Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Ken R on January 30, 2015, 06:40:47 pm
-
I know, they are not medium format digital cameras but they get into their high resolution realm. No word on who makes the sensor. The 5DR has no AA filter. More specs HERE (http://www.canonrumors.com/)
-
Thread already started here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=97383.0;topicseen).
cheers,
-
Thats a huge jump from what they previously had. I seriously wonder how well, or not well, their lenses will be able to resolve light for pixels that small.
-
Hi,
We had 3.8 micron pixels for long as we had 3.8 micron technology in APS-C sensors.
Decent quality lenses will resolve fine at 3.8 microns. Detail contrast will be lower than at 4.8 microns (36MP). Many lenses will not be sharp in the corners.
50 MP cameras will be critical regarding alignment sensor, AF and lens.
Canon made a recent overhaul of their lens line.
Any decent lens will produce a sharper image with a 50 MP sensor than with an 24 or 36 MP sensor. Aliasing will be reduced and also risk for moiré. Also, the image will respond better to sharpening.
Best regards
Erik
Thats a huge jump from what they previously had. I seriously wonder how well, or not well, their lenses will be able to resolve light for pixels that small.
-
I'm sure they'll sell a zillion of them. I'm equally sure I don't care.
16MPs has proven nowhere as good in APS-C as in 35mm, 24MPs in APS-C has proven nowhere near as good as 24MPs in 35mm. And so it goes.
A lot of Canon people will be happy. My dealer friends will be relieved to have a new product to move. The measurebators will be over the moon.
All is well with the world.
- N.
-
I'm sure they'll sell a zillion of them. I'm equally sure I don't care.
The measurebators will be over the moon.
All is well with the world.
- N.
Looks like the debatetators have a headstart on the measurebators. :)
Edmund
-
I want an upgrade on my brain. Who cares about MP. I want TeraNeurons!
-
I want an upgrade on my brain. Who cares about MP. I want TeraNeurons!
I hope one day I can figure out how to use the 3 pounds of meat I already have in my head ;D
-
Hi,
It seems that it will be a fantastic camera (in paper) with a modern autofocus system, something that we don't have on the nikon side (the D810 autofocus is adecuate, so is the D750 the software is very good but the number of points in general and cross type points in particular is of the D3 generation).
The other news will be that state of the art medium format and state of the art DSLR will have similar resolution. The horizontal resolution of the DSLR will be better in theory than the MF cameras.
The question will be the lenses, MF stress the lenses far less for the same resolution.
The cost of the tiny sensor on the cmos cameras is now fully shown.
The not here comment is : If the sensor is from Sony, Nikon could be in a lot of trouble, something similar to Hasselblad when PhaseOne succeed in blocking hasselblad access to the 80MP sensor.
Back to medium format: If the dynamic range is there, this will make medium format outside the 645z even more difficult to justify.
Best regards,
-
Back to medium format: If the dynamic range is there, this will make medium format outside the 645z even more difficult to justify.
I am not sure it changes the game that much compared to what was already available (D810/a7r) in terms of "threat" for MF. 36 sharp megapixels are already enough for most applications and if they aren't chances are that 50mp won't be enough either.
What matters more is indeed DR and the quality/look of the lenses relative to sensor size.
In other words, I don't see that many people interested in MF re-consider because Canon releases a 50mp sensor. Most of the MF users who wanted to downsize already own a D810, those who didn't still won't.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Back to medium format: If the dynamic range is there, this will make medium format outside the 645z even more difficult to justify.
This has been said every time a higher res dSLR camera has been released. Anyone on this forum for a long enough time will recall it from the release of at least a dozen cameras over the year. It fundamentally misunderstands what medium format is and does; pixels and dr are just two of the many many reasons why our clients choose medium format over a 35mm alternative.
Team Phase One has been profitable (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstillingsvirksomhed/13477705-2/) and growing since the financial crises. In my evaluation it's not "despite" the 5DII, D800, A7R, 645D, 645Z etc, but because of them. Anytime a product has been released that gets people talking about, thinking about, and evaluating image quality Team Phase One has benefited.
If this camera has broad compatibility with technical cameras and view cameras, syncs up to 1/1600th, offers a waist level viewfinder, has an optical viewfinder as large and bright as a full frame 645 body, offers vertical composition without rotating (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/mamiya-rz67) the camera, provides instant focus mask on-LCD, customizable exposure warning, automatic correction of horizon and perspective based on the internal levels, a color look developed via close collaboration (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml) between the hardware and software team, and comes with a suite of lenses (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/leaf-shutter-lenses) already proven to provide fantastic quality, at any aperture, at 80mp (let alone 50mp)... then maybe it will threaten medium format.
Otherwise it's just another 35mm SLR with a similar resolution to one of the lower end medium format options on the market. Surely a great camera for many applications, and undoubtedly a very good value for the dollar, but, fundamentally, still just another 35mm SLR.
-
Doug,
There should be a dealer for hi-rez off the shelf dSLR stuff.
Why don't you become that dealer?
As you very cogently point out, there may be some overlap, but not real competition between these two worlds.
Edmund
This has been said every time a higher res dSLR camera has been released. Anyone on this forum for a long enough time will recall it from the release of at least a dozen cameras over the year. It fundamentally misunderstands what medium format is and does; pixels and dr are just two of the many many reasons why our clients choose medium format over a 35mm alternative.
Team Phase One has been profitable (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstillingsvirksomhed/13477705-2/) and growing since the financial crises. In my evaluation it's not "despite" the 5DII, D800, A7R, 645D, 645Z etc, but because of them. Anytime a product has been released that gets people talking about, thinking about, and evaluating image quality Team Phase One has benefited.
If this camera has broad compatibility with technical cameras and view cameras, syncs up to 1/1600th, offers a waist level viewfinder, has an optical viewfinder as large and bright as a full frame 645 body, offers vertical composition without rotating (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/mamiya-rz67) the camera, provides instant focus mask on-LCD, customizable exposure warning, automatic correction of horizon and perspective based on the internal levels, a color look developed via close collaboration (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml) between the hardware and software team, and comes with a suite of lenses (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/leaf-shutter-lenses) already proven to provide fantastic quality, at any aperture, at 80mp (let alone 50mp)... then maybe it will threaten medium format.
Otherwise it's just another 35mm SLR with a similar resolution to one of the lower end medium format options on the market. Surely a great camera for many applications, and undoubtedly a very good value for the dollar, but, fundamentally, still just another 35mm SLR.
-
Can't wait to see what Sony does to follow up the 50mp 33x44 sensor, or Dalsa with the 36x48.
Technology waits for no one, and there are lots of really smart people working to push the edge.
-
Hi,
I would agree that with higher resolution FF135 will go deeper in MFD territory, but MFD is not standing still.
Sony has been making sensors for Nikon for many years, and they will happily sell sensors to anyone paying enough.
As you know, Sony is making sensors know for Pentax, Hasselblad and Team Phase One. Those sensors could also benefit from the same pixel shrink we have seen on the new 50 MP sensors.
The pixel size on the 50 MP sensors is the same as on 24MP APS-C (+/- 0.2 microns), what I have seen is that pixel size taking many lenses to the limit but giving very good rendition.
If Sony will be making them in larger sizes is probably dependent on market size and priorities. Upscaling a 50 MP sensor to 44x33 would give something like 84 MP.
Where Dalsa is going, it is hard to know. It is possible they will make competitive CMOS sensors for MFD, or continue with CCD.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
It seems that it will be a fantastic camera (in paper) with a modern autofocus system, something that we don't have on the nikon side (the D810 autofocus is adecuate, so is the D750 the software is very good but the number of points in general and cross type points in particular is of the D3 generation).
The other news will be that state of the art medium format and state of the art DSLR will have similar resolution. The horizontal resolution of the DSLR will be better in theory than the MF cameras.
The question will be the lenses, MF stress the lenses far less for the same resolution.
The cost of the tiny sensor on the cmos cameras is now fully shown.
The not here comment is : If the sensor is from Sony, Nikon could be in a lot of trouble, something similar to Hasselblad when PhaseOne succeed in blocking hasselblad access to the 80MP sensor.
Back to medium format: If the dynamic range is there, this will make medium format outside the 645z even more difficult to justify.
Best regards,
-
High resolution DSLRs has increased the interest in high resolution photography in general, and that is not all bad for medium format. As long as MFD keeps up holds a suitable distance it will be no problem.
The costs evens out too a bit I think, as you'd need Otus type of lenses to get MF-like resolving power.
There will be the category of photographers that see no meaning to upgrade to MFD as 135 can offer so high resolution these days, those are permanently lost I think, but that's only one category.
I think it will be important for MFD to "be different" not only in resolution, so to make sure the tech camera genre thrives is an important thing as I think that has a stronger attraction to the increasingly important group of enthusiast photographers.
I have a Canon system, but for me as a tech camera photographer and a large format-style of shooting (movements etc) the 50MP Canon cannot replace my current Linhof/Hassy combo, even if their sensor is less noisy than my Kodak CCD, which we don't know yet by the way... and DR is not what I desire the most in my style of shooting by the way. Even more megapixels would be nice... :-)
-
Can't wait to see what Sony does to follow up the 50mp 33x44 sensor, or Dalsa with the 36x48.
Technology waits for no one, and there are lots of really smart people working to push the edge.
I'm not sure how much Dalsa care about MFD, as the same CCD technology are used in many other applications too. I'd guess that for that sensor size it's more important to them to make an all-around technology useful in many applications than go head-to-head and try to outperform Sony sensors.
Manufacturing technology goes forwards though, hopefully it's getting easier and easier to make a large version of a smaller chip, so you can make small volumes without much overhead cost, that would be great for MFD. Then we might see sensors from say Samsung in the future, their sensors are starting to show in the smaller formats...
-
IMHO the Nikon D810 has been the first camera to really "challenge" medium format in regards to color depth and dynamic range and overall feel of the files. The D800/D800E got close but still color on the D800 was off IMHO and while the D800E was/is better something was still "off". The D810 files are very similar in feel to the Sony 50mm CMOS MF sensor files. (judging from the files I have been able to get a hold of and play with).
But I agree, a 35mm DSLR is a 35mm DSLR no matter how you slice it. Each format contributes to image characteristics that go beyond pixel quality. A lot of it has to do with sensor size and optics. I mean, I don't know anyone that shoots with a bare sensor!
I absolutely love the look of the larger sensors ,like the 60mp one in the IQ160 I have, specially when shooting portraits wide open and even landscapes at f8-f11. Just the look and feel of the image is different (including color). It is not always about the technical image characteristics.
Although it wouldn't be a bad thing if the new 5DS's have a Sony sensor inside I hope Canon can whip out a sensor that offers something different. It would be kinda sad if suddenly most high end cameras come out with a similar or equal sensor. Nice to have different options.
-
This has been said every time a higher res dSLR camera has been released. Anyone on this forum for a long enough time will recall it from the release of at least a dozen cameras over the year. It fundamentally misunderstands what medium format is and does; pixels and dr are just two of the many many reasons why our clients choose medium format over a 35mm alternative.
Team Phase One has been profitable (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstillingsvirksomhed/13477705-2/) and growing since the financial crises. In my evaluation it's not "despite" the 5DII, D800, A7R, 645D, 645Z etc, but because of them. Anytime a product has been released that gets people talking about, thinking about, and evaluating image quality Team Phase One has benefited.
If this camera has broad compatibility with technical cameras and view cameras, syncs up to 1/1600th, offers a waist level viewfinder, has an optical viewfinder as large and bright as a full frame 645 body, offers vertical composition without rotating (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/mamiya-rz67) the camera, provides instant focus mask on-LCD, customizable exposure warning, automatic correction of horizon and perspective based on the internal levels, a color look developed via close collaboration (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml) between the hardware and software team, and comes with a suite of lenses (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/leaf-shutter-lenses) already proven to provide fantastic quality, at any aperture, at 80mp (let alone 50mp)... then maybe it will threaten medium format.
Otherwise it's just another 35mm SLR with a similar resolution to one of the lower end medium format options on the market. Surely a great camera for many applications, and undoubtedly a very good value for the dollar, but, fundamentally, still just another 35mm SLR.
I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you,but let me clarify that:
1. I never talked about this when the D3x was released.
2. I am saying that that it will be remove one justification, if the Dynamic range is there. The logic is pretty straightforward: Can people justify MF? of course they can[1]. but they will have one justification less.
3. MF use to have far more dynamic range and resolution than DSLRs in the olden days. Later, MF no longer had a dynamic range advantage (MF vendors were able to keep some people unaware, until the CMOS sensor was released), now DSLR are matching resolution.
4. I agree that, if medium format keeps an advantage on image quality, the current developments will help MF grow. Amateurs and even some professionals will want to differentiate themselves from the mirror-less commodities.
5. Because of volume,MF sensors are likely not to represent the last technology for long. The strength of medium format is the size of the sensor[2]. 48 x 36 mm is the point were size become a very strong advantage, enough to compensate for a generation delay on technology.
6. When the new CMOS sensor was released I did the same commentary, the sensor should be bigger. I also stated that the next generation DSLR will match or surpass the resolution of the Sonny sensor, and say that it will complicate marketing. So I am not reacting to another high pixel DSLR, I am showing what I was talking about when the sensor was introduced.
7. If it's real and has the proper dynamic range the sensor on the Canon will be about 8660 x 5770 pixels vs 8280 x 6208 for the IQ250. Most people don't shoot Otus lenses, so the IQ should prevail. As I say is one justification less.
Best regards,
[1] We can justify Perrier water etc.
[2] It was the same in film days. With MF on cmos, now, it will be easier for MF to compete, if the sensor size is there.
-
I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you,but let me clarify that:
Not sensitive, just boring. It's the same thing every 18-24 months.
Maybe you, specifically, did not make this prognostication the last go around, but it is made - like clockwork - upon every new camera release.
-
1. I never talked about this when the D3x was released.
No one ever really talked about the D3x, the Sony A900 had the same sensor for a third of the price, and the 5D2 was the hot topic with live view and video. I personally know two photographers who dumped their MF/LF film kits over the 5D2.
2. I am saying that that it will be remove one justification, if the Dynamic range is there. The logic is pretty straightforward: Can people justify MF? of course they can[1]. but they will have one justification less.
