Also, I wish they'd given it a base ISO of 64, or even 50, like the D810 - no-one buys a body like this to shoot low-light action, and a lower base ISO would help with both noise and DR.
It's not that simple with digital. The original reason why digital cameras had low ISO is that most of the light is not registered at all, so you need to expose it for a longer time -> lower ISO. A low ISO cannot be directly translated to improved quality as you could in the film days (where all light is registered).
Then sensors became better at registering more light, by the use of microlenses and thus base ISO go up. To make ISO down in "a good way" you need higher full-well capacity so each pixel can gather more light before it clips. Some has happened in that area too, but most gains in DR come from lower noise levels in the electronics.
The new Canon looks exciting in any case, can't wait for the official announcement :). They could be using a Sony sensor or traded some Sony patents so they may have the DR, if they don't have people will get very disappointed.
That's why I said the base ISO - the ISO where a full well equals maximum exposure. The lower the base ISO, the deeper the well, assuming the same percentage of photons are registered.
Actually, if the latest rumors are true, the sensor will be a Sony (not a big surprise) and thus I think you expect pretty good DR.
http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/this-is-the-new-50mp-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-full-frame-dslr-camera/#ixzz3QHcLZecl (http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/this-is-the-new-50mp-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-full-frame-dslr-camera/#ixzz3QHcLZecl)
If it is what finally it is announce next Friday (I don't doubt it), about f%&/%$& time that Canon puts an intervalometer and a bulb timer in its cameras... (this is something that sadly Canon is not alone... )
http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/this-is-the-new-50mp-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-full-frame-dslr-camera/#ixzz3QHcLZecl (http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/this-is-the-new-50mp-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-full-frame-dslr-camera/#ixzz3QHcLZecl)
Looks good so far.
But the key question is whether Canon have made up any ground in terms of DR.
Also, I wish they'd given it a base ISO of 64, or even 50, like the D810 - no-one buys a body like this to shoot low-light action, and a lower base ISO would help with both noise and DR.
I am a bit surprised by these Exmor rumors in the new Canon. My sources, that seemed very credible, were saying that there was no way Canon was going to use a Sony sensor.
The rumored specs include "regular sensitivity: ISO 100-6400".
Hmm. If this is an Exmor, I'm surprised to see it top out at ISO 6400.
something medium format cameras is said to have had all the time.
I am a bit surprised by these Exmor rumors in the new Canon. My sources, that seemed very credible, were saying that there was no way Canon was going to use a Sony sensor.
We'll know in a week it seems. ;)
But here is the big question: How is it received if it in house and does not perform in the same class as the Sony sensored cameras?
There will be endless threads in on-line forums bashing Canon, mostly by non-owners (and without proper knowledge of digital signal processing). On the other hand there will be great photographers producing outstanding images using those cameras.
...and an even greater number of studio photographers moving to Nikon (and perhaps to Sony, if they pony up).
It seems that it will have a Canon manufactured sensor, according to latest rumors.
There will be endless threads in on-line forums bashing Canon, mostly by non-owners (and without proper knowledge of digital signal processing). On the other hand there will be great photographers producing outstanding images using those cameras.
I don't care who makes the sensor. It can be Canon, Sony, Canon-Sony, Samsung or Canon-Samsung, I don't care. If at least it doesn't have 14-stops of DR. I will start migration to Sony. (13.8 stops or more to be exact). There you have it Kuanon!
Eduardo
Oh, Lord, don't even think like that. Sensor wise, the 7DmkII is basically the same performance as the 7DmkI with a software tweak (a little better gain strategy)!
And yet one would think that if Canon had another sensor technology waiting in the wings, the 7DII would have been the camera in which to introduce it.
... the rumor has it that the CFA filters have been optimized for color accuracy rather than high ISO performance, something medium format cameras is said to have had all the time. If that's true it would be just awesome.
There will be endless threads in on-line forums bashing Canon, mostly by non-owners (and without proper knowledge of digital signal processing). On the other hand there will be great photographers producing outstanding images using those cameras.
I am a bit surprised by these Exmor rumors in the new Canon. My sources, that seemed very credible, were saying that there was no way Canon was going to use a Sony sensor.
We'll know in a week it seems. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
The sensor in these cameras is a new Canon CMOS fabricated sensor.
Based on what Canon has said in the past you can expect improved colour fidelity. Personally, I am doubtful you will see an increase in DR that matches the Exmor.
We need to wait and see how it tests and performs. Until then its just throwing darts at a board.
