would require tying up hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to create a medium format camera, and the lenses for it, etc. and to market it so that just is not going to happen, because they would likely never recoup the investment or even in the best case scenario recoup it in a timely manner and then start turning a profit on it. Canon is fundamentally a conservative company and I cannot see anyone in management seriously proposing that Canon's board of directors pull that trigger. While I personally would love that camera or that to happen to see that idea come to fruition, I wouldn't bet on it: the world-wide market is just too small to justify it. But I do not doubt that they have the technological chops to do it.
Canon's Photographic Group is in the business to generate profits, not commit suicide.
-
Jack,
That is actually pretty funny.
Why so?
There is nothing natural about reaching a plateau at 21mp and 11.5 stops of DR. If you had a broader view of the offerings out there from brands like Sony, Pentax and Nikon you would realize that the plateau is only real in the Canon world.
Your fanboyism of Nikon is clear as day, and that's fine Bernard, but none of us has had the opportunity to actually see the results of this new camera. You're also a$$uming that 21 mpx with an old sensor is better than an 18mpx camera with newer technology. I don't think you are correct in this a$$sumption, as I will bet the future will reflect.
To my eyes, DR is the most important characteristics of a digital camera, and DR has never progressed as much in 10 years as in the last 3 years thanks to the D3x for FF, D7000/K7 for APS-C. How can that have remained un-noticed to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
Who said this was un-noticed by me, and why do you keep making up belief systems for me? Can I get your permission to think my own thoughts and form my own beliefs, please, while at the same time may I ask you only to relay your own?
This basic premise out of the way, Bernard, did you actually read Canon's description of their new camera? Here: I will present it to you:
(Canon technical advisor, Chuck Westfall) finally concludes: 'If you had to highlight just one thing, I'd say the sensor. It's a new level for us in terms of image quality ... The pixel size is larger than in the 1DS III or 5D Mark II (6.95 microns, versus 6.4) and the difference is even more striking compared to the 5.7 micron pixels in the 1D Mark IV. That helps us in terms of light capturing ability and increases the signal to noise ratio. In turn, that does nothing but help the dynamic range of the camera.''
Maybe you ought to stop jumping to conclusions so fast, Bernard, and wait to see what the facts are before forming your opinions. All we have to go on at this point is what the Canon reps are saying, and they seem confident enough in their new camera to do away with their other ones.
Therefore, at this point, all we can do is wait and see.
Jack
.
-
That would require tying up hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to create a medium format camera, and the lenses for it, etc. and to market it so that just is not going to happen, because they would likely never recoup the investment or even in the best case scenario recoup it in a timely manner and then start turning a profit on it. Canon is fundamentally a conservative company and I cannot see anyone in management seriously proposing that Canon's board of directors pull that trigger. While I personally would love that camera or that to happen to see that idea come to fruition, I wouldn't bet on it: the world-wide market is just too small to justify it. But I do not doubt that they have the technological chops to do it.
Canon's Photographic Group is in the business to generate profits, not commit suicide.
This is absolutely correct, but do remember that there are the now abandoned premises and equipment of Contax in Japan, the existing mount of which (N mount) is fully compatible with Canon! Conorus in Canada, not only converts any Contax N lens to Canon with full compatibility to all modes and AF, but they convert the C645 adapter to the N cameras, to fit Canon as well, thus making all the C645 lenses fully compatible with Canon. Since there is an existing line of lenses of superb quality there and surely there is some benefit for Kyocera and Zeiss if the MF line reoccurs, Canon is the most compatible company to have a deal with... Just a (crazy?) thought but surely not as expensive and risky as starting from scratch. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S.1 Of course Canon is a sensor manufacturer.... and if they had superb MF (the best?), compatibility would force their MF customers, to stick with them in DSLRs than competition (cost reasons). Just another (crazy?) thought.
P.S.2 I am using C645 with 12 lenses and MFDB. I also use Nikon FF and APS-c with 14 lenses. If this camera proves to be what I want in highlight DR, I will switch to Canon and will buy the Conorus adapter, not because I'm not satisfied with Nikon, but purely for compatibility reasons!
-
Your fanboyism of Nikon is clear as day, and that's fine Bernard, but none of us has had the opportunity to actually see the results of this new camera. You're also a$$uming that 21 mpx with an old sensor is better than an 18mpx camera with newer technology. I don't think you are correct in this a$$sumption, as I will bet the future will reflect.
In terms of resolution at least, it seems reasonable to assume that 18mp will not be significantly superior to 21mp. But this was absolutely not my point.
I did also not comment on the performance of the new Canon that I think will be outstanding. My reaction is only about your comment saying that DSLRs performance had reached a plateau. The rest is assumption on your end about what I think about Canon of the 1DX.
Who said this was un-noticed by me, and why do you keep making up belief systems for me? Can I get your permission to think my own thoughts and form my own beliefs, please, while at the same time may I ask you only to relay your own?
This basic premise out of the way, Bernard, did you actually read Canon's description of their new camera? Here: I will present it to you:
(Canon technical advisor, Chuck Westfall) finally concludes: 'If you had to highlight just one thing, I'd say the sensor. It's a new level for us in terms of image quality ... The pixel size is larger than in the 1DS III or 5D Mark II (6.95 microns, versus 6.4) and the difference is even more striking compared to the 5.7 micron pixels in the 1D Mark IV. That helps us in terms of light capturing ability and increases the signal to noise ratio. In turn, that does nothing but help the dynamic range of the camera.''
Maybe you ought to stop jumping to conclusions so fast, Bernard, and wait to see what the facts are before forming your opinions. All we have to go on at this point is what the Canon reps are saying, and they seem confident enough in their new camera to do away with their other ones.
Again, nothing is my comment is about the 1DX.
I also didn't make any assumption on your belief system I just quoted your own comment that "DSLR quality had reached a plateau". No, they did not, other company have been progressing a lot in the last 3 years and you would understand that no plateau has been reached if you knew that.
Did I write that Canon didn't progress now with the 1DX? No, I just wrote that others had already progressed enough that it seems now reasonnable to assume they can go higher pixel count wise than 18MP while maintaining the performance on what I think is the most important metric, DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In terms of resolution at least, it seems reasonable to assume that 18mp will not be significantly superior to 21mp. But this was absolutely not my point.
I don't know enough about the new technology to assume if this is reasonable or not.
However, you did seem to imply that this camera would somehow have less dynamic range, and yet the company states it will have more dynamic range and better overall images, with less mpx. You are also overlooking a whole host of other professional considerations that this camera has, that others brands do not.
I did also not comment on the performance of the new Canon that I think will be outstanding. My reaction is only about your comment saying that DSLRs performance had reached a plateau. The rest is assumption on your end about what I think about Canon of the 1DX.
Why do you think it is unreasonable for the capabilities to have reached a plateau? A DSLR cannot be "all things camera," and there is no 'one' camera that can do it all. Do you know of a camera that excels in every single respect? I sure don't.
By "plateau," I mean no 'one' camera can be rugged, compact, have razor-sharp AF, shoot multiple frames at blazing speed, have incredible low-light capacity, all the while having the largest sensor possible, producing the biggest files possible. Something's gotta give.
It seems that Canon felt that 18mpx were "enough," and that to keep their flagship camera the overall best and most versatile tool ... in other important ways ... they had to have a cut-off point on mpx, beyond which magnitude would slow-down the camera, rendering it less effective in other ways. It is now FF, and it has an improved sensor to get more out of 18mpx than the previous versions got out of the 20+ range.
So, yes, there is a plateau in mpx if you expect your camera to excel in other, relevant ways.
I also didn't make any assumption on your belief system I just quoted your own comment that "DSLR quality had reached a plateau". No, they did not, other company have been progressing a lot in the last 3 years and you would understand that no plateau has been reached if you knew that.
I disagree.
Can a Hasselblad shoot 14 frames-per-second?
Can your D3x?
How about the Sony?
Do any of these cameras have superior low-light capability, 61 Af points, the best video capabilities of any DSLR, and a 400,000 shutter life?
So, again Bernard, we're talking about more than just mpx here. Not every professional has "super-high mpx" as their primary goal.
Did I write that Canon didn't progress now with the 1DX? No, I just wrote that others had already progressed enough that it seems now reasonnable to assume they can go higher pixel count wise than 18MP while maintaining the performance on what I think is the most important metric, DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
Once again, you're only talking about mpx and DR. These things are important, I agree with you, and the company claims to have surpassed every other iteration of its arsenal in BOTH of these regards ... on top of ... also offering more AF points, a 400,000 shutter life, 14 fps shooting, professional videography capabilities, plus a whole host of other advancements.
Ultimately, this camera may not have quite the image quality of your D3x (or it might, who knows?), but it will be able to do a whole host of other, vital professional chores a quite a bit better than what your camera can. The truth is, most people will not be able to tell the difference between a shot taken by the 1DX shot and a shot taken by the D3x, side-by-side. Yet any professional most assuredly will be able to tell the difference between 14fps and 5 fps, not to mention the unparalleled video recording capabilities, plus the many other key features that will make the new Canon and all-around superior tool to the D3x.
Will this camera be able to shoot a static scene at the same quality shots as a Hasselblad? No.
But as an all-around sports, wildlife, and action camera, it will have no equal anywhere.
Jack
.
-
Different people have different needs and wants from a camera, but this is the kind of photography I do: I shoot 99% of the time at ISO 100. I don't need high ISOs. I shoot 99% of the time in single shot mode. I don't need high FPS. My goal is large prints (17" wide paper) at the highest possible resolution, ideally a minimum of 300 DPI. I would love to have an entire MF setup, but I just can't afford it. I can just about afford my 1DsIII and a couple of really good Canon lenses, and with that I almost reach my DPI goal on 17" paper. So while I have no doubt that the 1DX is a phenomenal camera which will make many photographers very happy, I don't think it's enough to get me to upgrade.
I'm really hoping Canon has something else up their sleeve coming up in the near future. But at the same time I'm very happy with my 1DsIII. My only serious complaint is that manual focus on the low resolution LCD in Live View is an exercise in frustration. Frankly, if Canon had come out with a 1DsIV with the high resolution LCD, HDMI output, and even a slight bump in resolution (24MP, say), that might have been enough for me. But for 18MP I just don't see the point.
I agree with you. People have different needs, but I suspect that most landscape photographers and many others shoot in the 100-400 ISO range 90% of the time. And so if you own a IDs3 like I do, there is no way to rationalize an upgrade to the 1Dx. I seriously doubt that the difference in IQ within that ISO range would be observable in a print, and so it really comes down to how much of your shooting is in relative darkness where this new camera's advantages become apparent. In high or low light, I use a tripod for much of the work I do to get the best possible image, and so even with a 1Dx, handheld shots in low light would be rare in my case. In sum, if you are a journalist, sports photographer or perhaps a wedding photographer I can see merit in the 1Dx. Otherwise, there is no compelling advantage of this camera over the 1Ds3. I don't see the 1Dx as a real leap forward for Canon, but rather a attempt to reduce manufacturing and marketing costs by taking a firm step toward the middle of the pro market.
-
I don't know enough about the new technology
You're also a$$uming that 21 mpx with an old sensor is better than an 18mpx camera with newer technology. I don't think you are correct in this a$$sumption, as I will bet the future will reflect
Maybe you ought to stop jumping to conclusions so fast, Bernard, and wait to see what the facts are before forming your opinions.
Therefore, at this point, all we can do is wait and see.
Here's a man who knows how to contradict himself:
It is now FF, and it has an improved sensor to get more out of 18mpx than the previous versions got out of the 20+ range. So, yes, there is a plateau in mpx if you expect your camera to excel in other, relevant ways.
The truth is, most people will not be able to tell the difference between a shot taken by the 1DX shot and a shot taken by the D3x, side-by-side.
Will this camera be able to shoot a static scene at the same quality shots as a Hasselblad? No.
But as an all-around sports, wildlife, and action camera, it will have no equal anywhere.
How childish, Mr. Koemer...please grow up.
-
Will this camera be able to shoot a static scene at the same quality shots as a Hasselblad? No.
But as an all-around sports, wildlife, and action camera, it will have no equal anywhere.
Jack
Quite a ridiculous statement. Your statement means that this Canon model will be the best sports, wildlife and action camera of all time...no future camera will be able to surpass it. LOL. I imagine that after reading your statement, stocks of all camera makers will plummet! There is no reason to continue competing. ::)
-
I have been holding out for some time to see a replacement for the 1Ds3, and as attractive as this camera is, it's not what I wanted. That being said, I think it would be perfect for the majority of the work I do. Yes, I know that is a contradiction, but let me explain.