Pretty big shoes to fill, seeing as it's Canon after all, it needs to be able to match the Nikon D8xx series let alone the 645 systems.
3. MF use to have far more dynamic range and resolution than DSLRs in the olden days. Later, MF no longer had a dynamic range advantage (MF vendors were able to keep some people unaware, until the CMOS sensor was released), now DSLR are matching resolution.
In the olden days, the only factor was film size, as every camera had every type of film available to it. With digital, small sensors are faster and easier to design, produce and sell, while larger sizes need proven technology that can produce a good enough yield for the required dimensions, resulting in them getting stuck with decades old base technology, like if development on CRT displays continued to this day. The Sony 33x44mm sensor is the very first medium format sensor that's actually based on the same modern technological base as smaller cameras, and is a good indicator of how things would have been if large-size CMOS wasn't prohibitive to manufacture.
"Matching resolution" is a pretty bold statement if you're only counting pixels - the 36mp D800 in some ways had let down many early adopters who discovered that Nikon glass is woefully inadequate to resolve the sensor, and began adapting other brands...
4. I agree that, if medium format keeps an advantage on image quality, the current developments will help MF grow. Amateurs and even some professionals will want to differentiate themselves from the mirror-less commodities.
In my opinion, MF needs to, and may well soon go mirrorless too.. and I don't mean tech cams, just regular cameras with autofocus. If Sony has any sense about them, and they continue developing large sensors, it may no longer be that MF will have to make do with old tech.
5. Because of volume,MF sensors are likely not to represent the last technology for long. The strength of medium format is the size of the sensor[2]. 48 x 36 mm is the point were size become a very strong advantage, enough to compensate for a generation delay on technology.
All it's going to take is a relatively inexpensive MF camera, like a big Sony mirrorless, to introduce more people to the concept and it's going to snowball from there. The ice will get broken sooner or later.
6. When the new CMOS sensor was released I did the same commentary, the sensor should be bigger. I also stated that the next generation DSLR will match or surpass the resolution of the Sonny sensor, and say that it will complicate marketing. So I am not reacting to another high pixel DSLR, I am showing what I was talking about when the sensor was introduced.
I'm happy there's a Sony Exmor 33x44mm sensor in the first place, never mind size. Sony says it's difficult to manufacture as it is, so give it time, maybe give them money too. I would much rather have 51 million pixels that are over 5 microns big each.
7. If it's real and has the proper dynamic range the sensor on the Canon will be about 8660 x 5770 pixels vs 8280 x 6208 for the IQ250. Most people don't shoot Otus lenses, so the IQ should prevail. As I say is one justification less.
As I said, using proper DR and Canon in the same sentence is dicey given their history, but the problem of resolution is also one of file size. Do I really want to shoot the 5D R knowing i'm using up 60mb+ each time for detail I may not even get? People who will buy this camera will almost certainly be those who have TS-Es, Otuses, and the new Sigma Art lenses and have been waiting for so long for something just like this.
-
It's the same thing every 18-24 months.
It's obvious Doug.
Nothing is ever talked about in digital camera forums more than a gazillion pixels and DeeeRRRR. Maybe corner sharpness (fill in one of those perplexed little yellow faces).
But be fair, you guys sold those two phrases for 10 years, so it's kind of funny your tired of it.
Honestly, I have no dog in this fight, because I would be very surprised to find myself standing in line with the thought I "had" to buy a new still only camera.
I might buy one because I wanted to, but not because I felt I needed to. Big difference.
But what would be kind of cool is if some real modern useable tech was added to all these pixels.
PDAF focusing, modular systems, a sensor that had image stabilization.
Ever pick up an olympus em-1. Obviously it's a tiny sensor and seems like no threat to you guys, but that floating sensor is amazing.
You can shoot something static, hand held at unheard of shutter speeds.
For video it's like a built in steady-cam.
And modular, olympus even makes a viewfinder that clips on top of the viewfinder.
Think about it. You could have an optical finder and a clip on evf in one camera.
That right angle grip thing that everybody sticks below a camera could also be modular.
One for stills that has more power and . . . I dunno . . . faster frame rates or holds your sunglasses.
How bout' an optional grip that allowed for better video encoding, xlr inputs, even storage options.
Even an extra port for a touch screen finder that worked like the cheapo Canon 70d.
Selectable formats like . . . the em-1. 4:3 for vertical stills, 2:3 for horizontal stills and 16:9 and 2:1 for video, because the super 35mm format works well for motion capture.
After all there a two billion PL mount lenses floating around.
Or how about a global shutter?
Then different lens mounts. Obviously the mirrorless cameras do it, even my Leica S2 allow me to put on lenses from three makers, with full functionality.
Now software. I can't imagine the user interface of lightroom that actually did keying, face tracking and timeline stacking like Di Vinci, without the arcachic PCness of Di Vinci.
I understand you guys don't wanna sell little cameras because there is no margin in them and I'm not talking about a whiz bang version of a 1dc for twenty bucks.
Something that really went forward, was long term useable without tossing out a lens set or learning how to become an ebay seller.
But honestly, It's kind of hard for me to think about springing for a still camera that lists at the same price as a real movie camera.
At that point you'd have a camera and a system that really would bridge both worlds of motion and stills and something worth talking about.
Something that would put me at the counter.
.
IMO
BC
-
With digital, small sensors are faster and easier to design, produce and sell...
I can understand that small sensors are easier to produce -- yield and defect density. I guess they're faster to produce since you can get more of them on a wafer. I can't understand why they're easier or faster to design. We're not using drafting boards, X-acto knives and Rubylith any more. A bigger chip and more pixels is just a matter of specs to the CAD software, isn't it?
Jim
-
No one ever really talked about the D3x, the Sony A900 had the same sensor for a third of the price, and the 5D2 was the hot topic with live view and video. I personally know two photographers who dumped their MF/LF film kits over the 5D2.
Pretty big shoes to fill, seeing as it's Canon after all, it needs to be able to match the Nikon D8xx series let alone the 645 systems.
In the olden days, the only factor was film size, as every camera had every type of film available to it. With digital, small sensors are faster and easier to design, produce and sell, while larger sizes need proven technology that can produce a good enough yield for the required dimensions, resulting in them getting stuck with decades old base technology, like if development on CRT displays continued to this day. The Sony 33x44mm sensor is the very first medium format sensor that's actually based on the same modern technological base as smaller cameras, and is a good indicator of how things would have been if large-size CMOS wasn't prohibitive to manufacture.
"Matching resolution" is a pretty bold statement if you're only counting pixels - the 36mp D800 in some ways had let down many early adopters who discovered that Nikon glass is woefully inadequate to resolve the sensor, and began adapting other brands...
In my opinion, MF needs to, and may well soon go mirrorless too.. and I don't mean tech cams, just regular cameras with autofocus. If Sony has any sense about them, and they continue developing large sensors, it may no longer be that MF will have to make do with old tech.
All it's going to take is a relatively inexpensive MF camera, like a big Sony mirrorless, to introduce more people to the concept and it's going to snowball from there. The ice will get broken sooner or later.
I'm happy there's a Sony Exmor 33x44mm sensor in the first place, never mind size. Sony says it's difficult to manufacture as it is, so give it time, maybe give them money too. I would much rather have 51 million pixels that are over 5 microns big each.
As I said, using proper DR and Canon in the same sentence is dicey given their history, but the problem of resolution is also one of file size. Do I really want to shoot the 5D R knowing i'm using up 60mb+ each time for detail I may not even get? People who will buy this camera will almost certainly be those who have TS-Es, Otuses, and the new Sigma Art lenses and have been waiting for so long for something just like this.
Basically I don't see your comments as negating what I say, more an extension. But 4 notes:
1) I say mirror-less commodities, not just mirror-less. What I am conveying is that I believe mirror-less cameras will commodity full frame sensors (of the 135 kind). No complex by hand manufacturing. Nikon issues with both the D600 and D750 show that assembly and tolerances are an issue when you are trying to build at the lower costs possible. Will be far easier to address with a fully digital camera (even robots could assembly the camera)
2) I was happy to see the Sony sensor too, but was concern about size.
3) I am fully aware of Canon dynamic range, my DSLR is a Nikon, if I new it was a Sony sensor I would not have mention DR.
4) It could be that the camera is a hoax we don't have Canon confirmation yet.
Best regards,
-
Well,
When image quality is good enough for ones needs other thins matter a lot. Obviously other things matter to different people.
Many of the things BC mentions are desirable. But again, not all people want/need the same features. I would agree that 4/3 cameras have a lot very good features.
As a landscape shooter making stills I don't need video that often, but when presenting stills a short video can really enhance a presentation. So I feel video is important also for landscape shooters. In that context I would prefer 4K video.
I still feel that more pixels are better when printing large, say 1m (24") or so. I am also quite positive about the small pixels. Good lenses, and there are plenty of them, deserve a sensor that gives a correct image.
Best regards
Erik
It's obvious Doug.
Nothing is ever talked about in digital camera forums more than a gazillion pixels and DeeeRRRR. Maybe corner sharpness (fill in one of those perplexed little yellow faces).
But be fair, you guys sold those two phrases for 10 years, so it's kind of funny your tired of it.
Honestly, I have no dog in this fight, because I would be very surprised to find myself standing in line with the thought I "had" to buy a new still only camera.
I might buy one because I wanted to, but not because I felt I needed to. Big difference.
But what would be kind of cool is if some real modern useable tech was added to all these pixels.
PDAF focusing, modular systems, a sensor that had image stabilization.
Ever pick up an olympus em-1. Obviously it's a tiny sensor and seems like no threat to you guys, but that floating sensor is amazing.
You can shoot something static, hand held at unheard of shutter speeds.
For video it's like a built in steady-cam.
And modular, olympus even makes a viewfinder that clips on top of the viewfinder.
Think about it. You could have an optical finder and a clip on evf in one camera.
That right angle grip thing that everybody sticks below a camera could also be modular.
One for stills that has more power and . . . I dunno . . . faster frame rates or holds your sunglasses.
How bout' an optional grip that allowed for better video encoding, xlr inputs, even storage options.
Even an extra port for a touch screen finder that worked like the cheapo Canon 70d.
Selectable formats like . . . the em-1. 4:3 for vertical stills, 2:3 for horizontal stills and 16:9 and 2:1 for video, because the super 35mm format works well for motion capture.
After all there a two billion PL mount lenses floating around.
Or how about a global shutter?
Then different lens mounts. Obviously the mirrorless cameras do it, even my Leica S2 allow me to put on lenses from three makers, with full functionality.
Now software. I can't imagine the user interface of lightroom that actually did keying, face tracking and timeline stacking like Di Vinci, without the arcachic PCness of Di Vinci.
I understand you guys don't wanna sell little cameras because there is no margin in them and I'm not talking about a whiz bang version of a 1dc for twenty bucks.
Something that really went forward, was long term useable without tossing out a lens set or learning how to become an ebay seller.
But honestly, It's kind of hard for me to think about springing for a still camera that lists at the same price as a real movie camera.
At that point you'd have a camera and a system that really would bridge both worlds of motion and stills and something worth talking about.
Something that would put me at the counter.
.
IMO
BC
-
The main draw for me with Medium format is a larger sensor. If it wasn't for the larger sensor look and subsequent increase in image quality I'd be 35mm all the way.
The current innovation we're getting now means that sooner or later there will be another one or two manufacturers offering a medium format cam. It's not a case of it, but when. It's important to recognize that businesses are out to make money. Usually, any way they can and if a manufacturer felt there was a gap in the market for them to explore then you betcha they'd exploit it.
-
I can understand that small sensors are easier to produce -- yield and defect density. I guess they're faster to produce since you can get more of them on a wafer. I can't understand why they're easier or faster to design. We're not using drafting boards, X-acto knives and Rubylith any more. A bigger chip and more pixels is just a matter of specs to the CAD software, isn't it?
Jim
Maybe not, but it seems that designing sensors for a small niche (even if those customers have deep pockets) is comparatively "harder" than designing for the mass market.
I don't know much about sensor design, but I am guessing that starting with the excellent APS-C (and smaller) sensel designs, there is a significant amount of work and risk before you have scaled this to a larger sensor that can be manufactured economically. Not merely doing "copy & paste" of a file representing the physical layout of a single sensel.
-h
-
Maybe not, but it seems that designing sensors for a small niche (even if those customers have deep pockets) is comparatively "harder" than designing for the mass market.
I don't know much about sensor design, but I am guessing that starting with the excellent APS-C (and smaller) sensel designs, there is a significant amount of work and risk before you have scaled this to a larger sensor that can be manufactured economically. Not merely doing "copy & paste" of a file representing the physical layout of a single sensel.
-h
Yes, it's inherently difficult and expensive to scale chip technology, not to mention a completely new lineup of (also larger) optics. So the yield has to be lucrative to make the effort worth the trouble. When ventures like that don't pan out, it isn't pretty. Oh yeah, there's an opportunity, but what's the risk/reward, how much time and effort is it going to take, and what will the potential gains be vs putting that time, effort, and capitol somewhere else.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Basically I don't see your comments as negating what I say, more an extension.
Yeah I wasn't arguing against anything, just clarifying some points that I figured didn't tell the whole story.
I can understand that small sensors are easier to produce -- yield and defect density. I guess they're faster to produce since you can get more of them on a wafer. I can't understand why they're easier or faster to design. We're not using drafting boards, X-acto knives and Rubylith any more. A bigger chip and more pixels is just a matter of specs to the CAD software, isn't it?
Jim
Basically, all computer chips, whether it be the processor in your PC or the sensor in your camera, are made using a process called photolithography. A silicon base is used as the insulator, and then layers of conductive material are layed on top and the excess parts are burnt away with a laser through a stencil. The stencil is a 2D mask of what the entire surface of the chip will look like at a given layer, and many masks are used to etch in the nano-scale wires, channels, and other bits that make up the chip.
The problem is that focusing a mask with sufficient detail for small features and have it cover a large suface area at the same time doesn't always work. Imagine it as comparing a 1080p projector vs. a 4K projector, both can cover the same screen area, but one can put more dense detail per unit of measure and/or cover a larger area, however it also costs several times as much. When a lithography lab may cost billions (honestly don't know), a significant increase in scale may not be economically viable, especially when the product it'll manufacture will be for a niche market.