Amazing how many naysayers have large collections of darts though ;D
Hi,
My take is that DR-wise the new 5Ds is going to be like a 5DIII, or better. It would be feasible that it could be a new generation of sensor having column-wise on sensor ADCs, we don't know until the sensor has been analysed.
Anyway, anyone who is happy with 7D or the 5DIII will be happy with the 5Ds.
The DR advantage of the Sony sensor is limited to low ISO.
As you know, existing Canon cameras are good enough to make competition winning images. Doubling the pixel count won't change that, but will offer some benefits.
I know two persons who shoot both Nikon and Canon, BTW, and I got the impression that they see the benefits of resolution and DR but they still really like shooting with the Canons. With the 5Ds the resolution advantage will become history, with DR we have to see.
The likely customers for a 50MP body - landscape and studio photographers, and others shooting things that don't move - tend to live at low ISO. Canon sensors being equal at ISO 6400 is irrelevant if you never go past ISO 800. Just like Sony's low-ISO superiority is irrelevant if you shoot live music and never dip below ISO 3200.
The sensor in these cameras is a new Canon CMOS fabricated sensor.
Based on what Canon has said in the past you can expect improved colour fidelity. Personally, I am doubtful you will see an increase in DR that matches the Exmor.
We need to wait and see how it tests and performs. Until then its just throwing darts at a board.
Amazing how many naysayers have large collections of darts though ;D
There will be endless threads in on-line forums bashing Canon, mostly by non-owners (and without proper knowledge of digital signal processing). On the other hand there will be great photographers producing outstanding images using those cameras.Indeed, although I'd add one minor correction - mostly by anonymous non-owners. ;)
Can anyone explain what is meant by "a much stronger set of colour filters"?
Hi Gary,
Many camera/sensor makers strike a compromise between sensitivity and color accuracy.
Cheers,
Bart
I read the following on the Northlight blog about the 5Ds,
"there is a suggestion that the relatively low max ISO is from a much stronger set of colour filters than usual - more welcome news if so"
Can anyone explain what is meant by "a much stronger set of colour filters"?
Thanks
Many camera/sensor makers strike a compromise between sensitivity and color accuracy. The sensitivity is boosted by using less selective, more transparent, RGB filters in the Bayer CFA. Those less selective filters will have a larger overlap between the color transmission bands, which makes it more difficult to extract the correct colors.
The stronger set of color filters, points to a Foveon type chip.
I'd be /very/ surprised if this happened.
I agree, but it would be a much bigger step, at least to me.
With either solution the new cameras will be I am sure highly regarded by most photographers.
Lets not count our chickens before they've hatched.
The twist will be when it turns out the R has a Foveon sensor and the 50mp is the total of three layers. :D
That would be the best Camera trolling ever.
Is the video 4K?
No, at approx. 8688 x 5792 pixels, with a sensel pitch of approx. 4.14 micron, (false color) aliasing artifacts are already less likely to occur. Nevertheless, I'd still prefer a version with AA-filter (OLPF), the EOS 5Ds. Digital Signal Processing (DSP) dictates the necessity for a Low-pass filter to reduce (color) aliasing artifacts when using a discrete sampling device.
The idea that the lack of AA filter is better than having it has already extended in the photographic community. Discussing about the reasons why the AA should be there with non experts in signal theory is exhausting. I think this has become an opportunity for camera makers to charge you more for the non-AA version, when it actually should be the opposite.
Anyway, 50Mpx require such a weak AA filter that the differences in practice should start to become almost negligible.
The idea that the lack of AA filter is better than having it has already extended in the photographic community. Discussing about the reasons why the AA should be there with non experts in signal theory is exhausting. I think this has become an opportunity for camera makers to charge you more for the non-AA version, when it actually should be the opposite.
Anyway, 50Mpx require such a weak AA filter that the differences in practice should start to become almost negligible.
Regards
The AA filter has been such a mainstay of dSLR design that I am not sure we understand the *practical* implications of removing it.
I am certainly not a Signal Theory expert. All I know is that neither my D7100, nor my D810 have AA filters and they are the 2 sharpest DSLRs I've owned or played with. And neither exhibit moire or other artificats. Whatever Nikon is doing, I recommend, they keep doing it! The D800e was odd in that it actually had an AA filter, but then the effects were filtered back out.
Bart and others have shown a good amount of siemens stars where it was clear how non-AA sensors create false high frequency artifacts when the scene contains fine detail.
Regards
The twist will be when it turns out the R has a Foveon sensor and the 50mp is the total of three layers. :D
That would be the best Camera trolling ever.