The 1D X will work perfectly for portraits (my main subject), especially when there are children. I don't usually shoot sports, but I do sometimes need to shoot live music in dim conditions. With improved AF, metering and high iso, this camera would work very well. My hope is that they release a high res body (perhaps a 3d?) built like a 1 series but in a smaller package (I actually prefer the full size 1 series cameras, but I doubt that a non 1 series will be built that way). That way they can keep the 5D as a base model full frame, and have a well built, smaller, slower, higher resolution version of the 1 series in the 28-32mp range would suit me, but if they keep the quality high enough at base iso, I don't mid them adding more pixels than that. I mostly want the high res camera for landscape work for the next 3-4 years. Hopefully after that I can afford a used back and an alpa with a few lenses for my landscapes.
-
After digesting the announcement, making up my mind in the last fews days and reading this thread i felt to share my thoughts [which might turn out BS].
Canon merging the 1D/s line tells me that the sports/journalist/videographers 1D line is where Canon sees the major sales, and needed to announce the 1Dx for the Olympics in time [beating Nikon with an annoucement to tell the photography world that Canon still is king of the road].
With a FF sensor, 12fps and great high ISO all three segments are well served, and if you need more reach, either buy longer lenses or crop, Canon seems to think.
Maybe a Canon 1DX MKII will offer an in-camera crop factor [see Nikon] when the sensor again reaches more MP in its next iteration.
[Right now, to offer a crop of lets say 15MP is not that exiting, but i think they should have done it, anyway].
After the 5DMKII cannibalized the 1Ds sales the percentage of 1D to 1Ds went even more south. Same image quality, more features - pros also have to look after their $.
Having two flagship cameras no more made sense to Canon.
The death of the 1Ds lineup was planned years ago, when the 5DMKII was on its way to market. Units were built on demand, times with no stock levels showed that Canon kept it very low...
The 5DMKIII [or a 3D, who knows] will take the place of the 1Ds as a high-res sensor camera.
To think that Canon stopped the pixel race, is wrong imho.
This new camera with a more rugged body - the competition offers better sealed, rugged bodies at that price range as of now - but no included grip, will be a great tool for landscape shooters, and users looking for a more lightweight option.
Increase the prize of the MKIII and justify it by giving users a better AF and rugged body [Canon seams to increase their prices continuously for lenses due to higher costs, margins].
5DMKIII for $3499-3799, lets say?
Also possible is making the 5DMIII the new videographer focused camera [the 5dMKII started the craze] and a new line, 3D, going 30+ MP...
This product line transition will show its face with the next camera announced [sooner than later], to think Canon has nothing else planned with their lineup, is wrong imho.
Feedback welcome.
-
Quite a ridiculous statement. Your statement means that this Canon model will be the best sports, wildlife and action camera of all time...no future camera will be able to surpass it. LOL. I imagine that after reading your statement, stocks of all camera makers will plummet! There is no reason to continue competing. ::)
More like: quite a ridiculous twist on your part of what I actually said.
Of the current cameras, I do believe the Canon will stand out for the reasons already stated.
However, I spoke nothing of "all time," of the possibilities for future cameras, of stocks plummeting, nor of any other silliness that you said.
These were entirely the fabrications of your own mind.
Jack
.
-
Here's a man who knows how to contradict himself:
I see your point here ... I fell into the same prognostication trap ... so well taken.
How childish, Mr. Koemer...please grow up.
You need to get real.
The truth is, every time a brand new "Flagship" product comes out from any major photography company, all of us as photographers tend get a little excited to see what new advances there are (like kids), and there is nothing wrong with either excitement or expectation.
However, to try to put on airs and act otherwise is ingenuine.
Jack
.
-
Hi,
I guess that it could be that the mysterious 5DIII may be the 1Ds replacement. The 1DX is intended for folks needing high ISO, high FPS and very solid body. A cheaper, lighter and slower specified body for those needing high resolution. May make sense.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I am surprised that no one can see that this is the replacement for the 1DS and everybody is addressing the reasoning (of not being the replacement) to the insignificant decrease of the mpx count of the camera! The downsize was done to improve IQ in all aspects of photography, resolution included. The later is because the insignificant loss of 8% in resolution, means that a print made at 200dpi with one camera, the same print would have been done at 216dpi with the other, the difference in dpi is insignificant to produce a visible reduction in quality, but experience has proven that you print better from better pixel definition. Its the same like printing an image from a MFDB of say 16mpx and then print with say a 1DS3 at the same size of print, the DB will beat it, although it will print at less dpi. In fact I expect to see the 5d3 with the same or similar sensor, I make this quote, because we had that previous discussion about what size of pixel is the perfect one (in todays tech) and although our thoughts (you thinking of considerably less size than my thinking) are both motivated by instinct and up to now experience, I feel that with Nikon (4 years ago) and now Canon deciding on lower res sensors than (most) people expected, it seems to me that sensor construction is not as advanced as you think to create a HQ image and retain high mpx density at the same time. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Here's a man who knows how to contradict himself:
How childish, Mr. Koemer...please grow up.
I don't see any reasoning from you on Mr. Koemer's correct quotes... just an unjustified attack without any reasoning, can you please comment on where you do disagree on his comments, why he doesn't know how to contradict himself and what makes him appear a kid that has to grow up? Are you just another one that confused his screen with your mirror? Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
We are all just going to wait and see:
a) how good same size prints actually are from the 1D X vs the 1Ds MkIII at low ISO. It is pretty difficult to make judgements on numbers and theories
b) if Canon do bring something out with significantly higher resolution or not
and
c) what the competition (Nikon and Sony in particular) bring out next to replace D700, D3s, and D3X - and of course how these new cameras compare to the 1D X once they eventuate.
It doesnt make it easy with a new camera announced, but having to wait months to see what it is actually like. Just gives us time to speculate without seeing what this machine is actually capable of. Oh well, time will tell.
-
Quite a ridiculous statement. Your statement means that this Canon model will be the best sports, wildlife and action camera of all time...no future camera will be able to surpass it. LOL. I imagine that after reading your statement, stocks of all camera makers will plummet! There is no reason to continue competing. ::)
Quite a ridiculous statement. When did you last read "logic" by Aristoteles (the inventor of logic as science)? You have twisted everything that the man (correctly) quoted. Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
-
I am looking forward to the new chip design. I still prefer the IQ from my 1Ds2 over my 1Ds3.
-
I don't see any reasoning from you on Mr. Koemer's correct quotes... just an unjustified attack without any reasoning, can you please comment on where you do disagree on his comments, why he doesn't know how to contradict himself and what makes him appear a kid that has to grow up? Are you just another one that confused his screen with your mirror? Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Maybe it's the English, Theodoros, as others who have replied to you in the past have pointed out. And regarding the contradiction, Mr. Koerner has already replied:
I see your point here ... I fell into the same prognostication trap ... so well taken.
A new word for you: Epistemology. Poor Aristotle doesn't stand a chance.
-
I do hope that someone will produce high-resolution 135 format sensor, Canon or Nikon, preferably around 5 µm pixel pitch that this about 34 megapixels so we can actually see how such as sensor will perform. It seems like large pixel pitch is an advantage for lowlight photography, and even if it was not the photon shot noise will naturally limit the resolution so a high pixel count would be meaningless. It is also hard to exceed about 12 megapixels in sharpness if the camera is handheld. Obviously the 1D-X sensor aims at these applications and I think it will be very good at it.
However, I will be surprised if this sensor provides anything extra at base ISO. At base ISO you can have smaller pixel pitch and still have good dynamic range. As I have mentioned before the Phase One IQ180 actually has only about 5 µm pixel pitch, and it's dynamic range is said to be good. That Canon marketing says 1D-X sensor is an improvement in image quality regardless of ISO may be true compared to their own sensors which has had dynamic range problems compared to the competition, mainly due to pattern noise. I don't think it will produce a better ISO100 photos than the Nikon D3x from 2008.
Looking at the previous generation Nikon D3x (small pixel pitch, specialised at high res) vs D3s (large pixel pitch, specialised at lowlight), the sensors have similar noise levels and dynamic range at base ISO, which one is better I dare not say, there are so many things you can do wrong when comparing sensors with different pixel pitch (usually to the disadvantage for the sensr with smaller pixels), but it is clear that there is not a huge difference despite very large difference in pixel size. The D3x loses at high ISO of course, but if you shoot mainly at base ISO from a tripod clearly a big pixel size is not what you need. Unless there is some revolutionary new technology in the new 1D-X sensor which provides radically improved dynamic range at base ISO and this only works with large pixels. That could be the case, but I don't think it is likely.
-
That would require tying up hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to create a medium format camera, and the lenses for it, etc. and to market it so that just is not going to happen, because they would likely never recoup the investment or even in the best case scenario recoup it in a timely manner and then start turning a profit on it. Canon is fundamentally a conservative company and I cannot see anyone in management seriously proposing that Canon's board of directors pull that trigger. While I personally would love that camera or that to happen to see that idea come to fruition, I wouldn't bet on it: the world-wide market is just too small to justify it. But I do not doubt that they have the technological chops to do it.
Canon's Photographic Group is in the business to generate profits, not commit suicide.
Sadly, I do agree with you. But I thought I should at least pass on the info from who used to be a very reliable source.
-
Erik, I am surprised that no one can see that this is the replacement for the 1DS and everybody is addressing the reasoning (of not being the replacement) to the insignificant decrease of the mpx count of the camera! The downsize was done to improve IQ in all aspects of photography, resolution included. The later is because the insignificant loss of 8% in resolution, means that a print made at 200dpi with one camera, the same print would have been done at 216dpi with the other, the difference in dpi is insignificant to produce a visible reduction in quality, but experience has proven that you print better from better pixel definition. Its the same like printing an image from a MFDB of say 16mpx and then print with say a 1DS3 at the same size of print, the DB will beat it, although it will print at less dpi. In fact I expect to see the 5d3 with the same or similar sensor, I make this quote, because we had that previous discussion about what size of pixel is the perfect one (in todays tech) and although our thoughts (you thinking of considerably less size than my thinking) are both motivated by instinct and up to now experience, I feel that with Nikon (4 years ago) and now Canon deciding on lower res sensors than (most) people expected, it seems to me that sensor construction is not as advanced as you think to create a HQ image and retain high mpx density at the same time. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
You can justify it all you like but I don't think anyone using their 1Ds for landscapes, architecture or aerials is going to replace their camera with the 1Dx. The 1Ds does a fine job now and all I want is more megapixels so when I make large prints, there is more detail not less. If it's not possible to make a 35mm sensor with more MP and maintain good quality, then that's that, and off to MF we go. But I'll wait to see what Sony and Nikon do before taking that leap.
-
A new word for you: Epistemology. Poor Aristotle doesn't stand a chance.
Very bright!!! ;D Did you know HE created the word? :-X Pathetic (another creation of his - in fact you don't speak Greek most of the time, you speak (poor) Aristotelian)! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
You can justify it all you like but I don't think anyone using their 1Ds for landscapes, architecture or aerials is going to replace their camera with the 1Dx. The 1Ds does a fine job now and all I want is more megapixels so when I make large prints, there is more detail not less. If it's not possible to make a 35mm sensor with more MP and maintain good quality, then that's that, and off to MF we go. But I'll wait to see what Sony and Nikon do before taking that leap.
If somebody will replace his camera is a different subject, perhaps (from interest point of view) he would be right not to, but what I was saying is that you may print in less megapixels and still have better quality and detail if you have a better camera. Otherwise, a good crop from a D700 would be worse than a cell phone, which of course it isn't. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
You can justify it all you like but I don't think anyone using their 1Ds for landscapes, architecture or aerials is going to replace their camera with the 1Dx. The 1Ds does a fine job now and all I want is more megapixels so when I make large prints, there is more detail not less. If it's not possible to make a 35mm sensor with more MP and maintain good quality, then that's that, and off to MF we go. But I'll wait to see what Sony and Nikon do before taking that leap.
I'll be keeping my 1Ds3 thank you very much. The 1Dx does not provide a compelling value proposition over a 1Ds3, especially for those who already own a 1Ds3. It seems we have reached a plateau in terms of the resolution/IQ trade-off. My guess is that a 21 Mp 1Ds3 print of Grand Canyon shot at 200 ISO on 17x22 paper is going to look every bit as good or better as a similar 1Dx file. I won't be shooting handheld shots in total darkness so the 1Dx has absolutely no use to me.