The fact is that there are very few (if any) chips that actually need to be as large as photographic sensors, so it's not possible to adapt hardware from other manufacturing methods. To make a full-size 645 sensor in one pass, someone would have to take the plunge to develop a lithographic system designed specifically for this.
-
I can understand that small sensors are easier to produce -- yield and defect density. I guess they're faster to produce since you can get more of them on a wafer. I can't understand why they're easier or faster to design.
Production challenges are probably the main ones, like the need for on-wafer stitching when a sensor is larger than the industry-standard 33x26mm limit of all suitable fab. equipment. (If I were a camera-maker investigating a new format needing new lenses, it would not be 54x42mm or any other flavor of medium format; it would be about 32x24mm, to be as big as possible without the need for that on-wafer stitching: "medium format" in the new sense of being between "APS-C" and 35mm.)
But the longer signal paths and great number of pixels per row and per column probably add some design challenges, in both speed and synchronization, especially with the more complicated wiring and read-out systems of modern active pixel CMOS sensors, which involves addressing individual pixels and reading some or all pixels in a row simultaneously.
-
Production challenges are probably the main ones, like the need for on-wafer stitching when a sensor is larger than the industry-standard 33x26mm limit of all suitable fab. equipment. (If I were a camera-maker investigating a new format needing new lenses, it would not be 54x42mm or any other flavor of medium format; it would be about 32x24mm, to be as big as possible without the need for that on-wafer stitching: "medium format" in the new sense of being between "APS-C" and 35mm.)
But the longer signal paths and great number of pixels per row and per column probably add some design challenges, in both speed and synchronization, especially with the more complicated wiring and read-out systems of modern active pixel CMOS sensors, which involves addressing individual pixels and reading some or all pixels in a row simultaneously.
I agree, but at 44 x33 mm you are already stitching or using a very particular stepper.
It have been done :
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6300767092/leaf-afiii-aptus-10-7-6
Using standard steppers an unusual 52 x 33 mm sensor could be created[1] (60MP chip using the same pixel pitch as the sony sensor). It will be interesting, and the sensor will fit within MF lenses image circle.
The size you listed is the typical one, but Canon has some steppers with a greater "Field Size" that will allow a 52 x39mm sensor with two "exposures". Maybe Sony is using a similar stepper for the chip, but I have no idea (my guess is that they are using a Normal stepper two exposures).
Best regards,
[1] The interesting part will be the handling of the viewfinder by example, so maybe a 48 x36 mm sensor will do, but it's more complex than two stitches with common steppers
-
"Matching resolution" is a pretty bold statement if you're only counting pixels - the 36mp D800 in some ways had let down many early adopters who discovered that Nikon glass is woefully inadequate to resolve the sensor, and began adapting other brands...
Lost in the debate is the fact Canon has been dramatically overhauling virtually all of their key lenses first ... could it be because they realize that, without an upgrade in lenses, having an uber-sensor is next to pointless?
Canon is coming out with an 11-24, they already have a new 24-70 II, a 70-200 II, have a brand new 100-400 and 200-400, etc.
"Now" would make the most sense to begin to introduce new ultra-sensor cameras ... not "before" these lens upgrades were made.
The ever-increasing new lens lineup is what will allow any uber-sensor to be maximized, I would think ???
-
I agree, but at 44 x33 mm you are already stitching or using a very particular stepper.
It have been done :
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6300767092/leaf-afiii-aptus-10-7-6
I think you missed my point: of course sensors bigger than 33x26mm exist, but they all need the more expensive, lower-yield process of on-wafer stitching (etching part of the sensor, then moving the wafer to a new position to etch another part of it, moving with sub-micron position accuracy, and so on).
The size you listed is the typical one, but Canon has some steppers with a greater "Field Size" that will allow a 52 x39mm sensor with two "exposures". Maybe Sony is using a similar stepper for the chip, but I have no idea (my guess is that they are using a Normal stepper two exposures).
Two is still be stitching, but anyway, note my use of the word "suitable" when I mentioned the "33x26mm limit of all suitable fab. equipment."
I know of only two models of stepper from any maker with a field size bigger than 33x24mm:
- The discontinued Canon FPA-3000 iW with 50x50mm field size and rather large 0.8 micron minimum feature size: http://www.ventexcorp.com/downloads/FPA-3000iW+Specification.pdf
- The newer FPA-5510 iV with 52x34mm field size, but an even coarser 1.5 micron minimum feature size: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper#Specifications
As far as I can tell, even the smaller 0.8 micron minimum feature size of the FPA-3000 iW mean is unsuitable for making the pixel sizes that the photographic market uses (putting aside special lower resolution uses like X-rays, machine vision, big telescopes and so on.) Canon itself has explained in several white-papers that its needs to use stitching to make its 36x24mm sensors, and that the "APS-H" CMOS sensors of some 1D models was the largest size that it could make without stitching, even though that FPA-3000 iW already existed when Canon made its first 36x24mm sensors.
These steppers might be used to fab. some large, lower resolution sensor for X-rays, machine vision, and such. For example the KAF-4320 (now sold by Onsemi) with its 24 micron pixels and a 50x50mm size that fits the field size of the FPA-3000 iW perfectly: http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/KAF-4320-D.PDF
-
Lost in the debate is the fact Canon has been dramatically overhauling virtually all of their key lenses first ... could it be because they realize that, without an upgrade in lenses, having an uber-sensor is next to pointless?
Canon is coming out with an 11-24, they already have a new 24-70 II, a 70-200 II, have a brand new 100-400 and 200-400, etc.
"Now" would make the most sense to begin to introduce new ultra-sensor cameras ... not "before" these lens upgrades were made.
The ever-increasing new lens lineup is what will allow any uber-sensor to be maximized, I would think ???
Maybe there's another motivation. With 35mm DSLR sales declining it might be time to try and sell more lenses (and more expensive lenses!) per camera body. And if you need a consumer rational to encourage the upgrade then adding pixels takes some beating!
-
About lenses; when cameras were only 6mp and the Canons were 11mp i was suprised to hear that according to some Nikon tech their lensens could do 25MP or more...
It sounded incredible back then.... ( not so long ago)
I have found out ( by using the v1 camera ) that at the moment most of the Nikkor lenses can do more than 70MP in the center but not in the corners... ( as you can see the problems already with 36MP)
I think it will be about the same with the Canon lenses... difficult to get the corners at 50mp before diffraction sets in.
-
About lenses; when cameras were only 6mp and the Canons were 11mp i was suprised to hear that according to some Nikon tech their lensens could do 25MP or more...
It sounded incredible back then.... ( not so long ago)
I have found out ( by using the v1 camera ) that at the moment most of the Nikkor lenses can do more than 70MP in the center but not in the corners... ( as you can see the problems already with 36MP)
I will say it again: sensors in 36x24mm format and larger have not yet caught up with the useful resolution and detail-handling of some fine-grained low-speed monochrome films, so if some photographers had a legitimate use for those films with suitable lenses, there should also be a use (with the right lenses) for some further increases in sensor resolution. For example, T-MAX 100 has MTF better than 50% to well beyond the 100p/mm Nyquist limit of the Sony-Nikon 36MP sensor: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
And fans of shallow DOF will often be happy with great resolution in the small part of the image that is actually in focus, and is usually not near the corners.
-
Hi,
Diffraction is just about aperture and has absolutely nothing to do with corners. Another point, it is not so that corners are the most important part of the image just because resolution is improved.
The simple truth is that higher resolution gives you a better image. If you use a cooke bottle instead of a real lens, improvement will be modest, with high quality glass it will be significant. Now, it may be that the improvement will not be noticable. For instance, I have been shooting MFD 39MP for one and a half year and I still feel that those 39MP with Zeiss primes show zero benefits over my Zeiss zooms on my Sony Alpha 99 at 24 MP when printed at A2 size. But, print large and the benefits will be there.
3.8 micron pixels are nothing new, we had it on 24 MP APS-C for a long time. Clearly, 24 MP on full frame is sharper than 24 MP on APS-C, but it needs pretty heavy OLP-filtering to avoid aliasing artefacts. Small pixels need far less OLP-filtering.
A lens that works on the 7D will also work on a 5Ds, corners may of course suffer. But, the 5Ds will offer benefits over 5DII in almost all aspects in image quality, a small loss of DR may result, though.
Best regards
Erik
About lenses; when cameras were only 6mp and the Canons were 11mp i was suprised to hear that according to some Nikon tech their lensens could do 25MP or more...
It sounded incredible back then.... ( not so long ago)
I have found out ( by using the v1 camera ) that at the moment most of the Nikkor lenses can do more than 70MP in the center but not in the corners... ( as you can see the problems already with 36MP)
I think it will be about the same with the Canon lenses... difficult to get the corners at 50mp before diffraction sets in.
-
If you use a cooke bottle instead of a real lens
hey, don't go maligning Cooke lenses, they're a great British company!
http://www.cookeoptics.co.uk
:D
-
This has been said every time a higher res dSLR camera has been released. Anyone on this forum for a long enough time will recall it from the release of at least a dozen cameras over the year. It fundamentally misunderstands what medium format is and does; pixels and dr are just two of the many many reasons why our clients choose medium format over a 35mm alternative.
Team Phase One has been profitable (http://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-as/frederiksberg/fremstillingsvirksomhed/13477705-2/) and growing since the financial crises. In my evaluation it's not "despite" the 5DII, D800, A7R, 645D, 645Z etc, but because of them. Anytime a product has been released that gets people talking about, thinking about, and evaluating image quality Team Phase One has benefited.
If this camera has broad compatibility with technical cameras and view cameras, syncs up to 1/1600th, offers a waist level viewfinder, has an optical viewfinder as large and bright as a full frame 645 body, offers vertical composition without rotating (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/mamiya-rz67) the camera, provides instant focus mask on-LCD, customizable exposure warning, automatic correction of horizon and perspective based on the internal levels, a color look developed via close collaboration (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml) between the hardware and software team, and comes with a suite of lenses (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/leaf-shutter-lenses) already proven to provide fantastic quality, at any aperture, at 80mp (let alone 50mp)... then maybe it will threaten medium format.
Otherwise it's just another 35mm SLR with a similar resolution to one of the lower end medium format options on the market. Surely a great camera for many applications, and undoubtedly a very good value for the dollar, but, fundamentally, still just another 35mm SLR.
+1.
Basically, not many camera systems out there which will give all of the above AND ISO 35 or ISO 50 when you want it.
-
Canon have traditionally benefitted heavily as a company from their CMOS tech, in cameras, printers , scanners, copiers, and everything electronic. I'd be very surprised if they ditched the sensor part - it would be a major slap in the face for them, and de facto an indication that they have lost the ability to do R&D in their core business.
Edmund
I think you missed my point: of course sensors bigger than 33x26mm exist, but they all need the more expensive, lower-yield process of on-wafer stitching (etching part of the sensor, then moving the wafer to a new position to etch another part of it, moving with sub-micron position accuracy, and so on).
Two is still be stitching, but anyway, note my use of the word "suitable" when I mentioned the "33x26mm limit of all suitable fab. equipment."
I know of only two models of stepper from any maker with a field size bigger than 33x24mm:
- The discontinued Canon FPA-3000 iW with 50x50mm field size and rather large 0.8 micron minimum feature size: http://www.ventexcorp.com/downloads/FPA-3000iW+Specification.pdf
- The newer FPA-5510 iV with 52x34mm field size, but an even coarser 1.5 micron minimum feature size: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper#Specifications
As far as I can tell, even the smaller 0.8 micron minimum feature size of the FPA-3000 iW mean is unsuitable for making the pixel sizes that the photographic market uses (putting aside special lower resolution uses like X-rays, machine vision, big telescopes and so on.) Canon itself has explained in several white-papers that its needs to use stitching to make its 36x24mm sensors, and that the "APS-H" CMOS sensors of some 1D models was the largest size that it could make without stitching, even though that FPA-3000 iW already existed when Canon made its first 36x24mm sensors.
These steppers might be used to fab. some large, lower resolution sensor for X-rays, machine vision, and such. For example the KAF-4320 (now sold by Onsemi) with its 24 micron pixels and a 50x50mm size that fits the field size of the FPA-3000 iW perfectly: http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/KAF-4320-D.PDF
-
And fans of shallow DOF will often be happy with great resolution in the small part of the image that is actually in focus, and is usually not near the corners.
When using my large aperture lenses for shallow DOF, I seldom feel the need for more than my current 18MP. The 85 f/1.8 is a good lens, but it is not razor sharp at f/1.8.
Now, at moderate apertures (where my lenses tends to perform better), I might have some benefit from bumping the pixel count.
To appreciate the benefits of high sensel count sensors the most, you would want to use lenses that are diffraction limited at relatively large apertures (but this will probably not be their maximum aperture), i.e. expensive ones. This affects the DOF and the center vs corner performance that can be had.
Something like the Otus 55 f/1.4 seems to have peak center sharpness at f/4.0 and peak corner sharpness at f/7.1 or so (at least in one particular measurement on one particular camera). This gives you a quite narrow range of apertures to choose from if you want to maximize sharpness on a 50MP camera.
http://www.lenstip.com/390.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html
Luckily, photography is about more than maximizing sharpness/detail.
-h
-
Canon have traditionally benefitted heavily as a company from their CMOS tech, in cameras, printers , scanners, copiers, and everything electronic. I'd be very surprised if they ditched the sensor part - it would be a major slap in the face for them, and de facto an indication that they have lost the ability to do R&D in their core business.
Edmund
Qualcomm has relied heavily on custom ARM designs in their products. Now they are (temporarily?) switching to a standard ARM implementation in their top-of-the-line product. That has got to hurt, but I guess it is a matter of getting the right set of features out at the right time (possibly being late to the 64-bit party):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7925/qualcomms-snapdragon-808810-20nm-highend-64bit-socs-with-lte-category-67-support-in-2015
I guess there are many possible twists on Canon + Sony sharing patents, sharing technology, purchasing manufacture capability or simply purchasing ready-made sensors. It has been claimed that Canon has a couple of image sensor manufacturing plants (unlike everyone else) that use "stone-age" process technology, even for image sensors. Perhaps they see declining sales and need different process tech in order to satisfy DR/MP expectations of their customers? Perhaps Canon thinks that sensors are becoming a "commodity", while they can differentiate on things like ergonomy, flash control, lens selection, etc? Perhaps the image sensor industry is changing, and having a potent cellphone-camera-sensor division is necessary in order to do the R&D needed in larger sensors?