I heard it would be $8K! I hope not.
If it is a out-house sensor, wouldn't the price also be closer to the numbers we are used to..sure a bit higher as it is 50 vs 36mp, but I don't think they should pass roughly $4K price point(?)
The D810 is under $3k now. How much a difference is the extra mp going to make in price? Given the pixel quality is equal.
Yes I've tried to debate that it's better with AA filter, but 99% of photographers think it's a feature, end of discussion. They don't know about false detail and false colors around small details, and only look for large surfaces of colorful moiré, which indeed is quite rare.Some rumors suggest that this camera will have more color-selective CFA, in line with the landscape/studio/... pitch.
Hi,
I guess it would be priced as a 5D camera and not like a 1D camera, but in all probability more expensive than the 5DIII. Than of course there is the subtle question of competition.
If Nikon introduces 50MP in a D4s at D4 prices Canon can keep price up, if Nikon will have a D900, the competition landscape may be different,
Best regards
Erik
I wouldn't expect the D5 to be no more than 24MP, 36MP the absolute max. Basically 10fps would be the cutoff and I just don't see them able to process and push 50MPs worth of data around fast enough to support 10fps at 50MP. There should and I would expect to see a higher MP variant.
Me, I'd have a D5, D5s (sports) and a D5L (landscape) and leave the D810 area alone for awhile. But Nikon's marketing is so bizarre who knows? Because I would have the D810, D750 and D610 and the D7x00 when it appears all in the pro style body and leave the Dial interface strictly for the consumer market.
Yes I've tried to debate that it's better with AA filter, but 99% of photographers think it's a feature, end of discussion. They don't know about false detail and false colors around small details, and only look for large surfaces of colorful moiré, which indeed is quite rare. I'm quite sure the same thing as with the D800 will happen, the first model will come with both configurations, but the AA-filter version will sell so poorly that the followup will come in only one model.
When you know a bit too much about demosaicing and how artifacts look being without AA filter does not come up as a good proposition.
However, this sensor will through better area coverage with microlenses and relatively fuzzier lenses alias less than my Hassy... it shall be interesting to see some A/B comparisons between the two models by someone who knows what they're doing. AA filters are weak to not take away too much detail so they don't solve the aliasing problem completely either, so in the end one might end up with the conclusion that you could just go with the R version anyway.
For my Hassy I know it certainly wouldn't hurt with an AA filter, on the other hand as a software developer and hobbyist I find the problem of rendering from an aliased source as good as possible an interesting problem. If you're using RawTherapee you should use DCB demosaicer instead of Amaze, the latter is a tiny bit better at detail and a little bit more robust but DCB is better at hiding false color aliasing artifacts.
Torger,
I would have thought that if one wishes to physically filter rb one destroys a lot more of the useful data in the higher resolving g.
Also the spatial frequencies in the diagonal direction are dilated by another factor of sqrt(2) or so, which means one would need to filter ... even more brutally.
And even if one does filter brutally there is still a differential effect on rb vs g due to the slope of the filter modulus, leading to color aliasing ...
This is purely a construct of my mind of course, feel free to set me right.
Edmund
I even got info via Tamron sources about a new A-mount Full Frame camera with close to 50MP
I doubt that it is a Foveon sensor, but certainly a top ISO of 6400 (or less) would fit a Foveon sensor - the Sigma iterations are good to 400 for best color.
Maybe I'm mistaken here, but AA filters are there because moire is a problem in bayern type sensors, right? Foveon is not a bayern type sensor, so it will make not too much sense here to have a version of the camera with an AA filter on it...
Maybe I'm mistaken here, but AA filters are there because moire is a problem in bayern type sensors, right? Foveon is not a bayern type sensor, so it will make not too much sense here to have a version of the camera with an AA filter on it...Yes you are mistaken. Foveon sensors can produce moiré as a result of aliasing if proper AA filtering is not done It will be a 'monochrome' moiré though, much less visible since there is no colour interpolation. This makes eliminating the AA filter less risky on Foveon sensors.
Was the Foveon limited in funding to further develop or was it a technical physics stop?
One of the major obstacles is that the color separation by penetration depth in silicon, delivers an almost monochrome rendering of the scene. It requires huge color separation factors to split the data into R/G/B planes. That separation process comes with an increase of noise, and the fill factor of the sensels is already low to begin with. Another problem is that penetration depth of silicon varies with the angle of incidence, so larger sensors will require even more heavy lifting in postprocessing to somewhat mitigate the adverse color pollution cause by oblique rays.