-
My guess is that a 21 Mp 1Ds3 print of Grand Canyon shot at 200 ISO on 17x22 paper is going to look every bit as good or better as a similar 1Dx file.
This is I believe the crux of the debate for current 1DSMK3 landscape shooters (myself included). For shooters like myself that are on a tripod 90% of the time, mirror lock up and cable release and pretty much locked at ISO100 there is little compelling reason on the surface of it to jump to the 1DX because of its lower (by a bit - technical term ;D) mega pixels.
A 1DSMK3 file printed will I believe be virtually if not totally indistinguishable from a 1DX file - provided the ISO is low (probably sub 800); leaving little to no reason to jump to the 1DX. Remember that fascinating comparison Michael did with a Canon G10 (I think it was) vs. a Phase P65+ in print? Well.. virtually no one picked the difference in 13 x 19 prints and those that did, did so because they recognised the depth of field differences. Between a 1DSMK3 and 1DX we are talking a significantly smaller margin - no way will anyone pick it in print at low ISO.
That said.. the 1DX will blow the 1DSMK3 out of the water at high ISO and in the FPS department. If those are important to you then that is a compelling reason to jump to the new model. I suspect Sports shooters are over the moon with the 1DX, as will be photojournalists. Heck, even for wildlife this camera is going to be killer. Its just not a replacement for a 1DSMK3 shooter who is focused on contemplative landscape.
So.. what is the 1DSMK3 landscape shooter to do?
Option 1 - continue shooting the 1DSMK3 (it aint broke!)
Option 2 - Jump to MFDB (and drop some serious coin in the process)
Option 3 - Wait for a 1DX's' (or whatever Canon decide to call it - if it comes)
I'll take Option 1 thanks and see if Option 3 eventuates over the next 6-12 months. With the caveat, that as yet I have not seen any RAW files from the 1DX - until such time as I do I reserve all right to reconsider my options. ::)
-
.
I'll take Option 1 thanks and see if Option 3 eventuates over the next 6-12 months. With the caveat, that as yet I have not seen any RAW files from the 1DX - until such time as I do I reserve all right to reconsider my options. ::)
That's my view too.
I went from a 1D II 8mp to 1DS III @21mp. This was a good gain in resolution plus good improvements all round.
But going back to 18MP just doesn't appeal.
I'll just wait and see what else Canon has to offer in the next 12 months.
-
Did you know HE created the word?
The term was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frederick_Ferrier. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. Another word: Irony.
-
Hi,
Smaller pixels always look bad when you compare at actual pixels, but if you resize both images to a given size the playing field is more level. Smaller pixels will have better detail (assuming similar frame size).
Diglloyd has compared Nikon D3 and Nikon D3X at different ISOs and there was little difference if both images were scaled to same resolution.
The way it used to be Nikon D3 and all Canons used off chip ADCs (Analogue to Digital Converters) while recent Sony sensors like the one in Nikon D3X use several thousands of on chip ADCs, one for each column. Having on chip converters the signal paths are shorter and therefore less noisy. Having thousands of them mean each reading can take longer time, that is good for precision and noise. So Nikon D3X has much lower read noise and same applies to Nikon D7000 (and Pentax K5, and all new Sonys).
Would Canon design a CMOS-sensor with on chip converters it would be a significant step forward.
Best regards
Erik
I do hope that someone will produce high-resolution 135 format sensor, Canon or Nikon, preferably around 5 µm pixel pitch that this about 34 megapixels so we can actually see how such as sensor will perform. It seems like large pixel pitch is an advantage for lowlight photography, and even if it was not the photon shot noise will naturally limit the resolution so a high pixel count would be meaningless. It is also hard to exceed about 12 megapixels in sharpness if the camera is handheld. Obviously the 1D-X sensor aims at these applications and I think it will be very good at it.
However, I will be surprised if this sensor provides anything extra at base ISO. At base ISO you can have smaller pixel pitch and still have good dynamic range. As I have mentioned before the Phase One IQ180 actually has only about 5 µm pixel pitch, and it's dynamic range is said to be good. That Canon marketing says 1D-X sensor is an improvement in image quality regardless of ISO may be true compared to their own sensors which has had dynamic range problems compared to the competition, mainly due to pattern noise. I don't think it will produce a better ISO100 photos than the Nikon D3x from 2008.
Looking at the previous generation Nikon D3x (small pixel pitch, specialised at high res) vs D3s (large pixel pitch, specialised at lowlight), the sensors have similar noise levels and dynamic range at base ISO, which one is better I dare not say, there are so many things you can do wrong when comparing sensors with different pixel pitch (usually to the disadvantage for the sensr with smaller pixels), but it is clear that there is not a huge difference despite very large difference in pixel size. The D3x loses at high ISO of course, but if you shoot mainly at base ISO from a tripod clearly a big pixel size is not what you need. Unless there is some revolutionary new technology in the new 1D-X sensor which provides radically improved dynamic range at base ISO and this only works with large pixels. That could be the case, but I don't think it is likely.
-
More like: quite a ridiculous twist on your part of what I actually said.
Of the current cameras, I do believe the Canon will stand out for the reasons already stated.
However, I spoke nothing of "all time," of the possibilities for future cameras, of stocks plummeting, nor of any other silliness that you said.
These were entirely the fabrications of your own mind.
Jack
.
No, my statement was not entirely a fabrication of my own mind. It was fabricated based on your statement. You stated, "Will this camera be able to shoot a static scene at the same quality shots as a Hasselblad? No. But as an all-around sports, wildlife, and action camera, it will have no equal anywhere". You are predicting the future and presenting it as fact. Nowhere, in your previous posts in this thread, have you mentioned "current" cameras. You only added that in your post quoted above. So, without the "current" clarification, your statement was indeed about "all time".
I respect your right to believe what you wish to believe. I have no doubts that it is possible for the camera being discussed to be a wonderful camera. But, I do not present my beliefs as facts in the present and especially not when the subject is one of the future.
You stated: "Your fanboyism of Nikon is clear as day, and that's fine Bernard, but none of us has had the opportunity to actually see the results of this new camera". In your first quoted statement above, you state that this new camera "will have no equal anywhere". How can you say it "will have no equal anywhere" and also state "but none of us has had the opportunity to actually see the results of this new camera""?
And you think that I am the one saying "silliness"? ??? ???
When you contradict yourself as you did in your quotes above, you are showing that you are only arguing for the sake of arguing. And, as in other threads, you do this in a manner that is degrading to other people. I learned a long time ago, when someone puts other people down (degrades them), they are doing this because they lack the ability, the will, the knowledge, or the confidence to lift themselves up.
I apologize if I have in anyway degraded or offended you.
-
I'm still amazed that working photographers are even buying new cameras these days, Canon and Nikon sell to hobbyists who don't have to justify purchases. ... The business of photography has changed and so too has the buying mentality of working shooters.
When you live and work in a city like Los Angeles where there is a Canon CPS service center and can get same day or next day turn around from the service department for your camera, that makes a big difference as to what you buy.
-
Remember that fascinating comparison Michael did with a Canon G10 (I think it was) vs. a Phase P65+ in print? Well.. virtually no one picked the difference in 13 x 19 prints and those that did, did so because they recognised the depth of field differences. Between a 1DSMK3 and 1DX we are talking a significantly smaller margin - no way will anyone pick it in print at low ISO.
I think any of us that do photography would pick out which one was which. With all quality you need some basic expertise to be able to differentiate. It can be image quality, sound quality or the taste of a fine wine. So when you are in the business of quality it is to satisfy those with a special interest in your area. And yourself.
Heck, even for wildlife this camera is going to be killer.
I have heard complaints from wildlife photographers, there are mainly two of them - since it is not a crop sensor and it is not high resolution the reach is not as good as 1Dmk4. The other complaint is that it cannot have autofocus at f/8 (which 1Dmk4 and 1DsIII can), meaning that the f/4 + 2xTC and f/5.6 + 1.4xTC will become fully manual. This is a double blow on reach, so a 1Dmk4 bird photographer may need very expensive lens upgrades to compensate for the loss in reach.
-
There are not many women on this forum either :-). Men often have an interest in technology and think it is kind of fun with the latest stuff. If your business is good enough you could invest in a new camera just because you can, not because you really need it. I think many professionals which have control over the equipment they use do that. However, the new equipment must provide something useful of course. In terms of technical quality, I think many photographers care more about that than their clients do. If you work professionally with something you will get a special feel for quality in that area, and some will find it very satisfying to not only make great pictures but also provide great technical quality, although they know that most of their clients won't take notice.
I find all the female shooters I know in town are far wiser with their money and their upgrading. Men seem to have the attention spans of puppies with equipment, buying almost anything new that comes along thinking that it will make their images vastly better. The ladies just make their images better regardless.
-
Hi,
Just increasing pixel area by 16% won't have a major effect on image quality, SNR on the pixel level will improve 8% (which I don't think is a visible improvement), but the image needs to be enlarged 8% more, which cancels out any benefit. Doubling the sensor area improves noise and ISO capability significantly, so the D1X will be a winner for 1DIV shooters, while the folks shooting D1sIII at low ISO just get fewer pixels and slightly more moiré. But the latter may buy the 5DII anyway.
Best regards
Erik
This is I believe the crux of the debate for current 1DSMK3 landscape shooters (myself included). For shooters like myself that are on a tripod 90% of the time, mirror lock up and cable release and pretty much locked at ISO100 there is little compelling reason on the surface of it to jump to the 1DX because of its lower (by a bit - technical term ;D) mega pixels.
A 1DSMK3 file printed will I believe be virtually if not totally indistinguishable from a 1DX file - provided the ISO is low (probably sub 800); leaving little to no reason to jump to the 1DX. Remember that fascinating comparison Michael did with a Canon G10 (I think it was) vs. a Phase P65+ in print? Well.. virtually no one picked the difference in 13 x 19 prints and those that did, did so because they recognised the depth of field differences. Between a 1DSMK3 and 1DX we are talking a significantly smaller margin - no way will anyone pick it in print at low ISO.
That said.. the 1DX will blow the 1DSMK3 out of the water at high ISO and in the FPS department. If those are important to you then that is a compelling reason to jump to the new model. I suspect Sports shooters are over the moon with the 1DX, as will be photojournalists. Heck, even for wildlife this camera is going to be killer. Its just not a replacement for a 1DSMK3 shooter who is focused on contemplative landscape.
So.. what is the 1DSMK3 landscape shooter to do?
Option 1 - continue shooting the 1DSMK3 (it aint broke!)
Option 2 - Jump to MFDB (and drop some serious coin in the process)
Option 3 - Wait for a 1DX's' (or whatever Canon decide to call it - if it comes)
I'll take Option 1 thanks and see if Option 3 eventuates over the next 6-12 months. With the caveat, that as yet I have not seen any RAW files from the 1DX - until such time as I do I reserve all right to reconsider my options. ::)
-
Just increasing pixel area by 16% won't have a major effect on image quality, SNR on the pixel level will improve 8% (which I don't think is a visible improvement), but the image needs to be enlarged 8% more, which cancels out any benefit.
I also did this math, and I have to believe that there are other improvements to the sensor, especially if Canon's going to label it as "newly designed (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Features)". Otherwise, simply install the 1Ds3 sensor and use the new DIGIC chips to acquire the high fps rate.
My blind hope is that, at low ISO, the dynamic range has been improved, and that the S/N ratio of the blue photosites, in particular, has been improved.
-
Very interesting reading the comments, opinions, views from this forum´s users counter to various others. Balanced, intelligent discussion. Great!
I´m not preordering this camera. I have a 1D mkII, and I´ve been planning to upgrade it for quite some time, either to a D3S or a 1D mkIV, until the announcement discussed came off the shelves. I´m a hobbyist, but I do have a small income from photography, and will likely keep it that way for the next fifteen years, in order to create some financial security along with my wife-to-be for our kid(s).
The 1D X is on paper just what I want. I don´t exactly love having to interpolate 1D II files, 8.2mpx, to decent (not great) quality 24x16" prints, and the 18mpx 35mm sensor on this new thing fits my bill nicely. I shoot landscapes and street/people - I secretly have a dream of photojournalism, but that´s probably not going to happen. Cleaner high ISO? I need that more than the 21mpx total, and 3mpx advantage the 1Ds III has.