I think it is great if Canon makes a camera that is optimized for slow-moving still-photography with high resolution, high (?) DR at low ISO, great colors. It would be an interesting complimentary model to more generic "low-light + action-photo + 4k video" models. If that means dealing with Sony for sensor tech, then it just means that they are being pragmatic.
Or all of this could just be a rumor (even the cameras are not confirmed yet), based on the expectations of camera enthusiasts that make our a large portion of the internet posts about cameras, but a small portion of total camera sales...
-h
-
... olympus even makes a viewfinder that clips on top of the viewfinder.
Think about it. You could have an optical finder and a clip on evf in one camera.
Yes think about it: Olympus (accidentally) lets you attach an EVF on top of another EVF, yet no DSLR maker has bothered to offer the far more appealing EVF-on-OVF option! Not even Canon, despite pushing hard the idea of using its DSLRs as video cameras, a usage that makes the OVF useless.
-
Yes think about it: Olympus (accidentally) lets you attach an EVF on top of another EVF, yet no DSLR maker has bothered to offer the far more appealing EVF-on-OVF option! Not even Canon, despite pushing hard the idea of using its DSLRs as video cameras, a usage that makes the OVF useless.
I suspect this is neither accident nor oversight. It's also the main reason why I refuse to buy any camera with a "flipping mirror" in it.
-Dave-
-
+1.
Basically, not many camera systems out there which will give all of the above AND ISO 35 or ISO 50 when you want it.
ISO 35 on IQ280 and ISO 50 on IQ260 are fake (i.e. pull from ISO 100).
-
5. Because of volume,MF sensors are likely not to represent the last technology for long. The strength of medium format is the size of the sensor[2]. 48 x 36 mm is the point were size become a very strong advantage, enough to compensate for a generation delay on technology.
Resolution-wise, yes. DR-wise, no, the 54x40mm IQ180/IQ280 did not even survive through the D800E.
-
ISO 35 on IQ280 and ISO 50 on IQ260 are fake (i.e. pull from ISO 100).
It doesn't matter whether it is pulled (or not) or FAKE, as you say.
The results are better - so from that standpoint, as a user, I don't care how they do it, all I care about is does it give me a feature I can take advantage of.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
It doesn't matter whether it is pulled (or not) or FAKE, as you say.
The results are better - so from that standpoint, as a user, I don't care how they do it, all I care about is does it give me a feature I can take advantage of.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
I have hard evidence that at the same aperture and shutter speed, ISO 35 yields exactly the same information as ISO 100 does in the RAW file. You do NOT get better results than what you get from ISO 100. It's simply a meta data for marketing purposes (i.e. a hype). My tests are base on an Alpa camera so there is no proof of aperture used. You may upload any RAW files taken with the 645DF+ body (so that the EXIF records the aperture), and I could show you how ISO 35 performs exactly the same as ISO 100 does.
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pHuqHULtHwWbnb3oAgXx4ux9EZi8umy8YAX00wlGeOPkxpyFKNcLMtxlRgpk4SW0C8pmQ_-q2QhCvF960uK4es1jO2ovR9Mys7NZyMEJxXiwDdLscG0pQETISft54rL7Gk6KB-rX6HuNXrZ5EZZRHjQ/83.JPG?psid=1)
-
Hi,
I don't know about the modern backs but DxO-mmrk has measured the IQ-180, and it ISO sensivity was ISO 29 at all settings up to ISO 100.
The general tendency is that MFDBs tend to underexpose, thus getting some extra margin for protecting highlights.
The enclosed screen dumps from DxO mark indicates the trends clearly. Note that Pentax 645D ISO-s were dead accurate. It is obvious that implementation of ISO-s varies wildly between different back. Some is done by preamping, some by bit shifting and some with just tagging raw files?
Best regards
Erik
I have hard evidence that at the same aperture and shutter speed, ISO 35 yields exactly the same information as ISO 100 does in the RAW file. You do NOT get better results than what you get from ISO 100. It's simply a meta data for marketing purposes (i.e. a hype). My tests are base on an Alpa camera so there is no proof of aperture used. You may upload any RAW files taken with the 645DF+ body (so that the EXIF records the aperture), and I could show you how ISO 35 performs exactly the same as ISO 100 does.
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pHuqHULtHwWbnb3oAgXx4ux9EZi8umy8YAX00wlGeOPkxpyFKNcLMtxlRgpk4SW0C8pmQ_-q2QhCvF960uK4es1jO2ovR9Mys7NZyMEJxXiwDdLscG0pQETISft54rL7Gk6KB-rX6HuNXrZ5EZZRHjQ/83.JPG?psid=1)
-
Hi,
I don't know about the modern backs but DxO-mmrk has measured the IQ-180, and it ISO sensivity was ISO 29 at all settings up to ISO 100.
The general tendency is that MFDBs tend to underexpose, thus getting some extra margin for protecting highlights.
The enclosed screen dumps from DxO mark indicates the trends clearly. Note that Pentax 645D ISO-s were dead accurate. It is obvious that implementation of ISO-s varies wildly between different back. Some is done by preamping, some by bit shifting and some with just tagging raw files?
Best regards
Erik
Here is an illustration of native ISO and extended ISO. For the same aperture and shutter speed, you do not get different image quality if the measured ISO stays the same. You can even verify this with Raw Digger (check the same spot - do they share the same levels?). It doesn't matter how far the blue line deviates from the red line. Some cameras do not offer the orange line. Some cameras do not offer the green line. Some cameras get the blue line closer to the red line. These do not affect the fact that only the blue line is the native ISO range.
The P45+ has two native ISO settings: 50 and 100. The IQ180 has four native ISO settings: 100, 200, 400 and 800 (or including 1600 and 3200 if you count sensor+). Shooting an IQ280 at ISO 35 is just like shooting a D810 at ISO 32, self-deception.
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pl01KLkJN3AiRqyUShjNym7D6ThCZKS2bbrPC2lljsIkbPeJSedx4GkN0vm80nASA3CxHT2dNuigaOn6bA-fOwx9VKUL_OtexNNn5pwmUlDhEG9_gfbZNmFI3WdEs0Fp2y94nlcU6tHl4o6d9gKAgyg/iso.jpg?psid=1)
-
I have hard evidence that at the same aperture and shutter speed, ISO 35 yields exactly the same information as ISO 100 does in the RAW file. You do NOT get better results than what you get from ISO 100. It's simply a meta data for marketing purposes (i.e. a hype). My tests are base on an Alpa camera so there is no proof of aperture used. You may upload any RAW files taken with the 645DF+ body (so that the EXIF records the aperture), and I could show you how ISO 35 performs exactly the same as ISO 100 does.
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pHuqHULtHwWbnb3oAgXx4ux9EZi8umy8YAX00wlGeOPkxpyFKNcLMtxlRgpk4SW0C8pmQ_-q2QhCvF960uK4es1jO2ovR9Mys7NZyMEJxXiwDdLscG0pQETISft54rL7Gk6KB-rX6HuNXrZ5EZZRHjQ/83.JPG?psid=1)
You do not get better results? I don't think what you are saying is accurate.
https://captureintegration.com/best-long-exposure-results-with-phase-one-leaf/
And why do you use terms like "hard evidence"? Are you going to be on 60 minutes?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
You do not get better results? I don't think what you are saying is accurate.
https://captureintegration.com/best-long-exposure-results-with-phase-one-leaf/
And why do you use terms like "hard evidence"? Are you going to be on 60 minutes?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
As I said, if you upload 2 raw files of the same aperture and at the same shutter speed but at different ISO settings in the extended ISO range (in this P65+ case, 20 seconds for ISO 50, and 20 seconds for ISO 100), I will be able to show you these are of the same image quality.
"Hard evidence" means levels (i.e. the data) in the raw files (e.g. amount of highlight details retained), as well as measured SNR in the shadow.
To elaborate for the P65+ case:
ISO 50 + 20s = ISO 100 + 20s (because for each pixel there is virtually no difference of level number between the two raw files)
ISO 100 + 20s > ISO 200 + 20s (because the latter would lose one stop of highlight details)
ISO 100 + 20s > ISO 200 + 10s (because even though they retain the same amount of highlight details, the latter has a noisier shadow)
-
I think you missed my point: of course sensors bigger than 33x26mm exist, but they all need the more expensive, lower-yield process of on-wafer stitching (etching part of the sensor, then moving the wafer to a new position to etch another part of it, moving with sub-micron position accuracy, and so on).
Two is still be stitching, but anyway, note my use of the word "suitable" when I mentioned the "33x26mm limit of all suitable fab. equipment."
I know of only two models of stepper from any maker with a field size bigger than 33x24mm:
- The discontinued Canon FPA-3000 iW with 50x50mm field size and rather large 0.8 micron minimum feature size: http://www.ventexcorp.com/downloads/FPA-3000iW+Specification.pdf
- The newer FPA-5510 iV with 52x34mm field size, but an even coarser 1.5 micron minimum feature size: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper#Specifications
As far as I can tell, even the smaller 0.8 micron minimum feature size of the FPA-3000 iW mean is unsuitable for making the pixel sizes that the photographic market uses (putting aside special lower resolution uses like X-rays, machine vision, big telescopes and so on.) Canon itself has explained in several white-papers that its needs to use stitching to make its 36x24mm sensors, and that the "APS-H" CMOS sensors of some 1D models was the largest size that it could make without stitching, even though that FPA-3000 iW already existed when Canon made its first 36x24mm sensors.
These steppers might be used to fab. some large, lower resolution sensor for X-rays, machine vision, and such. For example the KAF-4320 (now sold by Onsemi) with its 24 micron pixels and a 50x50mm size that fits the field size of the FPA-3000 iW perfectly: http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/KAF-4320-D.PDF
Hi,
No, I did not mis your point, what I miss was your reply until today. I agree with you that it's more complex, and we not even mention yields. I was extending your observation and presenting a set of possibilities for bigger sensors, within current technology. I know, also the double exposure is just an other way, less precise to talk about stitching. I used it to avoid using the same word too many times.
The point about the example is to illustrate that even with low volume it is possible to create the product. Maybe Sony did not make it bigger due to some business reason (managing risks, the needs of a high volumen client etc)
Best regards,
-
2. I am saying that that it will be remove one justification, if the Dynamic range is there. The logic is pretty straightforward: Can people justify MF? of course they can[1]. but they will have one justification less.
7. If it's real and has the proper dynamic range the sensor on the Canon will be about 8660 x 5770 pixels vs 8280 x 6208 for the IQ250. Most people don't shoot Otus lenses, so the IQ should prevail. As I say is one justification less.
dpreview writes the following:
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!
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5
-
The dynamic range thing is going to be massively disappointing for forum folks, but if you shoot studio stuff you don't really need that much, so maybe it will be a hit anyway. I think it's a bit boring that Canon is not able to compete on this popular metric though... but MFD salesmen will be happy, they can show that a digital back from 2004 outperforms a high MP DSLR from 2015(!).
Still a bit of tiny hope that DR is better than announced, we just need base ISO raw file to see!
-
Here is an illustration of native ISO and extended ISO. For the same aperture and shutter speed, you do not get different image quality if the measured ISO stays the same. You can even verify this with Raw Digger (check the same spot - do they share the same levels?). It doesn't matter how far the blue line deviates from the red line. Some cameras do not offer the orange line. Some cameras do not offer the green line. Some cameras get the blue line closer to the red line. These do not affect the fact that only the blue line is the native ISO range.
The P45+ has two native ISO settings: 50 and 100. The IQ180 has four native ISO settings: 100, 200, 400 and 800 (or including 1600 and 3200 if you count sensor+). Shooting an IQ280 at ISO 35 is just like shooting a D810 at ISO 32, self-deception.
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pl01KLkJN3AiRqyUShjNym7D6ThCZKS2bbrPC2lljsIkbPeJSedx4GkN0vm80nASA3CxHT2dNuigaOn6bA-fOwx9VKUL_OtexNNn5pwmUlDhEG9_gfbZNmFI3WdEs0Fp2y94nlcU6tHl4o6d9gKAgyg/iso.jpg?psid=1)
Which way round is this though?
Is ISO100 shot at ISO35 (29), or is ISO35 shot at ISO100?
Erik mentions that DXO report "the IQ-180... ISO sensivity was ISO 29 at all settings up to ISO 100.", so presumably it's the former.
If the sensitivity of the back has (somehow - not really interested in the technical detail of it) been measured at ISO29, then surely it is absolutely correct to say that it has an ISO sensitivity of 29, and not 100?
Kind regards,
Gerald.
-
When I heard about this launch, I cam here expecting this exact chain of posts.
Wasn't disappointed.
-
I love the look of DMF, its not about resolution its about the aesthetics of the format and the big viewfinder.
I make my run in this medium - mamiya zd - H3D 22MP - H3DII 39MP but i feel that in the last 5-6 years just pentax was bold to bring something new to this medium, and with the "right" prices and best body technology.
Now the problem its not about resolution its about motion ! a saw in the last 2 years a swift in my clients to the motion-movies.
My industrial clients now don't have large prints on there fair booths they have LCDs with movies !!!
I go to the shopping mall today and the fashion shops don't have beautiful large prints ! they have large vertical LCDs with fashion videos!!!
My next buy sad to say, will be a Canon C100, and today i spend more time on cinematographer discussion forums and less on medium format.
There will hallways be room for big resolution photography, but sad in the corporate business i see a swift for more video, and this its a small kill for dmf, like the d800 was, and the 5dsr will be
Nice weekend
PN
-
I have hard evidence that at the same aperture and shutter speed, ISO 35 yields exactly the same information as ISO 100 does in the RAW file. You do NOT get better results than what you get from ISO 100. It's simply a meta data for marketing purposes (i.e. a hype). My tests are base on an Alpa camera so there is no proof of aperture used. You may upload any RAW files taken with the 645DF+ body (so that the EXIF records the aperture), and I could show you how ISO 35 performs exactly the same as ISO 100 does.