Hi,
Color moiré is a bayer issue but moiré in general is a sampling problem.
Color moiré is usually much more obvious than the monochrome version.
Best regards
Erik
Yes you are mistaken. Foveon sensors can produce moiré as a result of aliasing if proper AA filtering is not done It will be a 'monochrome' moiré though, much less visible since there is no colour interpolation. This makes eliminating the AA filter less risky on Foveon sensors.
Also, sampling 3 color planes per sensel will also triple the uncompressed file size compared to Bayer CFA Raw data. That will require more processing power in camera (and more battery capacity), more storage space, and takes longer to record (lower number of images per second). It will also be slow in Raw conversion, and there may be little Raw converter support other than from the manufacturer themselves.
Ahem, Bernard. FanGIRL. I find the Sigma Merrills to be good compact cameras for landscape and near-macro, given their limitations in ISO and treacle-like writing speed. I take one along for hikes, along with a small but decent tripod - 3.5 pounds / 1.6 kilos for whole shebang. My "I am seriously doing this hike for the landscape photo" kit tends to weigh ~ 11 pounds/ 5 kilos or so, more if I take my fave macro lens, itself 1.2 kilos.
I fully realize that my cameras are better than I am, and that what I REALLY need is an upgrade to my brain. ;D
Ahem, Bernard. FanGIRL.
Please, FanORGANISM. I see no need for species chauvinism. :-)
Never could justify any of the medium format hi-res options. Scanning backs in my upper price range have been sold out for years. Not about to buy one of those used on ebay. Been waiting on an offering like this from Canon for YEARS, So I'm hoping the 5Ds will be my solution for hi-res images of artwork.
If it is a out-house sensor, wouldn't the price also be closer to the numbers we are used to..sure a bit higher as it is 50 vs 36mp, but I don't think they should pass roughly $4K price point(?)
The D810 is under $3k now. How much a difference is the extra mp going to make in price? Given the pixel quality is equal.
http://photorumors.com/2015/02/04/canon-eos-5ds-and-ef-11-24mm-f4l-usm-prices-revealed/
$4000 5DS
$4200 5DS R
$3400 11-24mm
Unconfirmed by source.
Ouch! Assuming the quality is there, I guess people will pay. I guess if you're already able to sell a 22MP 5DmkIII with 5 year old sensor performance for $3099, then I guess a 50MP 5Ds with a good sensor for $4000 is a deal!
Bernard, I had no idea that Betterlight scanning backs were still around. That's an interesting technology, cousin to some of the lab-on-a-chip and glass slide scanning technology (some "digital pathology" systems such as Aperio/Leica). Most folks don't want to wait 10 minutes for a scan, I imagine - wind or water in landscape shots would be impossible. Maybe great for product shots?
I tend to prefer the cleanliness of the files of my D810 at ISO64 over those of my Betterlight Super6K even at base ISO. Yes, color is a bit more pure on the BL, but the amount of noise does IMHO more than counterbalance this. Besides critical focus is much harder to achieve reliably on the 4x5 camera compared to a DSLR with live view.
Good 35mm lenses such as the Otus are also at the same level as the best LF style lenses, so I think that solutions have been available for quite some time in the 35mm world.
The new 5Ds will for sure be another interesting option.
Cheers,
Bernard
I just got again reminded of an additional reason why AA filter is good. With my MF camera I always shoot from a tripod and use distortion-free symmetric tech cam lenses, so I never rotate and I don't need lens corrections. Once I did a mistake though (just once! ;) ) and I had to rotate the image. Jagged aliasing and rotation does not combine well - the fine narrow details looks really broken, and I assume lens corrections like distortion correction won't play as nice either. It's better to have a smooth pixelpeep if any rotation or other transforms are being applied, and as you with a DSLR do crazy things like shooting hand-held and using zooms or retrofocus wides you may need to apply corrections quite often...
I see in the 5DsR they went for a low pass cancellation filter instead of an low pass filter delete.
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a_large.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na.png) |
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png) |
I currently use a 1Ds3 and will be buying the 5DS R, without AA Filter, for my studio floral
stuff and some landscape, and...am a avid PS CC user.
When I open an image on my monitor, am I going to notice a difference in overall IQ with
this new body or is that image merely going to be larger in size?
Interesting...
I see in the 5DsR they went for a low pass cancellation filter instead of an low pass filter delete.
In terms of color there may be an improvement on a "global scale", if the rumor is true that they have put some extra effort into CFA design to get better color separation. It will be subtle of course.