I believe Canon when they say the 1D X replaces the 1D/1Ds lines, I see no need for them to build another big, rugged outdoorsman´s camera, but I could see them building something of another sensor format, or even a new line of lenses. As far as I know, the image circle of a normal EF lens can fit a 30x30mm square frame inside (this has been speculated on for ages over at certain other fora), and while this would not rival an MF sensor in size, it could definitely be an excuse for Canon to create a new line aimed at landscape and portrait professionals, given that they put an enormous amount of megapixels into it.
Another option for Canon is to dive into the MF market, not with their own camera or sensor, but by partnering with others, or offering their own third party MF AF lenses. Canon knows how to make great optics, they´ve shown that with the latest iteration of the TS-Es, the 100 macro, and the 70-200 IS, so why not? Caveat: I have no idea how the economics of designing and manufacturing lenses work, but I can certainly appreciate the high retail costs of Hassy, Schneider and Leica lenses.
All that said, if Canon Corp do not pull their heads out of their asses and make a revised 35/1.4 for this 1D X, I might jump ship for the rivalling Nikon model. At least they have a gasketed 35/1.4 for bad weather days in Norway. Consider that a threat, Canon!! ;D
-
The more I think about the Canon's developments I believe all the cameras followed by Canon will be cheaper or are at most the same as the 1Dx, but not a cent more.
Getting rid of the 1Ds with such a weird merge (as it offers not much to former 1Ds owners) seems to indicate they have no interest in a product with small quantities (the quantities of the 1Ds series to be more precise, especially after the 5D Mk2).
Thus, all what happens seems to take place at the 5D-level. The split of that sounds also plausible, more expensive one for former 1Ds users, but as noted, definitely more quantities in mind meaning less priced than the 1Dx.
I believe Canon when they say the 1D X replaces the 1D/1Ds lines, I see no need for them to build another big, rugged outdoorsman´s camera, but I could see them building something of another sensor format, or even a new line of lenses. As far as I know, the image circle of a normal EF lens can fit a 30x30mm square frame inside (this has been speculated on for ages over at certain other fora), and while this would not rival an MF sensor in size, it could definitely be an excuse for Canon to create a new line aimed at landscape and portrait professionals, given that they put an enormous amount of megapixels into it.
Another option for Canon is to dive into the MF market, not with their own camera or sensor, but by partnering with others, or offering their own third party MF AF lenses. Canon knows how to make great optics, they´ve shown that with the latest iteration of the TS-Es, the 100 macro, and the 70-200 IS, so why not? Caveat: I have no idea how the economics of designing and manufacturing lenses work, but I can certainly appreciate the high retail costs of Hassy, Schneider and Leica lenses.
-
I think any of us that do photography would pick out which one was which. With all quality you need some basic expertise to be able to differentiate. It can be image quality, sound quality or the taste of a fine winte.
Sure. But in all three cases it is really difficult to avoid "fooling" oneself based on prejudice.
Those who claim to be cool, rational, professional experts seems to be as much affected as the rest of us
-
As I see it, going down to 18 mp was a marketing mistake. In most people's minds it's not appealing (count me in). If Canon have kept the 21 mp count, I'm sure few people would have complained. Just as many claim that 21 down to 18 is invisible resolution wise, I'm sure that 18 to 21 wouldn't make much difference (if any) in noise increase. Most of the difference lies in a 4 year newer sensor technology rather than 3 less mp's.
So, Canon coming with a new flagship combining both pro models with 21 mp sensor bragging only 11 fps and a tad noisier 204,800 iso would have been a much smarter move.
Now, please allow me to add: Going down to 18 mp's was a marketing mistake UNLESS Canon is coming with a new pro body with a higher mp count in a few months. I'm 99.99% that's what is going to happen.
Everybody will be well served and no more complains about "just 18 megapixels".
Eduardo
That's my view too.
I went from a 1D II 8mp to 1DS III @21mp. This was a good gain in resolution plus good improvements all round.
But going back to 18MP just doesn't appeal.
I'll just wait and see what else Canon has to offer in the next 12 months.
-
Talking to my local photography dealer after the announcement last week he told me that they'd only sold one 1DsIII since the 5DII came out and that was to someone with more money that they knew what to do with [not a pro photographer then], so Canon dropping a camera that didn't sell was hardly a big surprise. Personally I'd take two 5DIIs over a single 1DsIII any day, it saves lens changing in dusty conditions or when under pressure and you have a back up too.
I'm more intrigued by Canon's November announcement.
-
Talking to my local photography dealer after the announcement last week he told me that they'd only sold one 1DsIII since the 5DII came out and that was to someone with more money that they knew what to do with [not a pro photographer then], so Canon dropping a camera that didn't sell was hardly a big surprise. Personally I'd take two 5DIIs over a single 1DsIII any day, it saves lens changing in dusty conditions or when under pressure and you have a back up too.
I'm more intrigued by Canon's November announcement.
About nine months after the Nikon D3x was in regular delivery, I was speaking to a medium sized camera dealer, (though a very smart dealer) and ask them how many d3x' they've sold and they said 84.
I asked how many to real working professionals (that make 100% of their household income on photography) they sold them to and they said none.
Now with this in mind, I would bet the 1ds3 sales dropped to nothing when canon came out with the 5d2.
I still use both of my 3's regularly (mainly because I bought them before the 5d2 2 was introduced, secondly because they probably are worth about a buck fifty and third because with that locking mechanism they tether very well).
I bet Canons combining on the 1d series was to turn a profit on that camera to pick up sports, wedding and a few commercial photographers that need very high iso and quick frame rates.
Personally, I think the days of 40mpx cameras are somewhat numbered. Not that there is not a niche market for them, but because I know almost no one in the commercial world whose client's demand that type of resolution that requires flash or high wattage scenarios.
I know the use of our flash equipment compared to continuous light has gone down 80% in the last two years, mostly due to convergence of shooting the RED for motion and parallel still projects.
Regardless if I am right, I do know that as appealing as the ultra high iso of the Canon X is I will probably wait. We went on a list but it's still 6 months away, so I'm not holding my breath.
The thing is if I was going to buy a new still camera, I would consider medium format if it went to high clean iso, but that would also be price depended. (I know this contradicts myself, but I do like the 4+3 format and I do like traditional cameras like my contax'.
The good thing is Canon's 18 mpx camera has renewed my belief that my p21+, p30+, 1ds3's and 5d2 are still very viable.
At least that's a good thing.
IMO
BC
-
No, my statement was not entirely a fabrication of my own mind. It was fabricated based on your statement. You are predicting the future and presenting it as fact.
No I did not attempt to predict the future. Obviously, I was referring to current cameras.
Just think about it: who in their right mind would say with a straight face, "There will never be a better upgrade in the history of photography," given the fact multiple advancements come out every year? And, by the same token, who in their right mind would interpret anything of the sort out of a statement made regarding the current market either?
So, as I said, your entire ramblings have been nothing but fabrications in your own mind of what was actually said.
I respect your right to believe what you wish to believe. I have no doubts that it is possible for the camera being discussed to be a wonderful camera. But, I do not present my beliefs as facts in the present and especially not when the subject is one of the future.
Actually, you did worse than that. You have wasted your time (and, even more dreadfully, my own) by arguing about something that was never actually said or implied.
In your first quoted statement above, you state that this new camera "will have no equal anywhere". How can you say it "will have no equal anywhere" and also state "but none of us has had the opportunity to actually see the results of this new camera""?
And you think that I am the one saying "silliness"?
I believe this camera will, as an overall tool, be the best camera available within the context of its target market. What I don't believe is that there will "never again" be another camera to surpass it in any way, forever more.
Therefore, if you want to be as petty as you clearly are, then in truth none of us has the right to type a word about this camera yet, nor make any prognostications in any way whatsoever, until such time as we all have either used the camera ourselves--or at least read several competent reviews about this camera, stacked-up against the other brands, under a series of rigorously-controlled tests--to where definitive statements can be made. Absent this, what we are all doing here is giving unsubtantiated opinions, until such time as this camera is out, used, and tested.
So, yes, since we all understand that we're just "thinking out loud" here, making predictions informally, I do think you are being silly here: making up things to argue about, and splitting hairs. I really do.
When you contradict yourself as you did in your quotes above, you are showing that you are only arguing for the sake of arguing. And, as in other threads, you do this in a manner that is degrading to other people. I learned a long time ago, when someone puts other people down (degrades them), they are doing this because they lack the ability, the will, the knowledge, or the confidence to lift themselves up.
I apologize if I have in anyway degraded or offended you.
Huh? Whom did I degrade here?
If anything, you ought to read the pop-psych of your own last paragraph to yourself, while looking in the mirror.
Jack
.
-
This thread has jumped the shark. Time to lock it down. Anyone who actually knows actually knows anything about how this camera actually performs compared to any other camera is probably NDA bound and so is not participating.
But if you guys want to go on attacking each other, please be my guest.
-
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_1d_x
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5149972341/canon-eos-1d-x-overview
It appears to be a replacement for both the 1d4 and 1ds3.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes it sure is…
Canon showed the new X against the old road maps of D and Ds on its own plot halfway between the two. So it seems they are not intending to do an Xs. If they bring out a replacement to the X in ‘’?’’ years time, they appear to suggest Image Quality and Speed will go up together rather than favoring one capability against the other. Since this is a new body I suspect any increase in speed for FPS in future will be in the mirror up mode, possibly future models capable of higher FPS speed with RAW in that new mode.
Add global shutter and FF 24 FPS is not that far off albeit limited in duration/frame spacing. I can feel the tension building in the digital cinema world… I expect we will see a Cinema focused product in a smaller frame size in any case long before that happens.
They have ditched the F8 central AF capability in favor of better overall AF. The new Nikon style DNA of Colour smart AF/AE and the new AF sensors should allow them to close the gap in areas the Nikon was strong and if not go one better. Although not mentioned, many Canon lenses share distance data with the AF, so it really looks like the Nikon AF/AE system on steroids. Canon’s old system was quicker of the mark but Nikon tracked better once it caught up in some cases, so this new system could put Canon’s AF wows well behind them, although it is at the cost of bird photogs that like to TC on light telephoto lenses. The Full Frame also making the loss of F8 harder to bare for those as they are more likely now to need a stronger TC.
The choice of 18 MP is a good balance (given the Nikon Pro DNA… LOL) between 12 an 24, since some complain the 12 Nikon has too high a starting ISO in use (affecting Flash synch and DOF control in some shooting conditions) and the 24 does not do as well in high ISO. 18 MP may be a good compromise to give a Low to High usable ISO range with great picture quality.
I like all the improvements and think it is much better looking than the last few 1 series versions. The layout of controls is way better in looks alone and hopefully in use.
Canon have many cards to play in future, they are working on their own tri colour sensitive pixels and already have made ultra high mega pixel sensors in test. A mirrorless camera and the associated technologies (view finder and AF) yet to be released. As ever they will never risk much unproven tech on the 1 series although the new colour AE/AF is a first and an exception to this unwritten rule, this suggests beating Nikon was high on the list of priorities!
I think this will be the best yet (all rounder) for Canon in the pro DSLR class… Just hope they keep the price down.
-
haha :D
-
Canon are pumping the lowlight capabilities of the 1DX - see the new sample fusion video HERE (http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dx/samples/player_heartbeat/movie.html?high)
-
Yes it sure is…
Canon showed the new X against the old road maps of D and Ds on its own plot halfway between the two. So it seems they are not intending to do an Xs.
Yes, if one reads what Canon actually says and trusts them not to be outright lying, this is clearly the case. And if you think that Canon knows its business far better than us forum pundits, this suggests that Canon has judged that there is no longer a sufficient market for the combination of a higher resolution, medium format challenging "tripod camera" with the EOS-1 class body, with the bulk and cost of its extremely rugged body, integrated vertical grip, very high frame rate etc.: the 5D, other less expensive 35mm format DSLRs and more affordable MF options have shrunk that market considerably. Instead, I would infer from Canon's actions that the EOS-1 class body sells primarily for PJ, sports and such, as it was with film, and for that, the trade-offs between high frame rate and higher resolution caps out at 18MP, according to Canon and its current technological limits.
But this does not have to mean that there will be nothing better than the current 5D body for resolution beyond 18MP. Maybe the 5D line will move up in body specs, with a better VF for example, now that this would not eat into the 1Ds market, or maybe an additional intermediate grade of body wil be added, heir to the EOS-3 or F100 film cameras. Such a body could be priced at half as much as the 1Ds models were, so two of these instead of one 1Ds should cover most "field reliability" needs (and reduce lens swapping of course). But maybe Bernard can comment: he seems very experienced at doing high res. photography in rough conditions.