(https://qakqww.dm2302.livefilestore.com/y2pHuqHULtHwWbnb3oAgXx4ux9EZi8umy8YAX00wlGeOPkxpyFKNcLMtxlRgpk4SW0C8pmQ_-q2QhCvF960uK4es1jO2ovR9Mys7NZyMEJxXiwDdLscG0pQETISft54rL7Gk6KB-rX6HuNXrZ5EZZRHjQ/83.JPG?psid=1)
Was that a "One Mississippi, Two Mississippi" kind of hard evidence on the 2 seconds exposures? The back cannot tell the exact exposure time on a mechanical shutter so you could have anything up to ~1s difference between those two frames and that also counts for the dark calibration frame...so hardly a "hard evidence..."
BR
Yair
-
Was that a "One Mississippi, Two Mississippi" kind of hard evidence on the 2 seconds exposures? The back cannot tell the exact exposure time on a mechanical shutter so you could have anything up to ~1s difference between those two frames and that also counts for the dark calibration frame...so hardly a "hard evidence..."
BR
Yair
I just found other pictures but you could always question the mechanical shutter thing. As I said, upload your RAW files (same aperture, same shutter speed, different ISO in the said extended ISO range) and I will show you 8)
-
Which way round is this though?
Is ISO100 shot at ISO35 (29), or is ISO35 shot at ISO100?
Erik mentions that DXO report "the IQ-180... ISO sensivity was ISO 29 at all settings up to ISO 100.", so presumably it's the former.
If the sensitivity of the back has (somehow - not really interested in the technical detail of it) been measured at ISO29, then surely it is absolutely correct to say that it has an ISO sensitivity of 29, and not 100?
Kind regards,
Gerald.
There tend to be a difference between the manufacturer ISO and the measured ISO.
ISO 35 setting (manufacturer ISO 35) on the IQ180 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 29.
ISO 100 setting (manufacturer ISO 100) on the IQ180 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 29.
ISO 200 setting (manufacturer ISO 200) on the IQ180 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 200 but the measured ISO is 60.
...
ISO 100 is the turning point, and is the true lowest native manufacturer ISO.
-
The whole CCD real iso range on MFD has been shrouded in some mystery over the years. Does a CCD really have a gain, i.e if you increase the iso, does it really increase the gain of the CCD, like on a CMOS chip. From what have been able to ascertain, is that no, basically a CCD is a one level iso chip, and any increases are just metadata increases. This changes on the IQ and P65+, with sensor plus I am not sure what the CCD gain increases to, but it has to be somewhere in the iso 400 range, as the files are notably cleaner than their full frame equivalents albeit at a loss of 3/4 of the total resolution of the chip.
I was surprised when the 50MP CMOS came in at a base of iso100, as I would still prefer 50 base.
As to the iso 50 real base vs 100, I really don't know the answer. I do "feel" from my shooting that at 50, with a IQ160 or 260, you do get a better performance in DR, especially in highlight recovery and a bit more in shadow recovery/noise. CCD shooting is much tighter than with CMOS in that you have so much less slop in iso recovery. You really have to be right on with the exposure, and the tech camera limitations due to Copal shutters doesn't help much. (One reason I had hoped to see the Arca FS come in at a bit more reasonable price point).
When I shoot in the field I often bracket iso ranges on my IQ260, 50, 100 and 200. There are sometimes that a shot will be best at 50, others 100 and even some at 200.
The data shared by Voidshatter is most interesting and I need to get out my DF and try a similar test. I don't have raw digger, but just working in C1 should show some interesting results.
Paul
-
Apparently the 50mp in the New Canon 5DS/R has no more dynamic range than the current 7D2 chip, that is, MUCH less than any of the Sony/Nikon chips. So while the 5DS/R have a lot of pixels, pixel quality is still (expected) well below most of the Medium Format Digital Backs / Cameras. Yes, even the older ones. This is of course pending testing.
-
I went to tell my 645z about the new Canon this morning but it seems he got word before I did and is still out partying.
-
I went to tell my 645z about the new Canon this morning but it seems he got word before I did and is still out partying.
Just had a look at the promo video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KyWbns0ro#t=181 ) and couldn't understand why not a 645z?
Much better camera for the job - much better DR, crazily high ISOs compared to the 5Ds, better pixels too due to more light collecting area.
Even more funnily does 1080@60p which the Canon does not. Yes, little more costly but looking at the theoretical cost of the shoot a minor expense.
In short, I didn't see any strong supportive statements as to 'why'.
-
Apparently the 50mp in the New Canon 5DS/R has no more dynamic range than the current 7D2 chip,
may be not per one sensel... but making the same amount of mp (downsampling) from 50mp to whatever 7D2 has it will get better than 7D2 sensor
-
Just had a look at the promo video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KyWbns0ro#t=181 ) and couldn't understand why not a 645z?
Much better camera for the job - much better DR, crazily high ISOs compared to the 5Ds, better pixels too due to more light collecting area.
Even more funnily does 1080@60p which the Canon does not. Yes, little more costly but looking at the theoretical cost of the shoot a minor expense.
In short, I didn't see any strong supportive statements as to 'why'.
Good point, let's keep ignoring that shall we :D
-
Just had a look at the promo video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KyWbns0ro#t=181 ) and couldn't understand why not a 645z?
Much better camera for the job - much better DR, crazily high ISOs compared to the 5Ds, better pixels too due to more light collecting area.
Even more funnily does 1080@60p which the Canon does not. Yes, little more costly but looking at the theoretical cost of the shoot a minor expense.
In short, I didn't see any strong supportive statements as to 'why'.
Canon has lost it. Gone Cuckoo, Loco. Bye Bye. Shame because the body looks like it has some really nice engineering improvements but man, looks like the typical Canon tale of a great body looking for a sensor. This of course, pending testing.
-
I guess there are some people who need good autofocus, that could be one the "whys"
-
Anyone taking bets if CaptureOne will support the camera or files?
-
Anyone taking bets if CaptureOne will support the camera or files?
No need to take bets. Phase One has always supported every (pro) Canon.
If your question is based on the fact that Phase One doesn't support competitive medium format systems, the answer is this is not medium format. It's a 35mm camera with more pixels.
Support for new cameras has, historically, been added to Capture One Pro 1-3 months after the camera ships. I have no reason to expect any different for this camera. That would point to a July-September timeframe.
Timeframe varies based on how different the sensor is from previous sensors, whether the manufacturer gets a camera to Phase earlier-than-launch (usually not), and what cycle C1 is in when they get the camera (i.e. if they get it a day after they've just released a new version then it might be longer than if they get it two weeks before the planned launch for a new version).
Sometimes raw support is provided before tethered support. This is especially true when a new tethering protocol is used. Given Canon's switch to USB3 with this model, and some of the ongoing issues with 35mm dSLR USB3 drivers and OSX and power (see also Nikon D800), I suspect this might be the case this time.
Of course, it's all just wild speculation (predicated on past experience and knowledge of the process, but speculation none the less).
-
No need to take bets. Phase One has always supported every (pro) Canon. It's supposed to launch in June and lag-for-support is usually between 1 and 3 months, so I'd expect support in the Jul-Sep timeframe.
If your question is based on the fact that Phase One doesn't support competitive medium format systems, the answer is this is not medium format. It's a 35mm camera with more pixels.
Doug,
You have a great sense of humor :)
Edmund
I think I will dig out my old software and make a C1 profile for the 5DR. Just to show that it can be done :)
-
Doug,
You have a great sense of humor :)
Edmund
I think I will dig out my old software and make a C1 profile for the 5DR. Just to show that it can be done :)
Of course it can! Capture One supports arbitrary selection of ICC and ICM profiles for any supported camera.
-
FWIW, Canon has posted some Sample Images from the 5DSR HERE (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/)
-
Of course it can! Capture One supports arbitrary selection of ICC and ICM profiles for any supported camera.
Exactly. :)
Edmund
-
FWIW, Canon has posted some Sample Images from the 5DSR HERE (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/)
Am I correct that as the data given states; Picture Style- Fine detail then these are OOC jpegs?
-
I think there are some points to remember when speaking about these new Canon 50 Mpix cameras:
Pro for Canon: right now there is no other way to create 5x50 Mpix/sec resolution (would be interesting to know how many until the buffer overflows).
there are now enough new lenses which will support these resolutions, like Zeiss Otus, Sigma ART, Tamron´s new 15-30mm and of course the new Canon lenses like the 11-24.
They have a higher lens opening available than existing MF lenses.
There are shorter Wideangle image angles available for 24x36, with the new 50 Mpix "MF" cmos the problem with MF wideangle lenses for architecture have even got worse.
HCam B1 and Alpa FPS are solutions, but there still is the cost of this. A factor 5 to max 10x more for only a few Mpix (CCD) and hppelessly slower workflow ?
Cons for Canon: Sony and Nikon will release their highres bodies very soon. As Canon does a conventional DSLR construction, the costs are definitely higher for a comparable
body than a new A7R II even with 5 axis stabilisation (as Sony will produce this in masses for several camera models I guess)
Maybe Canon see´s Nikon as their main competitor for this range, but I think this is an error. DSLR´s are more expensive to make, to maintain and to support than EVILS.
Very soon it will be clear that Sony and maybe others like Samsung who use the more modern technology for camera making, plus shorter Product cycles will be the main competition for Canon and Nikon if those 2 do not change to these principles also.
And yes: if Sony releases a sensor which will be on par with the actual DR of the A7R with 50+ Mpix, Canon will have huge problems.
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
Maybe we need a new "High Resolution Photography" forum? There doesn't seem to be such an obvious distance between the low end backs and the high end dSLRs. In fact there seems to be an overlap.
Edmund
-
Pro for Canon: right now there is no other way to create 5x50 Mpix/sec resolution (would be interesting to know how many until the buffer overflows).
Um, the camera isn't shipping until JUNE. Assuming it ships on time.
I'll lay heavy bets the Sony 50MP ships months sooner...
-
Maybe Canon see´s Nikon as their main competitor for this range, but I think this is an error. DSLR´s are more expensive to make, to maintain and to support than EVILS.
so far Sony did not move from the 3rd place... may be they will one day... and by the same token Nikon does not consider Sony either - no Nikon mirrorless FFs
-
Maybe we need a new "High Resolution Photography" forum? There doesn't seem to be such an obvious distance between the low end backs and the high end dSLRs. In fact there seems to be an overlap.
You, sir, are a provocateur!
Jim
-
Maybe Canon see´s Nikon as their main competitor for this range, but I think this is an error
i remember quite some years ago canon said they dont fear nikon but sony for their financial power, they bought minolta and wanted it to succeed, many years their cameras were quite disappointing, but recently their cameras became quite decent.
after my sony dsc-t1 in 2004 i never thought again about buying a sony cam, that was until the A7 series came along, even thought i havent took the order yet, but they are sexy for sure.
sony is a threat for the both of them, canon and nikon
-
No need to take bets. Phase One has always supported every (pro) Canon.
If your question is based on the fact that Phase One doesn't support competitive medium format systems, the answer is this is not medium format. It's a 35mm camera with more pixels.
Support for new cameras has, historically, been added to Capture One Pro 1-3 months after the camera ships. I have no reason to expect any different for this camera. That would point to a July-September timeframe.
Timeframe varies based on how different the sensor is from previous sensors, whether the manufacturer gets a camera to Phase earlier-than-launch (usually not), and what cycle C1 is in when they get the camera (i.e. if they get it a day after they've just released a new version then it might be longer than if they get it two weeks before the planned launch for a new version).
Sometimes raw support is provided before tethered support. This is especially true when a new tethering protocol is used. Given Canon's switch to USB3 with this model, and some of the ongoing issues with 35mm dSLR USB3 drivers and OSX and power (see also Nikon D800), I suspect this might be the case this time.
Of course, it's all just wild speculation (predicated on past experience and knowledge of the process, but speculation none the less).
It will be interesting to see what they can come up with in tuning for the sensor. One thing is for sure, they'll find out more than most of us want to know about the sensor deep down, and how it compares to the Sony 50mp CMOS.
-
sony is a threat for the both of them, canon and nikon
The legacy lenses have been the big two's asset, keep upgrading bodies to use with your lenses. Sony with adapter friendly, maybe not cover glass friendly, for all, is the new big threat along with the mirrorless and modular interiors that are cheap to build, and sell, but accurate, less to align.
The upgrade market is limited, despite the forum chatter, other than the sensor there is nothing innovative here to tempt a non Canon SLR user to buy into the system and sell them lenses. They are marketing to a diminishing customer base where what they own already is good enough. An average user
doesn't care about colour accuracy they want "nice" colour baked in, arguably Fuji lead there.
-
Um, the camera isn't shipping until JUNE. Assuming it ships on time.
I'll lay heavy bets the Sony 50MP ships months sooner...
That is what I also suspect. Sony is now delivering like Apple. Both are consumer electronics companies.
They know it is more effective to annouce and deliver in one run.
Further:
And somehow I wonder that the controlling of Canon doesn´t pull the plug on all this mirror stuff.
It must be pretty expensive to have a camera with 6-7x more parts, 10x as many different screws and a assembly time for production
of rougly 3-5 times than a Sony A7 ?
The earnings at Sony , even if they do more research and give higher rebates after the product cycle runs out, must be double or triple per camera I suspect !
So: why is Canon (and Nikon) doing this ? To (non)compensate for the disappearing compact cameras ? Save money by keeping the old technology ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
Hi,
The cover glass is really a non issue with DSLR lenses. Sony uses around 2mm of cover glass like anybody else. The exception is 4/3 that has settled on around 4mm, but 4/3 lenses are not meaningful large sensor cameras anyway.
With many lenses made for rangefinder cameras the cover glass is causing astigmatism, but it is only one the issues, the others are lens cast and cross talk. Leica even developed a sensor of their own for those lenses and they may have given up some image quality making those pixels shallow. My impression is that ful well capacity may be lower than say Nikon D750. Life is a compromise and so is sensor design…
Best regards
Erik
Sony with adapter friendly, maybe not cover glass friendly, for all, is the new big threat along with the mirrorless and modular interiors that are cheap to build, and sell, but accurate, less to align.
-
So: why is Canon (and Nikon) doing this ? To (non)compensate for the disappearing compact cameras ? Save money by keeping the old technology ?
Canon and Nikon have only one -but invisible- asset - user inertia motivated by user's belief that it is cheaper to keep using their old lenses than to buy into a new system. Bringing in mirroless quickly would be like puncturing a cellophane wrapper - once punctured it desintegrates.