That it's "only" ISO6400 makes me doubt that this is a Sony sensor, maybe sacrificing the really high ISOs was necessary for Canon with their technology to get down the noise level at base ISO? Can't wait to get my hands on some raw files...
I don't see the rumored price providing useful hints about the sensor sourcing.
From a Canon exec standpoint, the 5DIII was already the best DSLR on the market. They never acknowledged any DR or image quality shortcoming.
From their standpoint, even if the 5Ds remains at 12+ DR stops, it still delivers enough additional value compared to the 5DIII that they should price it at least 1,000 US$ higher.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh good, another fan of the EF 180mm f/3.5L macro. I always grumble about the weight and I always take it anyway.
Don't you think if it were their own in house Canon sensor it would be to "their best spec possible", and likely a 1D type sensor, and then dev it down to other grades of prosumer, etc?Canon seems to have restricted the more rugged and expensive 1D class bodies to niches that need it, like sports/PJ, and has abandoned the higher resolution 1Ds series, instead offering higher resolution in less expensive options: the only current 1D class body is the 1D X at "only" 18MP, below the pixel count of the 5DMkIII, 6D and even the 7DMkII.
Announced officially now.
June availability... I wonder what other camera to be announced soon forced them to announce such a long time before availability? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
The effect of the EOS 5DS R's low pass filter has been cancelled out for greater detail resolution
Those reddish blotches on the hippo's skin - are those aliasing artifacts?
Preorders in April.
Sample images -
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/index.html
PS: Those reddish blotches on the hippo's skin - are those aliasing artifacts?
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/index.html
I'm not sure I follow the verbiage...
How does the effect of the filter get cancelled out if the filter is there?
Nothing sinister here Bernard... Canon always announce well ahead of expected delivery.
The only question I have is.. why didn't they read my memo to them... Where the #%#$%# is the mirror lock up button! ;D
Canon designed and built sensor...
Canon designed and built sensor...
Interesting the tests of the new Olympus E-M5 II multishot mode (8 shots at 16Mpx shifted by 1/2 pixel are combined into a 40Mpx JPEG or a 64Mpx RAW file). At imaging-resource they have compared it to the sharpness (and moiré) queens: the Nikon D810 and Sony A7R.
All three are native camera JPEG, downsampled from 40Mpx to obtain a similar output size in the case of the EM-5. Although the Olympus keeps up as good as the best of the others in sharpness (even after the image has been resampled twice, one in camera and then by the imaging-resource guys), it's the only one that manages to avoid moiré. It seems clear that although it has no AA filter, oversampling with photosites that overlap by 1/2 pixel act as an excellent AA filter. Can't wait to see the RAW files:
Source: Olympus E-M5 II Review (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA.HTM) at imaging-resource.
Regards
Told you. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
You were certainly open to that impression :-)
yes yes...I added to my comment :-)
Canon designed and built sensor...
Is that good or bad news?
It means that Canon still makes more money doing their own sensor rather than licensing it from Sony. But it also means it has a lower dynamic range than the Sonys and Nikons out there. So you get a high megapixel option from Canon but no better in challenging light. Pixel quality on par with the 7D II or so. I am unimpressed to say the least.
But if you shoot stills for studio, that Oly with 40mp looks darn attractive for $1100 ...if you're looking to get more mpixels
Then again, so does the Sony A7R....or wait for the next Nikon...
Having said that, we all don't know how the new Canon sensor will really behave. But looking at that Hippo, I have my doubts.
DR is said to be about the same as the 5D MK3. If that is indeed the case, I fear this camera could be a bit of a let down...More pixels without an increase in DR isn't really that useful outside of cropping power.
Not sure if this was posted - but there is a short interview with Chuck Westfall talking about the new cameras.
Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSQTKM3nQ5U)
DR is said to be about the same as the 5D MK3. If that is indeed the case, I fear this camera could be a bit of a let down...More pixels without an increase in DR isn't really that useful outside of cropping power.
They've said the same performance on the pixel level. But it has more than twice as many pixels. So that's an extra stop and a bit right there (when calculating using the usual method, which involves correcting it to a standard resolution), even assuming no other improvements.
Pattern noise has also disappeared, which goes a long way towards making the darker stops usable.
I'd like to see what DxO makes of the sensor. If it doesn't match up, the A7rII/A9 will be more attractive to landscape photographers, for whom AF is purely optional.