-
Hi,
For me there is a nice spot in the Canon naming convention and it is '3D'.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, if one reads what Canon actually says and trusts them not to be outright lying, this is clearly the case. And if you think that Canon knows its business far better than us forum pundits, this suggests that Canon has judged that there is no longer a sufficient market for the combination of a higher resolution, medium format challenging "tripod camera" with the EOS-1 class body, with the bulk and cost of its extremely rugged body, integrated vertical grip, very high frame rate etc.: the 5D, other less expensive 35mm format DSLRs and more affordable MF options have shrunk that market considerably. Instead, I would infer from Canon's actions that the EOS-1 class body sells primarily for PJ, sports and such, as it was with film, and for that, the trade-offs between high frame rate and higher resolution caps out at 18MP, according to Canon and its current technological limits.
But this does not have to mean that there will be nothing better than the current 5D body for resolution beyond 18MP. Maybe the 5D line will move up in body specs, with a better VF for example, now that this would not eat into the 1Ds market, or maybe an additional intermediate grade of body wil be added, heir to the EOS-3 or F100 film cameras. Such a body could be priced at half as much as the 1Ds models were, so two of these instead of one 1Ds should cover most "field reliability" needs (and reduce lens swapping of course). But maybe Bernard can comment: he seems very experienced at doing high res. photography in rough conditions.
-
But this does not have to mean that there will be nothing better than the current 5D body for resolution beyond 18MP. Maybe the 5D line will move up in body specs, with a better VF for example, now that this would not eat into the 1Ds market, or maybe an additional intermediate grade of body wil be added, heir to the EOS-3 or F100 film cameras. Such a body could be priced at half as much as the 1Ds models were, so two of these instead of one 1Ds should cover most "field reliability" needs (and reduce lens swapping of course). But maybe Bernard can comment: he seems very experienced at doing high res. photography in rough conditions.
Hi BJL,
I don't know if I can be said to be very experienced, but I do have some experience indeed. What you want is a body you can totally forget about and treat just like another of your many pieces of equipment and trust it will work as expected even when being treated without any special care.
If I were Canon, I would indeed release a 36MP 3D high spec body with D700 like physical specs. It would need to have:
- 5D/D700 bulk,
- full splashproof and reasonnably shock proof,
- new longer last battery in compact form factor, or extension grip to enable re-use of 1dx batteries to ensure sufficient cold weather autonomy,
- a very robust mount to body connection to avoid it being bended out of alignement in packs,
- 100% viewfinder
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi BJL,
I don't know if I can be said to be very experienced, but I do have some experience indeed. What you want is a body you can totally forget about and treat just like another of your many pieces of equipment and trust it will work as expected even when being treated without any special care.
If I were Canon, I would indeed release a 36MP 3D high spec body with D700 like physical specs. It would need to have:
- 5D/D700 bulk,
- full splashproof and reasonnably shock proof,
- new longer last battery in compact form factor, or extension grip to enable re-use of 1dx batteries to ensure sufficient cold weather autonomy,
- a very robust mount to body connection to avoid it being bended out of alignement in packs,
- 100% viewfinder
Cheers,
Bernard
If that is what they end up doing, I will be pretty happy. I personally prefer the bulk of the 1D series bodies and would prefer not to need a seperate grip for my portrait shoots. That being said, as long as it is solidly built to suit shooting out in the elements, has plenty of resolution as well as reasonable DR, then it will be as close as anyone has ever got to my ideal camera.
-
Hi BJL,
I don't know if I can be said to be very experienced, but I do have some experience indeed. What you want is a body you can totally forget about and treat just like another of your many pieces of equipment and trust it will work as expected even when being treated without any special care.
If I were Canon, I would indeed release a 36MP 3D high spec body with D700 like physical specs. It would need to have:
- 5D/D700 bulk,
- full splashproof and reasonnably shock proof,
- new longer last battery in compact form factor, or extension grip to enable re-use of 1dx batteries to ensure sufficient cold weather autonomy,
- a very robust mount to body connection to avoid it being bended out of alignement in packs,
- 100% viewfinder
Cheers,
Bernard
Are you not more or less describing the 1Ds series that Canon supposedly did not make enough money off of, and that according to Canon was fused into this new 1Dx?
Unless something really exciting happens*), it seems to me that Canon will cater for the sports/news people with the 1Dx, the studio/landscape with the 5D(mk3), and sports/news people on a budget with the 7D(mk2).
*)The most exciting speculation I have seen so far was that Canon would make a mirror-less/live-view centric EOS for landscape/macro/slow work, perhaps (?) using a square sensor exploiting more of the image circle of EF lenses.
-h
-
Are you not more or less describing the 1Ds series that Canon supposedly did not make enough money off of, and that according to Canon was fused into this new 1Dx?
no no no... look at Nikon, the D3x and D700 are very different cameras.
The rumored D800 would have D3x high end image quality in a D700 body which is more compact yet retains the high end build needed for some types of landscape work.
This is what I believe Canon should release as a 3D.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, if one reads what Canon actually says and trusts them not to be outright lying, this is clearly the case. And if you think that Canon knows its business far better than us forum pundits, this suggests that Canon has judged that there is no longer a sufficient market for the combination of a higher resolution, medium format challenging "tripod camera" with the EOS-1 class body, with the bulk and cost of its extremely rugged body, integrated vertical grip, very high frame rate etc.: the 5D, other less expensive 35mm format DSLRs and more affordable MF options have shrunk that market considerably. Instead, I would infer from Canon's actions that the EOS-1 class body sells primarily for PJ, sports and such, as it was with film, and for that, the trade-offs between high frame rate and higher resolution caps out at 18MP, according to Canon and its current technological limits.
But this does not have to mean that there will be nothing better than the current 5D body for resolution beyond 18MP. Maybe the 5D line will move up in body specs, with a better VF for example, now that this would not eat into the 1Ds market, or maybe an additional intermediate grade of body wil be added, heir to the EOS-3 or F100 film cameras. Such a body could be priced at half as much as the 1Ds models were, so two of these instead of one 1Ds should cover most "field reliability" needs (and reduce lens swapping of course). But maybe Bernard can comment: he seems very experienced at doing high res. photography in rough conditions.
Exactly what i was thinking, after cannibalizing its 1Ds [willingly], the roadmap might be a split-up of the 5DMKII line with a better body/AF/MP sensor for the 3D [mystical ?] and a 5DMKIII at its old price tag. This new camera [3D ?] could be sold for $1500 more than the 5DMKII currently.
-
no no no... look at Nikon, the D3x and D700 are very different cameras.
The rumored D800 would have D3x high end image quality in a D700 body which is more compact yet retains the high end build needed for some types of landscape work.
This is what I believe Canon should release as a 3D.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's what i hope will happen. The 5DMKII is a great camera, but not in conditions like extreme humidity or for field use you can trust on! The 5DMKII failed for me in this scenario without getting any drops of rain on the body, just extreme humidity knocked it our for 48hrs...
I hope for a 3D that is basically a 5DMKII on steroids, bigger sensor, better weatherproofed body, and a little better AF.
The 5DMKIII then can be the cinema DSLR everybody loves, and the 3D is the camera for serious high-res work... both markets served.
-
Are you not more or less describing the 1Ds series that Canon supposedly did not make enough money off of, and that according to Canon was fused into this new 1Dx?
The difference I see is that this camera wouldnt need the pro AF performance or 5 FPS since its not caterings to the sports/jurno/wildlife market who need high end image quality as much as the 1Ds line did now that the 1DX around offering FF and high FPS/ISO.
Unless something really exciting happens*), it seems to me that Canon will cater for the sports/news people with the 1Dx, the studio/landscape with the 5D(mk3), and sports/news people on a budget with the 7D(mk2).
The main unknown to me seems to be whether Canon will spilt the 5D line or not. With the 1Ds line ended and the market having been used to a relatively cheap 5D mk2 it seems like thats alot of ground for one model to cover. A high megapixel 5D sized body with 1D level build and a large 100% viewfinder is I'd guess unlikley to cost less than $3K so perhaps we'll also see a lower end body(current 5D build and OVF) with the 1DX sensor?
*)The most exciting speculation I have seen so far was that Canon would make a mirror-less/live-view centric EOS for landscape/macro/slow work, perhaps (?) using a square sensor exploiting more of the image circle of EF lenses.
-h
Was that me on DP review? ;)
If the 5D line does spilt I'd say that would make a square or a 5/4 sensor much easier to sell since your likely catering to an audience who want medium format but can't afford it or want to keep 35mm funcationality. So not only to you potentially gain an extra few percent in sensor size but you also offer a format that might actually be preffered.
I'm not sure I can see Canon going mirrorless with a body like that though, I can see many users preffering a 5D sized body but is one smaller than that going to balance lenses well? If Canon go mirrorless I suspect it will be to target a market that benefits more from it, say a rangefinder like body with some small custom primes or maybe even MF where the mirror takes up alot more space.
-
If the 5D line does spilt I'd say that would make a square or a 5/4 sensor much easier to sell since your likely catering to an audience who want medium format but can't afford it or want to keep 35mm funcationality. So not only to you potentially gain an extra few percent in sensor size but you also offer a format that might actually be preffered.
I'm not sure I can see Canon going mirrorless with a body like that though, I can see many users preffering a 5D sized body but is one smaller than that going to balance lenses well? If Canon go mirrorless I suspect it will be to target a market that benefits more from it, say a rangefinder like body with some small custom primes or maybe even MF where the mirror takes up alot more space.
I suggested mirrorless as a means to:
1. Increase sensor size ("sort of MF but still using EF lenses")
2. Increase efforts/results in liveview/video modes without having to consider OVF or compete with the 1DX
Not as a means to decrease size or weight. I think that many 5Dmk3 prospective buyers can live with EVF/liveview, but I dont think that many of those really want a m4/3-type camera. A "Leica-killer" is something completely different from a 5Dmk3.
-
I suggested mirrorless as a means to:
1. Increase sensor size ("sort of MF but still using EF lenses")
2. Increase efforts/results in liveview/video modes without having to consider OVF or compete with the 1DX
Not as a means to decrease size or weight. I think that many 5Dmk3 prospective buyers can live with EVF/liveview, but I dont think that many of those really want a m4/3-type camera. A "Leica-killer" is something completely different from a 5Dmk3.
Would it be possible to increase the imaging circle of EF lenses by removing the mirror then? I was under the impression that wasnt the case although I don't see any reason why the sensor aspect couldnt be changed to get more from the existsing image circle.
I agree a Leica Killer is something very different but to me if Canon were going to produce a large sensor mirrorless that kind of camera seems more likely than a high megapixel landscape/studio body.
-
...although I don't see any reason why the sensor aspect couldnt be changed to get more from the existsing image circle.
This would not work with all the existing EF lenses as some of them (such as the EF 24-105mm 1:4 L IS USM) include a non-circular stop at the rear of the lens that blocks non-image forming light outside the normal 2:3 image. The stop has straight edges that offer more blocking at the top and bottom and less at the sides (landscape image). Thus the lens does not provide access to the full image circle.
Regards
Nigel
-
Would it be possible to increase the imaging circle of EF lenses by removing the mirror then? I was under the impression that wasnt the case although I don't see any reason why the sensor aspect couldnt be changed to get more from the existsing image circle.
I recently read an article about a MF back that could use EF lenses. I think that the T/S lenses were especially useful.
I agree a Leica Killer is something very different but to me if Canon were going to produce a large sensor mirrorless that kind of camera seems more likely than a high megapixel landscape/studio body.
I think that a "Leica killer" would be crop sensor. I am not a Leica user myself, but it seems to me that the critical point is having a no-frills, ergonomically superb, compact, stealthy camera with great manual focus.
For a 5Dmk3 geared towards video, landscape, macro and perhaps studio work, I think that a well-executed mirror-less design might make sense. No one knows if "well executed mirror less" is something that Canon are able to do, I guess.
-h
-
I recently read an article about a MF back that could use EF lenses. I think that the T/S lenses were especially useful.I think that a "Leica killer" would be crop sensor. I am not a Leica user myself, but it seems to me that the critical point is having a no-frills, ergonomically superb, compact, stealthy camera with great manual focus.
TSE lenses naturally have a larger imaging circle than normal EF lenses though.
I'd guess that "Leica killer" wouldnt really be literal in Canon's case as I don't see them going for exactly the same market. My guess would be that they'd take the size, prime lenses and maybe the retro style and put them in a cheaper more modern system with AF.