Edmund
-
Canon and Nikon have only one -but invisible- asset - user inertia motivated by user's belief that it is cheaper to keep using their old lenses than to buy into a new system. Bringing in mirroless quickly would be like puncturing a cellophane wrapper - once punctured it desintegrates.
Well, there is inertia, but there is also...
- the fact that today high end DSLRs, such as the D810, 1DX,... remain the best image making machines available in terms of image quality and shooting enveloppe,
- the best lenses are only available in EOS/F mount,
- Profoto and many other key "accessories" manufacturers only ship their most appealing hardware for Canon and Nikon (think B1,...),
-...
Today, the only tangible advantage of an a7r I see is compactness.
If I were to start from scratch today I would buy exactly the equipment I currently own.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Today, the only tangible advantage of an a7r I see is compactness.
We live in a new golden age of manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF.2, the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF.2, the Otii, the Coastal Optical 60mm f/4, etc. These lenses are not much fun to use on DSLRs. It used to be that there were focusing aids in the finders. No more. The only way to achieve critical focus is with live view, and, with no EVF, that means putting the camera on a tripod. With the alpha 7 cameras, you have more options: magnified view in the EVF, and focus peaking, with and without magnification. Magnified view is especially useful in combination with in-body image stabilization (IBIS), because the image doesn't jump around in the finder.
Jim
-
It seems as if every camera is missing something. The A7II has IBIS but only a single card slot. The 5Dr, high resolution but no comparable high dynamic range.
I like the A7II on paper. I wouldn't even mind using Sony glass if they had a decent 2.8 zoom.
-
Hi Jim,
Yes, I would just add that we cannot put a Canon lens on a Nikon Body. I also feel EVF is critical. If Sony comes out with a 50 MP camera with EFCS, I will probably buy. Would like a proper OLP filter, though…
Best regards
Erik
We live in a new golden age of manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF.2, the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF.2, the Otii, the Coastal Optical 60mm f/4, etc. These lenses are not much fun to use on DSLRs. It used to be that there were focusing aids in the finders. No more. The only way to achieve critical focus is with live view, and, with no EVF, that means putting the camera on a tripod. With the alpha 7 cameras, you have more options: magnified view in the EVF, and focus peaking, with and without magnification. Magnified view is especially useful in combination with in-body image stabilization (IBIS), because the image doesn't jump around in the finder.
Jim
-
If Sony comes out with a 50 MP camera with EFCS, I will probably buy. Would like a proper OLP filter, though…
They are currently out of fashion.
Jim
-
Further:
And somehow I wonder that the controlling of Canon doesn´t pull the plug on all this mirror stuff.
It must be pretty expensive to have a camera with 6-7x more parts, 10x as many different screws and a assembly time for production
of rougly 3-5 times than a Sony A7 ?
For me, this is spot on an a reason that companies will have to push for mirrorless, even more price pressure slowly mounts.
From Nikon experience we have the D600 debacle (relate to moving parts) plus now the D750 issue (assembly).
And the number of parts, and moving parts gets compound with complex non robot friendly structure that requieres "experts hands".
In fewer words : Mass produce, rentable, competitive with mirror-less DSLRs are a very tall call to made.
Best regards,
-
And somehow I wonder that the controlling of Canon doesn´t pull the plug on all this mirror stuff.
It might be coming (I hope so), but I can see some good, non-cynical, reasons why Canon and Nikon for now cling to their flapping mirror optical viewfinder systems. The clearest is the fact that the auto-focus systems available with non-SLR bodies do not (for now) work as well with their many existing lenses that use ring-style (USM, AF-S, SWM, HSM) auto-focus motors, particularly for continuous tracking focus and low-light situations.
I am sure there are also more purely financial considerations: balancing the extra cost of developing and deploying new technology against the extra net revenues that such an investment would need to promise. Looking ahead, the Big Two do seem to be woking on those technologies, by developing both in-sensor PDAF technologies and offering a few lenses with linear stepper AF motors.
-
I wonder how has Ken Rockwell already got his hands on the camera and manage to make a few product shots:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5ds.htm
He already named it “The World's Best DSLR”.
-
I like Ken - I downloaded his Nikon AF guide once, and it was the only thing which helped me figure out the AF-S settings on my D3x.
Actually, he does a good job of saying what is there and not there, based on the specs, IMHO.
And the "world's best dSLR" does not mean "the world's best camera" anymore :)
Edmund
-
We live in a new golden age of manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF.2, the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF.2, the Otii, the Coastal Optical 60mm f/4, etc. These lenses are not much fun to use on DSLRs. It used to be that there were focusing aids in the finders. No more. The only way to achieve critical focus is with live view, and, with no EVF, that means putting the camera on a tripod. With the alpha 7 cameras, you have more options: magnified view in the EVF, and focus peaking, with and without magnification. Magnified view is especially useful in combination with in-body image stabilization (IBIS), because the image doesn't jump around in the finder.
What Jim says, plus: for manual focus lens junkies, in my case with a particular interest in 1930s–70s 135 format designs, EVF cameras are exactly what the doctor ordered. With the exception of a few 50mm Zeiss & Nikon rangefinder lenses, which lack focusing helicals, everything I've accumulated over the past ~35 years is back in play. Kid in candy store time!
-Dave-
-
. With the exception of a few 50mm Zeiss & Nikon rangefinder lenses, which lack focusing helicals, everything I've accumulated over the past ~35 years is back in play. Kid in candy store time!
-Dave-
Dave, Amedeo adapters allow the Nikon/Contax rangefinder mounts to adapt to Leica -M. Leica M then to Sony, yes two adapters but you are manual focussing. They accept both internal mount, and external mount and are beautifully made, I have the Nikon RF version. The helical is precise and smooth.
http://www.amedeo.muscelli.net/
-
Here is what the eoshd fanboys have to say:
Canon 5DS takes a backwards step for video – severe rolling shutter, moire and lack of uncompressed HDMI (http://www.eoshd.com/2015/02/canon-5ds-takes-a-backwards-step-for-video-why-is-canon-so-baffling/)
Edmund
-
As an analyst, my take on the 5D3 is that there now is severe infighting between the pro video and prosumer dSLR divisions of Canon, and rather than merge them or allow them to really compete against each other, management has decided to force them to coexist in separate watertight market compartments. This means that the still products are voluntarily castrated, with all but the most basic video capabilities voluntarily removed.
One nasty side effect is that stills and video at Canon now seem to use different chip tech, thereby losing the economy of scale which is so essential in the semiconductor industry
This internal infighting at Canon and its effect on the product range is reminiscent of the issue IBM had at integrating the PC division with the rest of the company. The results at IBM were pretty horrible, I don't think the tides will stop for Canon either.
Edmund
-
Dave, Amedeo adapters allow the Nikon/Contax rangefinder mounts to adapt to Leica -M. Leica M then to Sony, yes two adapters but you are manual focussing. They accept both internal mount, and external mount and are beautifully made, I have the Nikon RF version. The helical is precise and smooth.
http://www.amedeo.muscelli.net/
Bad form to self quote but an update shows a new adapter for both Contax and Nikon RF mounts internal and external to Sony mount
https://cameraquest.com/amedeo%20nrf%20crf%20se.htm
A friend in Vancouver reports the 35mm f1.8 Nikon works on it which would not on the previous combination.
-
We live in a new golden age of manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF.2, the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF.2, the Otii, the Coastal Optical 60mm f/4, etc. These lenses are not much fun to use on DSLRs. It used to be that there were focusing aids in the finders. No more. The only way to achieve critical focus is with live view, and, with no EVF, that means putting the camera on a tripod. With the alpha 7 cameras, you have more options: magnified view in the EVF, and focus peaking, with and without magnification. Magnified view is especially useful in combination with in-body image stabilization (IBIS), because the image doesn't jump around in the finder.
Agreed in theory, but, per my experience, achieving critical focus with an even slightly moving subject (a young child in a quiet state) is just as challenging with the a7x as it is with a D810.
Which leaves us with static subjects for which live view works pretty well in all but the brighest situations. It is less stable in theory but doesn't result in sharpness issues in real world with a sufficient shutter speed (auto-iso).
In body stabilization is a great addition, no doubt.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As an analyst, my take on the 5D3 is that there now is severe infighting between the pro video and prosumer dSLR divisions of Canon, and rather than merge them or allow them to really compete against each other, management has decided to force them to coexist in separate watertight market compartments. This means that the still products are voluntarily castrated, with all but the most basic video capabilities voluntarily removed.
One nasty side effect is that stills and video at Canon now seem to use different chip tech, thereby losing the economy of scale which is so essential in the semiconductor industry
This internal infighting at Canon and its effect on the product range is reminiscent of the issue IBM had at integrating the PC division with the rest of the company. The results at IBM were pretty horrible, I don't think the tides will stop for Canon either.
Edmund
The 5D2 launched basic line skipping HD Video. It was a big success for some as they liked the HD ability in that format...
EOS Cinema started of with a special sensor optimized for HD (also had a cooling system IIRC) and was in a smaller frame format like that used by 35mm motion picture cameras. Video was much better than the 5D2 and you could argue a more focus friendly format for users as focus pulling a full frame 135 format is not as easy, especially on a camera made for stills work... All Pixels used for Video... Canon then started developing Cinema style MF lenses, with smooth aperture control, barrel gears etc for pro Cinema work...
We have seen some Canon crop models with the new dual pixel AF system which is aimed squarely at beginners and amateurs wanting video AF... The tech also available now on some of the Cinema line, again probably models focused on the lower end users that need it for faster work...
We have seen Canon start doing 4K in both the full frame and the EOS Cinema line...
Clearly the 5DS/R is aimed at a specialist Stills market and the video is an add on like it was on the 5D2. Nice to have but we can't really expect more since the high pixel count sensor does not really suit being adapted to pro video without adding cost and complexity into this specialist product. It is great that Canon are still willing to focus on stills cameras with the speed of light SLR system, the likes of the 1DX, 7D2 and now this 5DS/R for specific user types, albeit some landscapers may not be happy if DR is not improved.
The rumor mill suggests Canon will do a 5D4 which will have a lower pixel count to the 5DS/R and 4K video... Now that is what those 5D2 and 5D3 users, who want the video features, will like... ;-)
For some video formats even a cropped full frame is way too big and frames similar to 16mm film size will suit where run and gun, documentary style is needed for focusing and deeper DOF...
I think you right about the debate in Canon, which probably does include some care not to step over some lines for commercial reasons, but they seem to be heading the right way and the variety of wants and needs is a vast thing to deal with technically... I don't think we can reasonably expect a one size fits all product as there is no such thing...
Why EOSHD is reviewing the specs on this 5DS/R so critically is very odd. It is clearly not aimed at all but the most basic DSLR video that may come in handy for a specialist stills user. Probably an extract of the live view system so fairly easy for canon to add on as is
I am just glad Canon focused on the mirror system and other improvements like the meter and tripod mount for this new DSLR.
-
Why EOSHD is reviewing the specs on this 5DS/R so critically is very odd. It is clearly not aimed at all but the most basic DSLR video that may come in handy for a specialist stills user. Probably an extract of the live view system so fairly easy for canon to add on as is
Bernard,
Even dpreview have a similar take:
50MP Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R offer maxed-out resolution, slimmed-down video features (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7433724324/canon-eos-5ds-and-5ds-r-announced-with-50mp-full-frame-sensors)
The list of omitted video features in the 5Ds is surprising - eg lack of clean hdmi for an external recorder, headphone out, no dual focus, no focus peaking - and can only be described as intentional crippling.
As for the dual-pixel AF, I think that quick focus at any point in the whole frame is a very useful feature even for a stills camera; touch-the-screen to focus and the foldout finder is what allows me to do single person video interviews with my GH4. Notice that the 5Ds has no foldout finder either. Focus peaking has also been omitted - accidentally I am sure - after all we all have perfect eyes :)
This camera's user is being locked in a box marked "stills" only and the lid is screwed on very tightly. Indeed, to be rude (lewd?), I'd say the buyer is the one getting ...
Edmund
-
Here is what the eoshd fanboys have to say:
Canon 5DS takes a backwards step for video – severe rolling shutter, moire and lack of uncompressed HDMI (http://www.eoshd.com/2015/02/canon-5ds-takes-a-backwards-step-for-video-why-is-canon-so-baffling/)
Edmund
Very good article ! Summons up why this camera is (for me) a total disappointment.
If Canon really would have done something new - like an RGB/Pixel Sensor (Foveon like) with lets say 25 Mpix and real 4k Video with that technology
That would have been a whole different story.
But like this, for that Price ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
Very good article ! Summons up why this camera is (for me) a total disappointment.
If Canon really would have done something new - like an RGB/Pixel Sensor (Foveon like) with lets say 25 Mpix and real 4k Video with that technology
That would have been a whole different story.
But like this, for that Price ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
It's always the same - the top managers want a product that keep their division going (no internal mergers!) until they retire.
Edmund
-
Bernard,
Even dpreview have a similar take:
50MP Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R offer maxed-out resolution, slimmed-down video features (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7433724324/canon-eos-5ds-and-5ds-r-announced-with-50mp-full-frame-sensors)
The list of omitted video features in the 5Ds is surprising - eg lack of clean hdmi for an external recorder, headphone out, no dual focus, no focus peaking - and can only be described as intentional crippling.
As for the dual-pixel AF, I think that quick focus at any point in the whole frame is a very useful feature even for a stills camera; touch-the-screen to focus and the foldout finder is what allows me to do single person video interviews with my GH4. Notice that the 5Ds has no foldout finder either. Focus peaking has also been omitted - accidentally I am sure - after all we all have perfect eyes :)
This camera's user is being locked in a box marked "stills" only and the lid is screwed on very tightly. Indeed, to be rude (lewd?), I'd say the buyer is the one getting ...
Edmund
The total pixels on the 5DS/R senor are 53 million. If they gave it dual pixel AF that would be 106 Million Pixels. I will assume this will affect the production yields upping sensor costs...
The camera has dual digic 6, what digic count with current technology would be needed to make real good use of a 101 Million effective pixel sensor for video... possibly more... what about heat power etc...
Some of the missing features that are of a software type may be held back as usual and come later
I am guessing Canon may do better video on a replacement model, but also think it must be a real low priority for the bulk of the target users... If they bring out a 5D4 with better low light, wider ISO range and 4K video, most people will forget the 5DS/R exists ;D
The Dual Pixel AF will also have a harder time working on a full frame sensor given the lower DOF...