Interesting the tests of the new Olympus E-M5 II multishot mode (8 shots at 16Mpx shifted by 1/2 pixel are combined into a 40Mpx JPEG or a 64Mpx RAW file). At imaging-resource they have compared it to the sharpness (and moiré) queens: the Nikon D810 and Sony A7R.
All three are native camera JPEG, downsampled from 40Mpx to obtain a similar output size in the case of the EM-5. Although the Olympus keeps up as good as the best of the others in sharpness (even after the image has been resampled twice, one in camera and then by the imaging-resource guys), it's the only one that manages to avoid moiré. It seems clear that although it has no AA filter, oversampling with photosites that overlap by 1/2 pixel act as an excellent AA filter. Can't wait to see the RAW files:
Why is there more detail highlight in the Nikon image when the Sony is the same sensor? Is that due to internal processing? It also has more HL detail than the Oly.
Likely recoverable in post or does it say something about the cams?
DP Review writes:
As far as dynamic range is concerned, we're told that the new 5DS and 5DS R should give the same performance as the current EOS 5D Mark III. If true, this means that the new cameras won't be able to offer the same industry-leading dynamic range of Sony's current APS-C and full-frame sensors, but at least it isn't a step backwards. And hey - 50MP!
I'd like to see what DxO makes of the sensor.there is also http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/ - it is as good as DxO for that matter
DP Review writes:
As far as dynamic range is concerned, we're told that the new 5DS and 5DS R should give the same performance as the current EOS 5D Mark III. If true, this means that the new cameras won't be able to offer the same industry-leading dynamic range of Sony's current APS-C and full-frame sensors, but at least it isn't a step backwards. And hey - 50MP!
So what happens when the 50MP Sony arrives. And you gotta believe there is a 50MP Nikon on the horizon. Both of which have sensor subsystems that blow the 5Ds out of the water, especially for the intended target market.
Preorders in April.
Sample images -
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/index.html
PS: Those reddish blotches on the hippo's skin - are those aliasing artifacts?
36mp sensors were not able to reduce Canon market share significantly vs 21mp (was that the max mp in Canon sensors ?).... why 'd 50mp do something drastic vs 50mp ?
are you really expecting 50mp FF Sony sensor to gain something like 1 stop DR vs 36 mp FF Sony sensor in any metric (per sensel or scaled to the same resolution) ;D ?
As far as I can tell the hippo looks just fine as a hippo. Clearly the hippo has been involved in some fights which have left some marks. That's how it is to be a hippo :)That image has a nasty digital look to it which personally I really dislike.
That's total market share, the bulk of which is comprised of consumer-level bodies which have neither the 36 nor the 20/21/22MP full-frame sensors. Canon have maintained a lot of their total market share because consumer bodies make up the majority of it (although they are nowhere near as dominant as they used to be).
You need to look at it segment-by-segment. Canon gained a lot of studio, landscape and other non-moving-object photographers with the 1Ds line and the 5D2, winning them over from MF film. They then lost a lot of them when Canon failed to improve in either DR or resolution, losing them to Nikon and Sony. A large number of prominent landscape photographers who had previously listed the 5D2 among their regular gear moved to the D800e. But this represents only a small segment of total camera sales - the vast majority of sales, being consumer-level bodies, were unaffected by this, while Canon has also retained its market share in action photography.
Scaled to the same resolution, it would gain around a third of a stop if per-pixel performance were the same, all else being equal. Canon's 50MP would gain more than a stop over their current 22MP sensor, since it's more than a doubling of pixel count.
I'm not sure what the problem is though all they have to do is buy a Sony sensor DSLR and take it down the the lab "hey build one of these" pretty simple right? Evidently it's baffled Canon for yearsReverse engineering isn't always that simple. Not to mention patents.
Reverse engineering isn't always that simple. Not to mention patents.
That image has a nasty digital look to it which personally I really dislike.
It'd have been much better to have the raw files to look at and tweak. Not that anything could open them.
That's total market share, the bulk of which is comprised of consumer-level bodies which have neither the 36 nor the 20/21/22MP full-frame sensors. Canon have maintained a lot of their total market share because consumer bodies make up the majority of it (although they are nowhere near as dominant as they used to be).
You need to look at it segment-by-segment. Canon gained a lot of studio, landscape and other non-moving-object photographers with the 1Ds line and the 5D2, winning them over from MF film. They then lost a lot of them when Canon failed to improve in either DR or resolution, losing them to Nikon and Sony. A large number of prominent landscape photographers who had previously listed the 5D2 among their regular gear moved to the D800e. But this represents only a small segment of total camera sales - the vast majority of sales, being consumer-level bodies, were unaffected by this, while Canon has also retained its market share in action photography.