For a higher megapixel body aimed at landscape/studio users MF just seems to make more sense to me. For one thing your not up agenst as high end AF from the SLR bodies and for another the size, weight and potentially price saving is going to be that much greater potentially getting all three closer to the 35mm sized DSLR market's expectations.
-
For a higher megapixel body aimed at landscape/studio users MF just seems to make more sense to me. For one thing your not up agenst as high end AF from the SLR bodies and for another the size, weight and potentially price saving is going to be that much greater potentially getting all three closer to the 35mm sized DSLR market's expectations.
Depends where you are coming from. I am guessing that EF lense compability is a large selling point for Canon and for many prospective customers.
-h
-
This would not work with all the existing EF lenses as some of them (such as the EF 24-105mm 1:4 L IS USM) include a non-circular stop at the rear of the lens that blocks non-image forming light outside the normal 2:3 image. The stop has straight edges that offer more blocking at the top and bottom and less at the sides (landscape image). Thus the lens does not provide access to the full image circle.
Regards
Nigel
In fact nearly all EF lenses have some form of rectangular non-image forming "blockers" somewhere in the optical path. This is always going to be the thing that precludes the use of bigger than 24x36 sensors (that use the full area of the sensor) in an EF mount body. Unless Canon decides to develop a new range of lenses of course...
-
In fact nearly all EF lenses have some form of rectangular non-image forming "blockers" somewhere in the optical path. This is always going to be the thing that precludes the use of bigger than 24x36 sensors (that use the full area of the sensor) in an EF mount body. Unless Canon decides to develop a new range of lenses of course...
Thank you for sharing, I did not know. Do these "blockers" have a similar function to the lense hood, or is it simply "putting stuff inside a cramped space where it wont affect IQ on a 24x36mm anyways"? In the first case, it would perhaps be trivial for Canon to re-release their entire EF lense line without "blockers" at minimal delay/cost. In the latter case, that wont be possible.
But it would seem that at least the tilt/shift lenses are exceptions.
-h
-
Depends where you are coming from. I am guessing that EF lense compability is a large selling point for Canon and for many prospective customers.-h
Would most landscape/studio users really want a body lighter than the 5D though? You go much smaller than that and alot of lenses are going to be very unbalanced ala the NEX.
MF would have the advanatge that a mirrorless could potentially bring body size, weight and perhaps price into a range where 35mm users are more comfortable with.
Just to divert the discusssion again one thing I'v wondered in the past is whether it would be possible to have a tilit function built into a body. As I understand it tilting doesnt need a larger imaging circle the way shifting does and seems like it would give a Canon high MP model a definate advanatge over the competision with diffraction increasingly starting to be an issue.
-
Would most landscape/studio users really want a body lighter than the 5D though? You go much smaller than that and alot of lenses are going to be very unbalanced ala the NEX.
I think not, but I did not suggest it either?
Just to divert the discusssion again one thing I'v wondered in the past is whether it would be possible to have a tilit function built into a body. As I understand it tilting doesnt need a larger imaging circle the way shifting does and seems like it would give a Canon high MP model a definate advanatge over the competision with diffraction increasingly starting to be an issue.
If you had fast/accurate control of the position of the image sensor, you might be able to rotate/shift/tilt it in the 3+3 axes (?) for image stabilization as well as for camera movements. The potential seems so large that the fact that it is not yet available suggests that it is hard to do in practice and/or does not make economic sense.
-h
-
... Do these "blockers" have a similar function to the lense hood
Yes. They block light outside the image area that could reflect on surfaces in the mirror box and cause flare.
-
As I understand it tilting doesnt need a larger imaging circle...
That depends on how much you tilt. From my years with a 4x5 and 8x10 camera it isn't that hard to tilt either the sensor or lens plane to a point where a corner or two will be out of the imaging circle and some shift is needed to getthe sensor/ film area completely back inside the cone.
-
Thank you for sharing, I did not know. Do these "blockers" have a similar function to the lense hood, or is it simply "putting stuff inside a cramped space where it wont affect IQ on a 24x36mm anyways"? In the first case, it would perhaps be trivial for Canon to re-release their entire EF lense line without "blockers" at minimal delay/cost. In the latter case, that wont be possible.
But it would seem that at least the tilt/shift lenses are exceptions.
-h
They are designed to stop non image forming light from 'bouncing around' inside the lens, which then fall on the sensor degrading the image. Each lens has its own size, design and positioning of 'blocker' according its optical design and they are an integral part of that optical design - so no quick & easy fix. As I said not all lenses have them (although most do). I'm unsure about the T/Ss, it may be possible that they do have them but of a size that does not affect the larger image circle.
-
They are designed to stop non image forming light from 'bouncing around' inside the lens, which then fall on the sensor degrading the image. Each lens has its own size, design and positioning of 'blocker' according its optical design and they are an integral part of that optical design - so no quick & easy fix. As I said not all lenses have them (although most do). I'm unsure about the T/Ss, it may be possible that they do have them but of a size that does not affect the larger image circle.
This is my source:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hartblei-cam.shtml
Imagine a camera that can take 35mm format lenses in the front, and medium format digital backs on the back.
...
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-101/image-circle.jpg)
The above graphic shows the relationship between the size of 135 format and the image circle needed to cover it, and the 645 format and the larger image circle needed to cover that format.
...
what I wasn't prepared for was that the Canon 24mm T/S not only could cover the 645 format but allowed significant movements without visible vignetting.
...
There are likely quite a few other lenses that will work with the HCam. ... whether any particular lens will cover the 645 format is something that you'll have to discover for yourself.
So... perhaps we will see a MF canon back using EF lenses. I still think it would be neat to have a mirror-less "5Dmk3" with a square sensor filling the image circle of the most suited EF lenses to the edges targeted for landscape, portrait and macro, probably also video, not competing with the 1DX (simpler AF, less rugged, no battery grip etc). As Canon does sensors, lenses and everything else themselves (?), this might be one area where it is hard for the competitors to match them.
36x24 represents a 1.77x crop from 60x45, slightly more than the 1.62x crop from 36x24 to 22.2x14.8 if my numbers are right. But within that same 645 image circle, you should be able to fit a 53x53mm square sensor if you have no mirror/ovf, and 24x36 is a whopping 1.8x crop from that :-)
(assuming that "crop" means taking the square root of area1/area2)
Even if that meant that only a few, expensive, specialized EF lenses would currently give full benefit. Other EF lenses should work at least as good as they do today on FF, and Canon might update existing designs/add new specialized ones within the "EF" envelope. If Canon are able to increase sensor size without increasing cost/decreasing other qualities too much, that is.
-h
-
I think stephen is right and he knows a lot about this...
I use Ds MKIII mostly for architectural work with T&S lenses (both Canon and Hartblei). Prints from 150 cm to more than 300 cm.
...and Luminous landscape knows a lot about difraction!
FF sensor @f:11 can only give 18mp (even if you have a highger MP count), a 24 mm (T&S or not) focus from 1 mtr to infinite (hiperfocal at 3m). So, thats all about architecture. Level your camera, focus at 3 mtr, f/11 and there you go, 18 real mp or around 32-36 if you stich pictures with your T&S lens. So, why should I ever need more MP? why should I use MF sensors where depth of field is more restricted?
If canon DX is able to have less noise and better latitude and tonal range, thats the way to go. And I dont mean less noise at very High ISO, but low noise with long exposures, from 30 segs to minutes, where those expensive MF sensors start to get hot and be noisier than point and shot cameras.
Mine is in the waiting list. Its gonna be a long wait.
-
FF sensor @f:11 can only give 18mp (even if you have a highger MP count)
Thats a pretty blanket statement. I'd appreciate if you backed that up with some evidence (as much as for my own education as anything else).
-
Thats a pretty blanket statement. I'd appreciate if you backed that up with some evidence (as much as for my own education as anything else).
Josh,
That's probably about correct. f11 is pretty far from optimal aperture already. f6.3 or 7.1 is the aperture I am trying to use when attempting to extract the highest possible amount of detail from the D3x. f8 starts to be a tiny little less sharp already. That's true with most lenses.
The sad truth is that T/S or DoF stacking are the only 2 ways around trying to get more than 16-18MP worth of resolution from a 35mm sensor when DoF matters. There is no free lunch.
cheers,
Bernard
-
Josh,
That's probably about correct. f11 is pretty far from optimal aperture already. f6.3 or 7.1 is the aperture I am trying to use when attempting to extract the highest possible amount of detail from the D3x. f8 starts to be a tiny little less sharp already. That's true with most lenses.
The sad truth is that T/S or DoF stacking are the only 2 ways around trying to get more than 16-18MP worth of resolution from a 35mm sensor when DoF matters. There is no free lunch.
cheers,
Bernard
Thanks Bernard, I understand the principles of it - and I am generally shooting at F5.6 to F8 as well for exactly the same reasons. However, I admit to not understanding the math behind it - I just reached my own conclusions from shooting with FF High MPX DSLR's with Canons best glass and examining the results.
Assuming for the sake of the argument - We have have a stellar 50mm lens that is critically sharp on a full frame DSLR - shot at F5.6; what is the theoretical maximum resolution that this combination will resolve?
And I ask this as a leading question - If the answer is sub 25 mega pixels; then really... what is the point of cramming more pixels onto the sensor? Are Canon 'right' in making this 1DX an 18 MPX FF sensor based on the resolving power of the lens / sensor combination?
As I say, I am not across the math / engineering - but am curious as to the theoretical limits on the 35mm FF sensor.
-
Thanks Bernard, I understand the principles of it - and I am generally shooting at F5.6 to F8 as well for exactly the same reasons. However, I admit to not understanding the math behind it - I just reached my own conclusions from shooting with FF High MPX DSLR's with Canons best glass and examining the results.
Assuming for the sake of the argument - We have have a stellar 50mm lens that is critically sharp on a full frame DSLR - shot at F5.6; what is the theoretical maximum resolution that this combination will resolve?
And I ask this as a leading question - If the answer is sub 25 mega pixels; then really... what is the point of cramming more pixels onto the sensor? Are Canon 'right' in making this 1DX an 18 MPX FF sensor based on the resolving power of the lens / sensor combination?
Would need to do a bit of math indeed, but if I recall past readings correctly, at f4-f5.6 the theoretical point beyond which more resolution would only produce very limited value was around 40MP.
f5.6 might stop to be optimal beyond 30 MP already, f4 is probably better in the high 30+ megapixels.
You start to run into other limitations of lenses that usually peak between 5.6 and 8... this will justify the design of a new set of lenses optimized for f4...
So all in all, it does probably not make much sense to go beyond 36mp on 35mm. This leaves of course the door open to better pixels, including RGB ones. So it is pretty clear that the winner in 3 to 4 years from now if going to be the company able to improve the usage of a pixel in terms of quality color information. Unless somebody else goes there, the Foveon technology and the related pattents could become worth a lot of dough. :)
You might of course not have to have 3 colors per pixel though... it could be a good start to do a 2 layers sensor with a smart positioning of RGB sensors on these 2 layers. Jesus... why am I giving away this genius idea for free on a forum? ;D You have read it here first!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would need to do a bit of math indeed, but if I recall past readings correctly, at f4-f5.6 the theoretical point beyond which more resolution would only produce very limited value was around 40MP.
f5.6 might stop to be optimal beyond 30 MP already, f4 is probably better in the high 30+ megapixels.
You start to run into other limitations of lenses that usually peak between 5.6 and 8... this will justify the design of a new set of lenses optimized for f4...
So all in all, it does probably not make much sense to go beyond 36mp on 35mm. This leaves of course the door open to better pixels, including RGB ones. So it is pretty clear that the winner in 3 to 4 years from now if going to be the company able to improve the usage of a pixel in terms of quality color information. Unless somebody else goes there, the Foveon technology and the related pattents could become worth a lot of dough. :)
You might of course not have to have 3 colors per pixel though... it could be a good start to do a 2 layers sensor with a smart positioning of RGB sensors on these 2 layers. Jesus... why am I giving away this genius idea for free on a forum? ;D You have read it here first!
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks Bernard, appreciate the thoughts - interesting times ahead. Im still surprised that neither Canon or Nikon have announced anything above their current high rez offerings in terms of pixel count. I'm quite keen to get my hands on a 1DX and see how it performs in terms of 'pixel quality'. Its not really suited to my style of shooting since I am generally an ISO100, tripod mounted, mirror lock up kind of guy - but my curiosity is getting the better of me. ;D
-
Would need to do a bit of math indeed, but if I recall past readings correctly, at f4-f5.6 the theoretical point beyond which more resolution would only produce very limited value was around 40MP.
f5.6 might stop to be optimal beyond 30 MP already, f4 is probably better in the high 30+ megapixels.