It is what it is... Canon have reasons not to include WiFi and flip screen on various product types....
-
The Canon "S" models (1Ds, 5Ds) aren't targeted towards video.
There will be a 5D Mark IV. It will have less MP than the 5Ds, and probably much better video capability, but knowing Canon, it will be limited somehow, until those hackers create software for it. Ha!
-
The Canon "S" models (1Ds, 5Ds) aren't targeted towards video.
There will be a 5D Mark IV. It will have less MP than the 5Ds, and probably much better video capability, but knowing Canon, it will be limited somehow, until those hackers create software for it. Ha!
Robert,
This the first time in a long while that I've seen the word "hacker" used correctly :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
My take is a bit different from yours. The way I see it, if 50 MP is needed the 5Ds delivers it. If 13 EV of DR is needed the 5Ds does not deliver that. Canon has also revamped their lens line, so they have some really good glass now.
Now, there is the question if 50 MP is needed? That is clearly a good question. The way I see it, it may be hard to see a difference between 21MP and 50MP in small prints (like A2), my experience with my Sony Alpha 99 and P45+ points into that direction, but in larger sizes I am pretty sure the advantage of the higher resolution will be there.
Another factor is that a sensor with better resolution will have less aliasing. The 5Ds obviously still has some issues with aliasing, else they would not offer the camera self cancelling OLP filtration.
As I mentioned, I am shooting Sony and Hasselblad, the Canon 5Ds would not make me switch to Canon, but would I buy Canon it would be the 5Ds that I would go for.
I have an article that reflects some of the aspects mentioned above. It discusses A2 size prints, which is relevant in the sense that it is the largest print size available in desktop/home printers.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/82-why-i-cannot-see-a-difference-in-a2-size-prints
I have pretty strong indications that 36/39/50 MP will have benefits in larger prints, like A1 or A0.
If the intended display is web size images shown on a normal 2MP screen than the difference betwee 20MP and 50MP sensors plays a much lesser role than the quality of downsizing algoritms.
Best regards
Erik
Very good article ! Summons up why this camera is (for me) a total disappointment.
If Canon really would have done something new - like an RGB/Pixel Sensor (Foveon like) with lets say 25 Mpix and real 4k Video with that technology
That would have been a whole different story.
But like this, for that Price ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
If you edit in Photoshop like I do, 50mp is much needed.
Not for every photo sure and of course, it takes more CPU cycles up but things like skin work and layering I love the bigger files. It's as if Photoshop see's the image in a clearer way.
-
If you edit in Photoshop like I do, 50mp is much needed.
Not for every photo sure and of course, it takes more CPU cycles up but things like skin work and layering I love the bigger files. It's as if Photoshop see's the image in a clearer way.
Yep, stitchers have been experiencing this for many years. ;)
It's even better with 200~ megapixels, especially if the pixels are of high quality and have been captured with a good lens near its optimal aperture.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, stitchers have been experiencing this for many years. ;)
Indeed. Part of the reason though, is due to the larger on sensor magnification of the projected image from a longer focal length. Larger feature sizes translate in higher MTF responses. But even if we project the image with the same lens on a higher MP sensor, the MTF will improve. I estimate that it can result in up to 10% higher contrast at medium to high feature resolution. While less dramatic than for longer focal length stitching, 10% is still significant for postprocessing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Keith Cooper posted this:
"An interesting comment (thanks), coming via testing a pre-release 5Dsr with a test version of DPP4. Low ISO DR is put at 1.5-2 stops better than the 1D X, but high ISO performance (6400) falls marginally behind the 7Dmk2.
The sensor is similar to the 7D2 technology, but has apparently been tuned to maximise low ISO performance. "
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html
-
For the amount of time people talk about the negatives of an unreleased camera, if they spent the time learning post production and actually shooting something they've never shot before, they'd have a much better experience and something interesting to show.
Digital has it's drawbacks, mostly due to roll your on color and look but the cameras are so good now, it's difficult to find a "bad" option.
Canon's funny, sometimes slow or stubborn to make drastic changes but from a film camera perspective, cameras didn't really change for decades, so a few year upgrade cycle isn't the end of the world.
The DR thing kind of puzzles me, but I guess if you shoot landscapes and don't want to blend exposures, maybe that's important.
I know for our work which is quite varied, I rarely get into a situation where I can't make the limitations of any camera work, but then again, I'm more concerned with what I do and less about what the camera does.
In a week we start up a gig we've shot for years, with everything from the original 1ds, Aptus 22, P30+, 1ds2,3, 1dx and now the Leica S2.
I can go back through the archives and look at the results from all of those cameras and honestly it's minimal. In fact reviewing the 1dx vs. the Leica I'm hard pressed to tell the difference, other than the 1dx is a much more flexible camera to work with.
Now that our studio's work is mostly motion content, I find the same thing. We are just wrapping up a project shot mostly with RED and the more fluid images with a Canon 70d. You'd think the 70d at $800 vs. $25,000 for the REDs would be a disaster or at least a big difference.
Though if your careful in shooting, keeping the exposure correct, knowing what scene will alaise, if your good a post correction (and every digital image needs post correction) I can intercut 70d footage next to the RED and match the look within 3%.
I'm far from lazy, but sometimes I question why I torture myself with 25 to 30 lb cameras with the ergonomics of a belt sander, that cost more than a luxury car, rather than just carry a bunch of canons and not have to spend the 4 hours at the end of the week in a ice bath to repair everything that gets torn up.
I guess what I'm saying is talking cameras can be fun and easy, but in the real world of what image makes people stop and look, what you do in front of a lens is much more important than the capture device.
canon 1ds1, tungsten light.(not meant to prove anything)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/1ds1_NY.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
J,
If you are in a a studio, DR is not going to be an issue, nor outside if you have a bunch of lights.
The landscape guys may want to photograph a mountain that is half in the shadows, or the marriage guys may want to film with no lights in a church, the same for tourists, and then things can get ugly - no older camera can hold both the stained glass and the unlit paintings in a european church.
And then you have people who want to film a dumb outdoors scene in natural light without blowing out the sky ...
I think you're being a bit dismissive of other people's abilities in post - everybody in this forum could probably run a Photoshop course, and those that cannot probably have an assistant who could. But real life and $20000/day crew setups are just not the same thing. If you have the crew and have total control, life is hectic but it is also more forgiving.
I have the greatest respect for your opinions, and usually you are mostly right, and when you are not right you still make sense. In this vein I would agree that people are badmouthing a very good new camera as if it were unusable; but then this is the MF forum where that new camera is stacked up against just about the best equipment known to man, and the audience is basically saying "let somebody else buy this marvel".
Edmund
PS. I'm not talking from theory here. I've been trying to do available light video documentary shooting and practically any real life setting I go into now has some highlight zones which try to blow out. I just desperately wish for better than 8 bits or for Raw, precisely because I would like to be able to work in post. As a result, my framing is determined by the DR of the camera more than by any aesthetics.
For the amount of time people talk about the negatives of an unreleased camera, if they spent the time learning post production and actually shooting something they've never shot before, they'd have a much better experience and something interesting to show.
Digital has it's drawbacks, mostly due to roll your on color and look but the cameras are so good now, it's difficult to find a "bad" option.
Canon's funny, sometimes slow or stubborn to make drastic changes but from a film camera perspective, cameras didn't really change for decades, so a few year upgrade cycle isn't the end of the world.
The DR thing kind of puzzles me, but I guess if you shoot landscapes and don't want to blend exposures, maybe that's important.
I know for our work which is quite varied, I rarely get into a situation where I can't make the limitations of any camera work, but then again, I'm more concerned with what I do and less about what the camera does.
In a week we start up a gig we've shot for years, with everything from the original 1ds, Aptus 22, P30+, 1ds2,3, 1dx and now the Leica S2.
I can go back through the archives and look at the results from all of those cameras and honestly it's minimal. In fact reviewing the 1dx vs. the Leica I'm hard pressed to tell the difference, other than the 1dx is a much more flexible camera to work with.
Now that our studio's work is mostly motion content, I find the same thing. We are just wrapping up a project shot mostly with RED and the more fluid images with a Canon 70d. You'd think the 70d at $800 vs. $25,000 for the REDs would be a disaster or at least a big difference.
Though if your careful in shooting, keeping the exposure correct, knowing what scene will alaise, if your good a post correction (and every digital image needs post correction) I can intercut 70d footage next to the RED and match the look within 3%.
I'm far from lazy, but sometimes I question why I torture myself with 25 to 30 lb cameras with the ergonomics of a belt sander, that cost more than a luxury car, rather than just carry a bunch of canons and not have to spend the 4 hours at the end of the week in a ice bath to repair everything that gets torn up.
I guess what I'm saying is talking cameras can be fun and easy, but in the real world of what image makes people stop and look, what you do in front of a lens is much more important than the capture device.
canon 1ds1, tungsten light.(not meant to prove anything)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/1ds1_NY.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Dave, Amedeo adapters allow the Nikon/Contax rangefinder mounts to adapt to Leica -M. Leica M then to Sony, yes two adapters but you are manual focussing. They accept both internal mount, and external mount and are beautifully made, I have the Nikon RF version. The helical is precise and smooth.
http://www.amedeo.muscelli.net/
Chris, thanks for the info…musta missed Amedeo the last time I went looking. My friend Bruce has an old Orion adapter (CRF to LTM), with internal helical, that I've borrowed a few times. It turns out my best performing 50/1.5 Sonnar (or derivation thereof) on my A7r is a 1950s LTM Soviet Jupiter 3! I use it with a Voigtländer adapter (plus a Leitz LTM to M), so I'm good to go on that front. But I've bookmarked the Amedeo link.
Edit: read your follow-up post…okay, I'm sold. :D
-Dave-
-
For the amount of time people talk about the negatives of an unreleased camera, if they spent the time learning post production and actually shooting something they've never shot before, they'd have a much better experience and something interesting to show.
It always amazes me how much opinion can be held about things that people have not yet experienced yet.
I also mention from time to time that less time looking at graphs and more time taking photographs may be instructive
I guess what I'm saying is talking cameras can be fun and easy, but in the real world of what image makes people stop and look, what you do in front of a lens is much more important than the capture device.
Don't give away trade secrets like that!! :o
I'm far from lazy, but sometimes I question why I torture myself with 25 to 30 lb cameras with the ergonomics of a belt sander, that cost more than a luxury car, rather than just carry a bunch of canons and not have to spend the 4 hours at the end of the week in a ice bath to repair everything that gets torn up.
I was helping with lighting and focus pulling yesterday for my mate who was taking his new constant horizon steadicam rig for literally a spin yesterday and have zero wish to be flying a rig that heavy for as long as he did during an 18 hour day. We also used to shoot on Canons.
-
We live in a new golden age of manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF.2, the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF.2, the Otii, the Coastal Optical 60mm f/4, etc. These lenses are not much fun to use on DSLRs. It used to be that there were focusing aids in the finders. No more. The only way to achieve critical focus is with live view, and, with no EVF, that means putting the camera on a tripod. With the alpha 7 cameras, you have more options: magnified view in the EVF, and focus peaking, with and without magnification. Magnified view is especially useful in combination with in-body image stabilization (IBIS), because the image doesn't jump around in the finder.
Focusing lenses faster than f2.8 with a modern AF DSLR is a bit of a crap shoot. Roll on EVFs with the many advantages they give, accurate manual focus included.
-
Well, there is inertia, but there is also...
- the fact that today high end DSLRs, such as the D810, 1DX,... remain the best image making machines available in terms of image quality and shooting enveloppe.
Not quite sure what you mean by 'shooting envelope', but is that to exclude MFDSLRs from this list? As they are 'even better' than the cameras you mention.
Not that that is relevant anyway. For the vast majority of photographers the mere 16mp count of say a m43 camera can output better quality than they know what to do with or really need anyway. Heck even the Nikon pro body, the D4s only has 16.2MP.
Today, the only tangible advantage of an a7r I see is compactness.
Don't underestimate the benefits of a smaller lighter system. After all that's one of the biggest advantage 35mm sized cameras have over MF sized cameras. I'm beginning to loathe the weight of my kit more and more, so for personal work an Olympus EM body and three stunning f2.8 lenses that cover 16-300mm and that fits in a very small bag [or even jacket pockets] is looking very attractive indeed. Heck the 40-150mm lenses is so very lovely, that on its own it tempts me to get an m43 body and I'm a wideangle lenses shooter. More than good enough for pro work too.
-
I admit that for Landscape photography the higher dynamic range of the Sony sensors really changed the game. It allows many a landscape photographer to achieve the desired results (and sometimes exceed them) without the need to use multiple exposures and/or ND Grad filters in a lot of situations. Architectural photographers have been able to take interior shots where the exterior is perfectly exposed and bring up the interior "exposure" in post without the need to do multiple exposures and/or additional lighting. Wedding and People photographers have been able to make images without the use of fill light.
Doesn't sound like much but the implications of this are HUGE in a big chunk of people's work. Makes the work easier to achieve and faster and it is just another capability one has in the bag.
Of course this capability doesn't solve everything and won't make an image for you or give you good taste but it is just a nice tool to have in the shed.
It is actually one of if not the largest development in digital photography IMHO. The extra dynamic range has changed a lot of photographer's workflow in a lot of jobs and that is game changing.
But I agree, in the studio the extra dynamic range is really not required or anytime one can control lighting ratios for the desired result. And it's not like other cameras have zero dynamic range. Heck they have a lot more than the E6 film I used for years.
-
I admit that for Landscape photography the higher dynamic range of the Sony sensors really changed the game. It allows many a landscape photographer to achieve the desired results (and sometimes exceed them) without the need to use multiple exposures and/or ND Grad filters in a lot of situations. Architectural photographers have been able to take interior shots where the exterior is perfectly exposed and bring up the interior "exposure" in post without the need to do multiple exposures and/or additional lighting. Wedding and People photographers have been able to make images without the use of fill light.
Doesn't sound like much but the implications of this are HUGE in a big chunk of people's work. Makes the work easier to achieve and faster and it is just another capability one has in the bag.
Of course this capability doesn't solve everything and won't make an image for you or give you good taste but it is just a nice tool to have in the shed.