Scaled to the same resolution, it would gain around a third of a stop if per-pixel performance were the same, all else being equal. Canon's 50MP would gain more than a stop over their current 22MP sensor, since it's more than a doubling of pixel count.
I'm not so sure that Canon lost so many as you might think. I run workshops and have so far had several hundred clients. I can say that for the returning customers which are plenty that almost none has switched system, a few has bought a Sony A7 to complement the Canon. I do explain that due the DR of the Canon they need a shooting technique where they never underexpose and that is the key to get the results with the Canon sensor. I shoot Canon and Nikon side by side and do like the Nikon DR a lot, but often I like the Canon better for the colors.
We can all have our feeling about how many have changed, but I have never seen any statistics.
I think the 7D II is a fantastic deal for what it is, the best fast-action, multi-functional, wildlife crop camera available.
In the landscape-focused wilderness trips that I accompany (either as a photography tutor, medical escort or independent photographer) there have been many changes in the past seven years.
Initially, it was almost exclusively Canon bodies - mostly 5D2 and 1Ds3. It was rare to see a Nikon D700 - while this was probably a much better all-round camera, it lacked the resolution of the Canon bodies and did not have the dynamic range of later Exmor sensors.
In the following years, I would see the occasional A900 or D3x, but, by and large, it remained dominated by the Canon 5D2.
All this changed in 2012 with the release of the D800/D800e and the 5D3. I continued to see lots of 5D2s, but also saw an increasing number of D800 and D800e bodies, with relatively few 5D3s
In the trips I accompanied last year, I was now seeing mostly Nikon bodies, as well as Sony bodies with Canon lenses attached, with a few old 5D2s but very few newer Canon bodies. So the tide has completely turned in Nikon/Sony's favour.
All of this, of course, is a very narrow snapshot of one specific segment of photography (landscape) but the same seems to be reflected in the equipment lists of many prominent landscape photographers - where they used to list the 5D2, many now seem to list the D800e or D810 instead.
Re: Canon vs Nikon colours - once I take them into Photoshop it makes no difference anyway. But I find that Canon generally renders too warm and Nikon too cool.
Just to be sure, I'm talking about landscape workshops that I run and as mentioned I have not seen that land slide. I have clients from all over the world.
The colors I'm referring to is the colors from the RAW conversion using a calibrated camera profile. I have found it often very difficult to make the same colors from the two cameras when shot in the exact same conditions. I'm absolutely certain this is caused by the differences in the Bayer filters.
The colors I'm referring to is the colors from the RAW conversion using a calibrated camera profile. I have found it often very difficult to make the same colors from the two cameras when shot in the exact same conditions. I'm absolutely certain this is caused by the differences in the Bayer filters.
Lenses, likewise can have an influence on both color directly, and on image rendering characteristics that influence our perception of color.Lenses can be markedly different colours, which can be a real problem when filmmaking. Not to mention t-stops that are nowhere near the stated f-stop.
I think the Sony Alpha 77 mark 2 is better.
36mp sensors were not able to reduce Canon market share significantly vs 21mp (was that the max mp in Canon sensors ?).... why 'd 50mp do something drastic vs 50mp ? are you really expecting 50mp FF Sony sensor to gain something like 1 stop DR vs 36 mp FF Sony sensor in any metric (per sensel or scaled to the same resolution) ;D ?
.....
Don't forgot that the 1ds MKIII was $8400.00 when announced!! ....
Paul
I think the 7D II is a fantastic deal for what it is, the best fast-action, multi-functional, wildlife crop camera available.
I think the 7DmkII is a great camera hobbled by it's sensor. I think the Nikon D7100 is a great camera hobbled in shooting some sports and wildlife by it slower functional speed (6fps) and data throughput. But the Nikon is about 1/2 the price of the D7100 which makes it a helluva value. While the D7100 can shoot about 95% of what the 7DmkII can do and with better pixels, if you have to have that last 5% then the 7DmkII is really the only game in town anywhere near these price points. But if the rumored D7200/D9300 with 8-10fps and buffer support appears, why get a 7DmkII except for the fact that you are locked into the Canon system.
This is much better interview than the Chuck Westfall one about the new 5DS and R versions HERE (http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm).
Expanded commentary on Dynamic Range - in brief, equivalent to the 5D MK3, BUT! with a much lower noise floor and more ability to pull out details out of the shadows.
ITs going to be a long wait to get one of these cameras and see actually real results...