You start to run into other limitations of lenses that usually peak between 5.6 and 8... this will justify the design of a new set of lenses optimized for f4...
So all in all, it does probably not make much sense to go beyond 36mp on 35mm. This leaves of course the door open to better pixels, including RGB ones. So it is pretty clear that the winner in 3 to 4 years from now if going to be the company able to improve the usage of a pixel in terms of quality color information. Unless somebody else goes there, the Foveon technology and the related pattents could become worth a lot of dough. :)
You might of course not have to have 3 colors per pixel though... it could be a good start to do a 2 layers sensor with a smart positioning of RGB sensors on these 2 layers. Jesus... why am I giving away this genius idea for free on a forum? ;D You have read it here first!
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Isn't the real limitation dynamic range?
After all, if the problem with high pixel counts (or perhaps more properly pixel density) is that one gets too much noise. Small pixels have low S/N ratios?
So if pixels could be made with wider dynamic range (thus higher S/N ratios) a manufacturer could mimic the retina and just densely pack pixels of RGB flavor in whatever the optimal pattern and ratios turn out to be.
But perhaps there are other issues too?
-
Isn't the real limitation dynamic range?
After all, if the problem with high pixel counts (or perhaps more properly pixel density) is that one gets too much noise. Small pixels have low S/N ratios?
So if pixels could be made with wider dynamic range (thus higher S/N ratios) a manufacturer could mimic the retina and just densely pack pixels of RGB flavor in whatever the optimal pattern and ratios turn out to be.
Well, a one year old Pentax K5/Nikon D7000 sensor already has as much DR as a P45+ that was described 2 years ago as a DR king, so I don't think it is a problem. A 36mp sensor on FF would have same pixel size as the D7000 sensor.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Well, a one year old Pentax K5/Nikon D7000 sensor already has as much DR as a P45+ that was described 2 years ago as a DR king, so I don't think it is a problem. A 36mp sensor on FF would have same pixel size as the D7000 sensor.
Regards,
Bernard
I'm sorry for being obtuse, but isn't the rap on high pixel chips their noise and lack of EV range? This would seem to point to low DR (or at least low S/N ratios) for the smaller pixels. But again, maybe I just don't understand all parameters. Perhaps a better overall question is;
what are current limitations on pixel design? and,
it appears that the Big Two have decided that 24 X 36 chips need no more than 20 Mp plus or minus a couple Mp. They must have decided (separately?) that more than that leads to other compromises that current technology can't surmount
-
it appears that the Big Two have decided that 24 X 36 chips need no more than 20 Mp plus or minus a couple Mp. They must have decided (separately?) that more than that leads to other compromises that current technology can't surmount
Unless you have insider information about the strategy of Canon/Nikon/Sony, I am not sure how you can make this claim.
The Sony A77 at 24mp on a APS sensor has pixels that would result in a 50+ mp if extrapolated to FF. According to our friend Michael Reichmann, the image quality of these Sony is excellent and he is known to be very picky about DR as result of his intense use of MFDB.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that DR is the most important metric of modern sensors, but technology moves forward quickly and 30+MP on a FF sensor is totally doable these days.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
mmm, It seems that I have awaken the difraction monster before going to bed. Well I see some kind people have given so help to my statement
if you trust luminous landscape:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=39627756
and detaliled explanation here
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
I have using Ds MKIII for some years now, and 300x100 cm pitures have been hung, exhibited, analized and eventualy sold. for these pano format prints 2 pictures taken with T&S lens were stiched. Nobody ever asked for more resolution.
But i know i´d have a wider latitude, more detail on the shadows, less noise with long exposures and greater tonal range, but not at the expense of loosing my much valuede life preview+life histogram for acurate exposures, or FF DOF for instance. No temptation to move to MF for architecture at all.
So moving from 21 to 18 MP when I actualy have 18 Mp at f:11 is more than OK for me.
On teh other hand if a (for comparision purposes) 16 mp square sensor would only double resolution of a 4 Mp one (yes, 4x4 sensor is twice 2x2 as resolution is taken as a lineal value), what is the real difference betwen 21 and 18?.
Peanuts.
I am counting days down to march.
-
Unless you have insider information about the strategy of Canon/Nikon/Sony, I am not sure how you can make this claim.
The Sony A77 at 24mp on a APS sensor has pixels that would result in a 50+ mp if extrapolated to FF. According to our friend Michael Reichmann, the image quality of these Sony is excellent and he is known to be very picky about DR as result of his intense use of MFDB.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that DR is the most important metric of modern sensors, but technology moves forward quickly and 30+MP on a FF sensor is totally doable these days.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well both of their flagships will sport 18-24 Mp chips before long
Maybe I misunderstand but aren't those crowded chips subject to more ISO related noise, thus effectively less DR? But I must be mistaken somewhere?
-
Well both of their flagships will sport 18-24 Mp chips before long
Maybe I misunderstand but aren't those crowded chips subject to more ISO related noise, thus effectively less DR? But I must be mistaken somewhere?
Yep, base ISO DR and high ISO ability are not directly related as some of our chips experts will be able to explain to you better than me.
As far as the Canon and Nikon flagship due to be 18mp cameras, I am not sure where that is coming from.
Their sports camera will probably be 18mp (clear for Canon, unclear for Nikon), but that is already an important increase from the previous model that was 12mp on the Nikon side. This does not mean that another camera with higher resolution will not be released to address markets other than sports.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Assuming for the sake of the argument - We have have a stellar 50mm lens that is critically sharp on a full frame DSLR - shot at F5.6; what is the theoretical maximum resolution that this combination will resolve?
And I ask this as a leading question - If the answer is sub 25 mega pixels; then really... what is the point of cramming more pixels onto the sensor? Are Canon 'right' in making this 1DX an 18 MPX FF sensor based on the resolving power of the lens / sensor combination?
Because someone might want to use larger apertures than f/5.6? Because oversampling means that one makes the best possible use of the (expensive) lense, that AA-filtering is easier/not needed, because deconvolution perhaps can recover some of the details?
The combination of sensel density and lense diffraction tends to affect resolution in a smooth fashion, not in a absolute limit, I believe. When someone claim to be "diffraction limited", the point is not that more megapixels will give exactly zero benefit, but that the benefit will be smaller and smaller, finally being too small to be of practical use.
-h
-
... isn't the rap on high pixel chips their noise and lack of EV range?
No, that is the rap on smaller pixels vs larger pixels only when comparing images of equal pixel count. Like with a smaller sensor of equal pixel count, or in 100% pixel peeping where images from equal sized sensors of different pixel counts are compared by cropping to a smaller portion of the higher resolution image, enlarging it more, and the effectively complaining about the greater visibility of noise and such which is in fact caused by the greater degree of enlargement. That is, editing away all the advantages of the higher pixel count!
AFAIK, comparisons using prints of equal size viewed from the same distance, or other comparisons at "equal apparent image size" do not show any particular trend towards more noise or worse shadow/ highlight handling from sensors of equal size and higher resolution (more, smaller photosites).
Short answer: read about dithering and over sampling.
-
No, that is the rap on smaller pixels vs larger pixels only when comparing images of equal pixel count. Like with a smaller sensor of equal pixel count, or in 100% pixel peeping where images from equal sized sensors of different pixel counts are compared by cropping to a smaller portion of the higher resolution image, enlarging it more, and the effectively complaining about the greater visibility of noise and such which is in fact caused by the greater degree of enlargement. That is, editing away all the advantages of the higher pixel count!
AFAIK, comparisons using prints of equal size viewed from the same distance, or other comparisons at "equal apparent image size" do not show any particular trend towards more noise or worse shadow/ highlight handling from sensors of equal size and higher resolution (more, smaller photosites).
Short answer: read about dithering and over sampling.
would love a reference. do you have one handy?
just so I understand... wouldn't a smaller pixel capture fewer photons? and therefore transmit fewer pieces of information?
-
Yep, base ISO DR and high ISO ability are not directly related as some of our chips experts will be able to explain to you better than me.
As far as the Canon and Nikon flagship due to be 18mp cameras, I am not sure where that is coming from.
Their sports camera will probably be 18mp (clear for Canon, unclear for Nikon), but that is already an important increase from the previous model that was 12mp on the Nikon side. This does not mean that another camera with higher resolution will not be released to address markets other than sports.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm just watching from the sidelines. I understand Physics but have few clues about specific chip designs.
D3x = 24 mp
1Dx = 18 Mp
reps say, "... that's all you need for acceptable quality..."
again, not what I say, or even actually know, just what I've read.
Yes, you averred in a previous post that a company could put > 30 Mp on a 24 x 36 chip. But they would be smaller, and have a smaller photon "basket" if current technology was simply scaled.
In a way this takes me back to my initial though which is that a given pixel's ability to transduce photons to electrons is likely currently limited by whatever the limits of current "ideal design" yields. My initial thoughts on this is that chips (pixels) of perhaps a yet unused material may be able to trap more electrons per unit of material and therefore improve resolution (due to recruitment) as well as S/N
But again I'm being theoretical.
Does N or C have a 30+ Mp design in a 24 x 36 chip that actually is "better" from a image and noise perspective? I mean, yes they can do it, but if it brings more issues, why bother?
-
would love a reference. do you have one handy?
just so I understand... wouldn't a smaller pixel capture fewer photons? and therefore transmit fewer pieces of information?
Hopefully, other more technically expert members can provide references, but let me point out that you just made the same mistake I was talking about: comparing at equal pixel count (in this case, pixel count of one: the maximum electron capacity and photon count of a single pixel), not allowing for the benefits of having more of those smaller pixels gathering the light from the same part of the image. An over simplified example: halving the photosites area will give about half the election capacity per photosite, but will also give twice as many photosites detecting light from the same part of the image, so the "maximum photo-electron count" for any given part of the image is about the same; it is just divided up as the sum or more, smaller numbers, and this retains more information about where the light comes from.
Pushing pixel downsizing too far will cause degradation, with election capacity per unit area declining when photosite size gets too close to the minimum feature size of the semiconductor fabrication technology, and this might be an issue with compact camera sensors with pixel sizes approaching one micron, but DSLR sensors are nowhere near that limit. In fact they are usually made with older fabrication equipment of far larger minimum feature size than newer equipment, because DSLR photosites are so large compared to what current technology can make.
P.S. 18MP or even less is plenty for my purposes (mostly wildlife and nature close-ups, plus casually documenting life around me), but for many landscape and archtecural photographers who can often work at minimum ISO speed, 18MP is short of what MF film offered, so increasing resolution beyond that by a factor of two say would be a gain that easily outweighs excessive concern about noise seen only in unnaturally close scrutiny of deep shadows and such.
-
would love a reference. do you have one handy?
just so I understand... wouldn't a smaller pixel capture fewer photons? and therefore transmit fewer pieces of information?
There are two dominant sources of noise in typical images -- photon noise and read noise. If we're only concerned with photon noise (ie there are enough photons that read noise is a secondary consideration), then smaller pixels are more 'informative'. The number of photons captured is the same, they are simply partitioned into samples of finer spatial resolution, so the total captured information is larger due to the better spatial localization of any given captured photon. Read noise, on the other hand, is a constant noise per pixel, so unless the smaller pixels have smaller read noise in proportion to the pixel spacing, they degrade the image by increasing the noise relative to the number of photons captured.
As usual, there are caveats. If pixels get too small, there can be cross-talk -- red photons leak into green pixels etc, resulting in a loss of color separation and resolution. Also, lower S/N per pixel leads to a greater degree of interpolation error in the demosaic process, and thus more 'digital artifacting', though that artifacting is pushed off to finer spatial scales where it may be less noticeable.
-
Yes, you averred in a previous post that a company could put > 30 Mp on a 24 x 36 chip. But they would be smaller, and have a smaller photon "basket" if current technology was simply scaled.
Does N or C have a 30+ Mp design in a 24 x 36 chip that actually is "better" from a image and noise perspective? I mean, yes they can do it, but if it brings more issues, why bother?
My understanding is that there is no difference in the behavior of a sensor whether it is APS sized or FF sized.
So you can analyze the behavior of APS sensors on the market today, the better ones using Sony sensors, to extrapolate the behavior of pixels in a 30+ MP sensor.