The 7D II has so much more overall functionality, and durability, than the D7100, there's really no comparison.
The D7100 does have a better sensor though, and I do agree that is the one hobble of the 7D II as a $1700 camera.
Likewise, the D7100 is at its price point, because that is where the price point of a smaller, less-functional, less durable camera belongs (even with a decent sensor).
Jack
This is much better interview than the Chuck Westfall one about the new 5DS and R versions HERE (http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm).
Expanded commentary on Dynamic Range - in brief, equivalent to the 5D MK3, BUT! with a much lower noise floor and more ability to pull out details out of the shadows.
ITs going to be a long wait to get one of these cameras and see actually real results...
Huh, in 2012 Canon held a 17% lead in DSLR sales to Nikon. In 2013, that was down under 7%. Final figures for 2014 are not out yet. Will be interesting to see.Market share is also very dependent on how many new cameras are launched. So it would be instructive to compare market share by month along with release dates of new kit.
Hum... many people would probably consider than "same DR" and "much lower noise floor" are non compatible statments.Or until people take actual photos with camera. :P
There is indeed little value discussing till DxO puts their hands on a camera and measure actual performance.
Hum... many people would probably consider than "same DR" and "much lower noise floor" are non compatible statments.
There is indeed little value discussing till DxO puts their hands on a camera and measure actual performance.
Quote from: Rajan Parrikar on February 05, 2015, 11:12:02 PM
Preorders in April.
Sample images -
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/index.html
PS: Those reddish blotches on the hippo's skin - are those aliasing artifacts?
Quote from: Hans Kruse on February 06, 2015, 9:54 AM
As far as I can tell the hippo looks just fine as a hippo. Clearly the hippo has been involved in some fights which have left some marks. That's how it is to be a hippo Smiley
Don't worry about those nasty looking blotches and no need to blame them on Canon sensor! In reality, they are caused by sweating on a hot day.
When a hippo perspires, its sweat turns red because of unusual reddish pigments that are secreted with it. Molecules in this pigment absorb ultraviolet light, and the rather acidic and antibiotic secretion functions as a natural sunscreen.
If you took this camera on an Antarctica trip, I'm sure you wouldn't get any red spots on the penguins.
Hans,
Although this is probably not the place, I would like to compliment you about the superb the use of color in the landscape images on your site.
There is no reason one should be able to match cameras in practice, if the CFA filters are not identical. Let me say this differently - mathematically speaking one should expect different sensors to behave differently :)
BTW, in MF, my impression is that the H5D60 is very different, maybe better, than the H5D50 for landscape.
Edmund
does that include green dots as well? If you look a little further left of where some red dots are, there are a couple at least of green. Im not worried about it, but since we are talking about it...
While the D7100 front and bottom are plastic, the top and rear are magnesium alloy. And it is dust and water sealed to D800 levels. It is actually a very durable camera. And other than the 4 fps slower and smaller buffer, it is as full featured as the 7DmkII. I wish it had CF support, but dual SD cards work. In fact, for most photographers considering these 2 cameras, the D7100 is by far a better value. In fact, it is probably one of the best values in the DSLR market right now.
My God, you're predictable ::)
How does a discussion about the innovations of the 7D II vs. the 5D Mk III s get turned into a sales pitch for the plasticky Nikon D7100?
It might just be because for 95% of all different types of photo making opportunities, the D7100 will result in an equivalent or better image and it cost 1/2 as much. Only when you need the processing speed, throughput and frame rate does it make sense to exchange image quality for speed of operation and higher price.
The fact that the D7100 is actually the best APS-C Nikon available and about the best they ever made, is a real knock on Nikon.
The problem with the D7100 is the buffer it's just too small for Raw shooters and esp action shooters. Really it needs to be about twice the size to be "acceptable" once you get into high level sports/action shooting some users want 20+ shots in raw if not a bit more, the D7100 falls far far short of that. I've an A77 and that has 16 shots raw but not enough for some users (the II model has a huge buffer) Nikon did mess up a bit here semi pro body in every way with an entry level buffer the newer model should be up to at least 15 shots in raw.
Either way the 7d II hasn't got a lot of competition. If you don't shoot action you probably won't need it but this camera is aimed at that type of user. Nikon don't have a model to directly compete with it (the D400 never arrived and some say never will)
I wonder if there won't be a D9000 one day soon now. I can't see Nikon putting APS-c into a flagship body ever again, but I could see them coming up with an APS-c camera with a D810 type body with a loaded feature set. Meanwhile, I'd expect a D7200 very soon.