Measurements do show that the current 16MP sensors on APS behave very well, no need to speculate beyond that in my view.
I do own a D7000 and can testify that the DR is excellent with very low shadow noise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bit confused here. Albeit diffraction will rob resolution however my experience has been that when compared like for like, at any given aperture, you will have more resolution with a higher megapixel count than with a lower megapixel count. That your 1Ds3 now only has 18 megapixels doesn't mean that at the same aperture, a 1Dx will retain 18 megapixels without any degradation. Am I wrong in that?
-
There are two dominant sources of noise in typical images -- photon noise and read noise. If we're only concerned with photon noise (ie there are enough photons that read noise is a secondary consideration), then smaller pixels are more 'informative'. The number of photons captured is the same, they are simply partitioned into samples of finer spatial resolution, so the total captured information is larger due to the better spatial localization of any given captured photon. Read noise, on the other hand, is a constant noise per pixel, so unless the smaller pixels have smaller read noise in proportion to the pixel spacing, they degrade the image by increasing the noise relative to the number of photons captured.
As usual, there are caveats. If pixels get too small, there can be cross-talk -- red photons leak into green pixels etc, resulting in a loss of color separation and resolution. Also, lower S/N per pixel leads to a greater degree of interpolation error in the demosaic process, and thus more 'digital artifacting', though that artifacting is pushed off to finer spatial scales where it may be less noticeable.
Yes, thanks
This is what I was trying to point out but perhaps my words were ambiguous. While "resolution" may be enhanced by smaller pixels, more pixels means more noise if we assume the read noise is the same per pixel. Thus the better high ISO performance of bigger and fewer pixels in a given chip size.
-
halving the photosites area will give about half the election capacity per photosite, but will also give twice as many photosites detecting light from the same part of the image, so the "maximum photo-electron count" for any given part of the image is about the same; it is just divided up as the sum or more, smaller numbers, and this retains more information about where the light comes from.
yes, but as Emil points out, more pixels = more read noise
wondering if it is possible that advances in material science will allow more efficient (as in DR and S/N) chips in the future. It seems to me that if a given pixel could trap more photons and/or more efficiently convert photons to electron emission it would enhance characteristics... no?
-
I am really not sure about the value of speaking in theoretical terms while we able to conduct an easy experiment with APS sensors...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
yes, but as Emil points out, more pixels = more read noise
And as with any trade-off, one has to quantify the opposing advantages and disadvantages, not just declare that any amount of additional noise is more important that amount of additional resolution [or vice versa].
With read noise these days at the level of only a couple of elections, it is vastly outweighed by photon shot noise until you are at light levels many, many stops below mid-tones, in the realm tat is almost always printed totally black. Say a DSLR pixel has a well capacity of 40,000. At full well, shot noise is sqrt(40000) or about 200 electrons. At 8 stops down, more than four stops below mid-tones, which is the traditional black level or noise floor in measuring the ISO speed of film, and in a straight print is totally black, the signal is still about 160 electrons, shot noise of about 14 electrons, still overwhelming read noise.
Only at about 12 stops below maximum, signal about 10 electrons, is read noise significant compared to photon shot noise ... and by then S/N ratio due to read noise alone is a pathetic 3:1, so it is going to be ugly anyway if you attempt to print those deep, deep shadows at anything above pure black.
-
And as with any trade-off, one has to quantify the opposing advantages and disadvantages, not just declare that any amount of additional noise is more important that amount of additional resolution [or vice versa].
Agreed.
With read noise these days at the level of only a couple of electrons, it is vastly outweighed by photon shot noise until you are at light levels many, many stops below mid-tones, in the realm tat is almost always printed totally black. Say a DSLR pixel has a well capacity of 40,000. At full well, shot noise is sqrt(40000) or about 200 electrons. At 8 stops down, more than four stops below mid-tones, which is the traditional black level or noise floor in measuring the ISO speed of film, and in a straight print is totally black, the signal is still about 160 electrons, shot noise of about 14 electrons, still overwhelming read noise.
Only at about 12 stops below maximum, signal about 10 electrons, is read noise significant compared to photon shot noise ... and by then S/N ratio due to read noise alone is a pathetic 3:1, so it is going to be ugly anyway if you attempt to print those deep, deep shadows at anything above pure black.
That really depends on the degree of pattern noise in the read noise. Being correlated noise, it is not properly measured by the std dev; just look at the 5D2, for which the read noise is around 2.5 electrons, but 8 stops down it's a mess. I don't think read noise is the main issue any more, it's pattern noise. As you say, random read noise is well below the level that might cause significant issues.
-
Agreed.
That really depends on the degree of pattern noise in the read noise. Being correlated noise, it is not properly measured by the std dev; just look at the 5D2, for which the read noise is around 2.5 electrons, but 8 stops down it's a mess. I don't think read noise is the main issue any more, it's pattern noise. As you say, random read noise is well below the level that might cause significant issues.
True: my rough numbers were just to indicate the general idea that with good modern sensor designs (maybe than now means Sony/Nikon more than Canon??), the controllable noise from electronic sources (as opposed to the uncontrollable photon shot noise) is only significant at light levels many stops below full exposure, and so mostly of concern to low-light, high ISO needs, whereas a great proportion of situations that would benefit from more than 18MP can be handled at low ISO speeds.
About pattern noise though: can you comment on the main causes, and how it is likely to scale with pixel size and pixel count? I would not assume that electronic noise is at a fixed level per photo-site regardless of photo-site size, because for one thing, larger photo-sites with larger electron capacities seem likely to need larger circuits and semi-conductor components with greater charge/current/voltage capacity, which could increase their noise levels (measured in electrons). Dark current for example has a roughly "square root of well capacity" scaling law, from spec. sheets I have compared.
-
True: my rough numbers were just to indicate the general idea that with good modern sensor designs (maybe than now means Sony/Nikon more than Canon??), the controllable noise from electronic sources (as opposed to the uncontrollable photon shot noise) is only significant at light levels many stops below full exposure, and so mostly of concern to low-light, high ISO needs, whereas a great proportion of situations that would benefit from more than 18MP can be handled at low ISO speeds.
About pattern noise though: can you comment on the main causes, and how it is likely to scale with pixel size and pixel count? I would not assume that electronic noise is at a fixed level per photo-site regardless of photo-site size, because for one thing, larger photo-sites with larger electron capacities seem likely to need larger circuits and semi-conductor components with greater charge/current/voltage capacity, which could increase their noise levels (measured in electrons). Dark current for example has a roughly "square root of well capacity" scaling law, from spec. sheets I have compared.
I'm really not competent to answer on causes. Some phenomenological observations: Pattern noise is much worse on the 5D2 than 1Ds3, if I recall correctly the latter has twice as many readout channels (8 vs 4) so the data rates are half. The Sony Exmor sensors have per-column ADC's, so data rates that are in the kHz range rather than MHz range of a standard Canon design (or D3 type design for Nikon). So the suspicion is that lower data rates allow better control of fluctuations in the normalization of the readout in each channel.
-
Pattern noise is much worse on the 5D2 than 1Ds3.
And the 7D is even worse than 5D2... concerning pattern noise I don't trust Canon until they show something that works. It seems to me that they focus a lot on software noise reduction and brag about clean JPEGs, but as a RAW shooter using third party software I rather want sensor hardware that is state of the art concerning noise performance. I can manage with both 5D2 and 7D and rarely get real problems in prints, but it seems like a waste when Sony etc shows that low noise levels are indeed possible.
-
And as with any trade-off, one has to quantify the opposing advantages and disadvantages, not just declare that any amount of additional noise is more important that amount of additional resolution [or vice versa].
With read noise these days at the level of only a couple of elections, it is vastly outweighed by photon shot noise until you are at light levels many, many stops below mid-tones, in the realm tat is almost always printed totally black. Say a DSLR pixel has a well capacity of 40,000. At full well, shot noise is sqrt(40000) or about 200 electrons. At 8 stops down, more than four stops below mid-tones, which is the traditional black level or noise floor in measuring the ISO speed of film, and in a straight print is totally black, the signal is still about 160 electrons, shot noise of about 14 electrons, still overwhelming read noise.
Only at about 12 stops below maximum, signal about 10 electrons, is read noise significant compared to photon shot noise ... and by then S/N ratio due to read noise alone is a pathetic 3:1, so it is going to be ugly anyway if you attempt to print those deep, deep shadows at anything above pure black.
well you fellows know more than me, but if what you say is true I guess we should not be seeing ANY noise since shot noise is so low and read noise virtually non-existent?
-
... if what you say is true I guess we should not be seeing ANY noise since shot noise is so low and read noise virtually non-existent?
Shot noise is not always so low as to be invisible, especially as the ISO goes up. With my example of a 40,000e- well capacity, 9 stops below maximum gets down to about 80e- signal, 9e- noise, so S/N ratio about 9:1, which is poor. Not much of a problem at base ISO, where this noise is in features about six stops below midtones, and so will normally be printed totally black. But increase the ISO speed by about 4 stops (say from a base of 200 to ISO 3200) and that 9:1 S/N ratio is in light shadows, only about 2 stops below midtones, so you will probably see it. By ISO 12800, the midtones from those 40,000e- photosites are below 10:1 S/N ratio, and probably do not look very good without trading off some resolution to noise reduction or down-sampling ... or changing to fewer, bigger photosites.
-
So the suspicion is that lower data rates allow better control of fluctuations in the normalization of the readout in each channel.
I can only hope that this is true. And with Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic adopting this aproach of "amplify and digitize as soon as possible with thoasands of ADCs operating at low clock rates", maybe Canon will follow soon.
-
I must have missed something -- since when is Panasonic using this approach?
-
I can only hope that this is true. And with Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic adopting this aproach of "amplify and digitize as soon as possible with thoasands of ADCs operating at low clock rates", maybe Canon will follow soon.
Could this thing called "patent" make this not obvious?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Emil,
I believe that Panasonic uses this approach in its more video-oriented m4/3 sensors, in the GH2 and such, though this is a bit speculative; all I have read for sure is that the GH2 does ADC on-chip, whereas other m4/3 sensors do it off-board IIRC.
Bernard,
It seems that patents rarely stop big companies from copying ("stealing" in Steve Jobs' words) important new ideas, either by changing enough details of the implementation, or by hiring enough lawyers. For example, no one had an exclusive on CMOS sensors for very long.
-
There's another aspect to noise too, landscape photographers often significantly dynamically compress what was captured. Back in the analog days these was made using gradient filters to lower the sky 2 - 3 stops. Today compression is made when processing the raw file (although some still use gradient filters too) which puts much tougher requirements on S/N ratio.
-
And the 7D is even worse than 5D2... concerning pattern noise
Oh, stop it Torger, that's simply not true.
Your 7D might have a problem, but across the board there are far, far more 5D Mk II users that have reported pattern noise "problems" than have 7D users.
-
Oh, stop it Torger, that's simply not true.
Your 7D might have a problem, but across the board there are far, far more 5D Mk II users that have reported pattern noise "problems" than have 7D users.
Or perhaps yours is better? I'm not sure. I was under the impression that camera sensors don't really vary that much concerning these properties. I have only precise information about mine, and stuff I've seen on raw converter forums, both user and development. I would not be surprised if 5Dmk2 users report pattern noise issues more often, since those users are probably more picky about this issue and shoot ISO100 from tripod more often. I have both a 5Dmk2 and a 7D and have compared them. Note that this problem is most visible on ISO100, on high ISO photography you probably won't see it, if I remember correctly it is almost gone already at ISO200. I shoot 99% at base ISO though, which probably is a quite unusual use for a camera like the 7D.
If this is a problem or not depends on what you shoot of course. A lot of photography don't really need much dynamic range. In landscape and architecture one may however be forced to underexpose some to not clip highlights, and then later compress in post-processing before doing the print. In these cases 1-2 extra usable stops can be valuable. So I find pattern-free noise profiles to be an attractive feature of a sensor.
I think the 5D has a bit nicer noise profile, less of the corduroy pattern, a bit more of horizontal streaks though but the pattern is less obvious. I've attached an example from both 5D and 7D. The one to the left is 5Dmk2 and the one to the right is 7D. It is a 100% crop of a shadow area of a test scene which has been underexposed 4 stops (from precisely tuned ETTR exposure verified with RAW levels) and pushed back up 4 stops. 4 stops is a bit exaggerated of course, but I wanted to make it clearly visible. Shot at ISO100. The raw developer is RawTherapee without any noise reduction etc applied, this shows what is in the file.