It is actually one of if not the largest development in digital photography IMHO. The extra dynamic range has changed a lot of photographer's workflow in a lot of jobs and that is game changing.
I have to say, I'd probably be happier with 25mp and a lot more DR for exactly the reasons you mention as I usually shoot outside of a studio, where you can't control the lighting.
Not having to use fill in flash is another extremely handy use for a big DR.
-
Some of us have been saying for a long time that we want better pixels, not more pixels - by the general reaction to the D5S it would seem that this is now the generally held sense of this forum.
Emund
I admit that for Landscape photography the higher dynamic range of the Sony sensors really changed the game. It allows many a landscape photographer to achieve the desired results (and sometimes exceed them) without the need to use multiple exposures and/or ND Grad filters in a lot of situations. Architectural photographers have been able to take interior shots where the exterior is perfectly exposed and bring up the interior "exposure" in post without the need to do multiple exposures and/or additional lighting. Wedding and People photographers have been able to make images without the use of fill light.
Doesn't sound like much but the implications of this are HUGE in a big chunk of people's work. Makes the work easier to achieve and faster and it is just another capability one has in the bag.
Of course this capability doesn't solve everything and won't make an image for you or give you good taste but it is just a nice tool to have in the shed.
It is actually one of if not the largest development in digital photography IMHO. The extra dynamic range has changed a lot of photographer's workflow in a lot of jobs and that is game changing.
But I agree, in the studio the extra dynamic range is really not required or anytime one can control lighting ratios for the desired result. And it's not like other cameras have zero dynamic range. Heck they have a lot more than the E6 film I used for years.
-
Not quite sure what you mean by 'shooting envelope', but is that to exclude MFDSLRs from this list? As they are 'even better' than the cameras you mention.
Not that that is relevant anyway. For the vast majority of photographers the mere 16mp count of say a m43 camera can output better quality than they know what to do with or really need anyway. Heck even the Nikon pro body, the D4s only has 16.2MP.
By shooting envelope I was referring to the fact that I use my D810 one day with an Otus 55mm f1.4 to do high res landscape stitches in cold weather, the next day with a 400mm f2.8 to capture quick moving dancing scenes in the darkish environments typically found during Japanese festivals and the following day in my home studio with a Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-S with Profoto D1/B1 strobes.
And the camera is very close to best in class in any of these endeavors. Yes, they are better options for each of these disciplines (MFDSLRs, sports camera 1Dx/D4s,...), but they typically come with a (much) higher price tag and only offer marginal additional value.
I'll be the first to move to something else when it comes out and offer better value, but today I just don't see any camera that does.
Sony is clearly the closest (leaving aside the fast super teles) and I love my a5100 (and can't understand why there aren't more people using this amazing camera btw), but I am not sold yet on the a7x series, although I have had several opportunities to shoot with one thanks to a close friend's kindness.
Compactness can for sure be valuable in some usage scenarios, but I am yet to find a case where my D810+Otus was too bulky/heavy to induce a practical negative impact on the outcome of a shoot. Yes, I would probably see things differently if I were involved in certain types of street photography in the suburbs of Detroit/Paris.
The new Canon 5Ds R could be a candidate replacement for the D810, but I would certainly not see any value in (slightly) more resolution with less DR so I'll wait for actual tests to forge an opinion. The comments floating around clearly aren't very encouraging but I just cannot believe that Canon would have been blind enough to go further in that direction. It would mean they completely misunderstood the reason why many Canon landscape shooters bought a7r or D8x0.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some of us have been saying for a long time that we want better pixels, not more pixels - by the general reaction to the D5S it would seem that this is now the generally held sense of this forum.
Emund
Not only this forum but basically the entire photo enthusiast Forum Community.
I don't mind more pixels in bayer sensors as long as it does not sacrifice the pixel quality, if its get improved then even better.
-
I'll be the first to move to something else when it comes out and offer better value, but today I just don't see any camera that does.
Ta for explaining what you meant by 'shooting envelope', but what I would say is that what is good value to you and your quite specific preferences/needs may not be to someone else. I'm sure I could justify almost any camera being the best if I change the parameters of what is 'best'. A D810 also comes with a much higher price tag than some people are willing to pay, just like a MF camera is for you.
At end of the day I can still take better pics with my phone than I can with my FF DSLR that is sitting at home because it is too big and heavy to carry around 100% of the time. Though I do have a Sony RX100 III that I carry around all the time in pocket 80% of the time - it's not in my pocket at home. Heck even yesterday on set I used the Sony loads for behind the scenes/stills whilst my bulky canon gear sat in bag. It was simply too much bulky faff to use particularly as I was primarily there to do film making.
-
Some of us have been saying for a long time that we want better pixels, not more pixels - by the general reaction to the D5S it would seem that this is now the generally held sense of this forum.
Bigger, better, faster, deeper pixels and in a smaller body too!! ;D
-
Ta for explaining what you meant by 'shooting envelope', but what I would say is that what is good value to you and your quite specific preferences/needs may not be to someone else. I'm sure I could justify almost any camera being the best if I change the parameters of what is 'best'. A D810 also comes with a much higher price tag than some people are willing to pay, just like a MF camera is for you.
Yes, I agree, this is specific to me. I have the feeling that my case is pretty generic and that many people shoot in various types of situations for which a high end DSLR is the cheapest overall option, but I will not try to convince you it is. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
OK, it should be an interesting camera, but I'll be the curmudgeon: why is this thread in the medium format forum?
-
OK, it should be an interesting camera, but I'll be the curmudgeon: why is this thread in the medium format forum?
Because of the high resolution, which invites comparison to middle-of-the-road MF products.
Inevitably people will ask whether the 5Ds can substitute for an MF system.
And in fact there are eg. tilt-shift lenses available in the Canon system which might make people hesitate even more.
I think we should rename this forum "High resolution photography".
Edmund
-
Yes, I agree, this is specific to me. I have the feeling that my case is pretty generic and that many people shoot in various types of situations for which a high end DSLR is the cheapest overall option, but I will not try to convince you it is. ;)
Not that generic as the overwhelming majority of photographer's work will not be improved the slightest by using the most expensive model in a product line and it is most certainly not cheaper to buy more expensive in that sort of case either. Good enough is hit at much, much lower price points
-
Because of the high resolution, which invites comparison to middle-of-the-road MF products.
Inevitably people will ask whether the 5Ds can substitute for an MF system.
And in fact there are eg. tilt-shift lenses available in the Canon system which might make people hesitate even more.
I think we should rename this forum "High resolution photography".
Interesting thought, but there's more to MF than simply high resolution. There's a different way of working/minset because of different bodies, functions and much bigger sensors the FF cameras.
-
It always comes down to dr with you guys. What the heck does dr mean anyway and don't you people get tired of talking about it all the time?
I thought Dr. was the guy you went to to get a blood test.
Anyway for you non light guys, 1d3.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/brazil_1d3.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Hi Edmund,
I agree on all this. I would just add that blending is not that easy, in real world things move. Just as an example tree branches move, and they even move between frames on continuous brackets.
If you are shooting like a tourist it is not really possible to use light modifiers. With landscape it is essentially impossible, but even a church interior would be difficult.
In those cases a camera with decent DR is much help. DR is essentially limited noise in the darks (the other end of the scale is full well capacity of then sensor). But the DR figure says little about the quality of noise. Canon has been known for pretty ugly noise. That said, I don't have many Canon images but I would say I had little issues with those I have seen.
On the other hand, I can pull a lot of detail in the darks on the Sony.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/20140617-_DSC4758_small.jpg)
The full processed image is here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/20140617-_DSC4758.jpg
Raw image is here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/NativeRaws/_DSC4758.ARW
The small crop here is from a high contrast iamge:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/20141109-_DSC6262_crop1.jpg)
This is the whole image:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/20141109-_DSC6262_photographic1_small.jpg)
And here is the raw file:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/CanoeStadium/20141109-_DSC6262.dng
Best regards
Erik
J,
If you are in a a studio, DR is not going to be an issue, nor outside if you have a bunch of lights.
The landscape guys may want to photograph a mountain that is half in the shadows, or the marriage guys may want to film with no lights in a church, the same for tourists, and then things can get ugly - no older camera can hold both the stained glass and the unlit paintings in a european church.
And then you have people who want to film a dumb outdoors scene in natural light without blowing out the sky ...
I think you're being a bit dismissive of other people's abilities in post - everybody in this forum could probably run a Photoshop course, and those that cannot probably have an assistant who could. But real life and $20000/day crew setups are just not the same thing. If you have the crew and have total control, life is hectic but it is also more forgiving.
I have the greatest respect for your opinions, and usually you are mostly right, and when you are not right you still make sense. In this vein I would agree that people are badmouthing a very good new camera as if it were unusable; but then this is the MF forum where that new camera is stacked up against just about the best equipment known to man, and the audience is basically saying "let somebody else buy this marvel".
Edmund
PS. I'm not talking from theory here. I've been trying to do available light video documentary shooting and practically any real life setting I go into now has some highlight zones which try to blow out. I just desperately wish for better than 8 bits or for Raw, precisely because I would like to be able to work in post. As a result, my framing is determined by the DR of the camera more than by any aesthetics.
-
Hi,
I would say we want more and better pixels. Also, don't forget that quantity has a quality of it's own.
Best regards
Erik
Some of us have been saying for a long time that we want better pixels, not more pixels - by the general reaction to the D5S it would seem that this is now the generally held sense of this forum.
Emund
-
This is indeed an interesting camera as an MFD alternative. I went from Canon to MFD as a DSLR alternative, so it's natural that you look back when improvements come in areas that made you go to MFD. For me it was mainly two things, 1) resolution, 2) lens movements. It was not dynamic range. I happen to like gray skies ;). After I got MFD I've learnt to appreciate other features like distortion-free lenses and I've fallen in love with the old-school workflow and the mindset you get when you have a slow camera.
I don't deny though that dynamic range can be a game changer for some shooting styles, we tend to look at our own little box and think that everyone else should shoot like ourself and appreciate the same features we do, but people have all sorts of different shooting styles and tastes which means it varies which aspects that are important. This new Canon seems to be really good in virtually all aspects except for DR where Canon still holds last place in the race, so it's natural that aspect gets most attention.
I already have a Canon system with some nice lenses including the TS-E 24 II, but this new resolution increase won't be enough to make me go back using it again for my landscape photography. I have seven lenses in my MFD system 35 - 180mm, all with plenty movements and tilt and swing and good to excellent corner-to-corner sharpness. Canon's lens lineup doesn't have that. When the TS-E 45 and TS-E 90 gets updated it will look better, I still won't have the flexibility of my Techno+Digitar system, but maybe flexible enough and sharp enough. Moving from seven to three lenses won't be great, but well, you can always crop.
From my perspective tech cameras are moving in a boring direction, they're slowly becoming like a "large A7r", more limited movements, retrofocus lenses, all being about sharpness and resolution nothing about retaining the "large format spirit", becoming more and more expensive too. I won't be getting an Alpa FPS with Digaron lenses, if my current Kodak is the last sensor that can shoot true large format style lenses this is probably going to be the last MFD back I own, and then the next landscape photography system is most likely going to be a Canon system for me, or maybe mirrorless of a different brand with adapters to Canon lenses. I hope though that MFD makers will make a fantastic save and actually start making a back which makes the unique symmetric lens designs possible again. As it seems that's entirely up to Sony now though.
Although I'm sure Hassy H and 645DF+ are great systems for studio and fashion photographers, my interest in them is very weak. I wouldn't use such a camera for landscape photography, if I can't have movements the robust Pentax seems more suited then (and better priced), and in fact I bought my Hassy H (I wanted its back) from a landscape photographer that switched to Pentax 645z. Canon has movements in the TS-E 17 and 24, and although it may take some time they're likely to update the 45 and 90, so in terms of landscape photography with movements Canon is in the front-line behind the tech cameras, from my point of view that's their main strength.
-
High Dr is overvalued, yet underrated.
It's not until you get a cam which has 5 stops of clean push that you notice the uses. There's soem Canon guys over on the rumor forums berating the dr of the Nikons and have never used an Exmor sensor in their lives.
(I shoot Canon and Pentax)
-
High Dr is overvalued, yet underrated.
It's not until you get a cam which has 5 stops of clean push that you notice the uses. There's soem Canon guys over on the rumor forums berating the dr of the Nikons and have never used an Exmor sensor in their lives.
(I shoot Canon and Pentax)
Heh, although I've shot exmor stuff for testing reasons and have a zillion files for the raw conversion development work I haven't used it in my real photography. I don't know if I dare to, perhaps I start wanting it... ;)
My images often look like the one attached though, and there movements and indeed resolution is a stronger need than dynamic range.
-
Last 3 years spend to much on High MP war, and just 20% of my clients saw or care about the difference against my 5DM3. Some H3D 39MP beautiful files got wasted in poor large prints made in a run for 2 or 3 days of booth fairs...
I make my run in DMF - mamiya zd - H3D 22MP - H3DII 39MP
Now the problem its not about resolution its about motion ! i saw in the last 2 years a swift in my clients to the motion-movies.
My industrial clients now don't have large prints on there fair booths they have LCDs with movies !!!
I go to the shopping mall today and the fashion shops don't have beautiful large prints ! they have large vertical LCDs with fashion videos!!!
There will hallways be room for big resolution photography, but in the corporate business-some fashion i see a swift for more video/motion
Maybe its time to leave the my money on a 8MP cinema camera...
Best regards
PN
-
Not only this forum but basically the entire photo enthusiast Forum Community.
I don't mind more pixels in bayer sensors as long as it does not sacrifice the pixel quality, if its get improved then even better.
I don't know if I am interpreting you correctly, but I completely disagree with the idea that "pixel quality" is a sensible thing to strive after for photographers. It is probably sensible for sensor designers.
For photographers, I'd argue that "image quality" whatever that means is a lot more relevant than "pixel quality". Often the two are highly correlated, but they may not always be.
If I was offered a camera with more pixels, worse per-pixel quality but better image quality than I currently have, I would take it. Would not most of us?
-h
-
I don't know if I am interpreting you correctly, but I completely disagree with the idea that "pixel quality" is a sensible thing to strive after for photographers. It is probably sensible for sensor designers.
For photographers, I'd argue that "image quality" whatever that means is a lot more relevant than "pixel quality". Often the two are highly correlated, but they may not always be.
If I was offered a camera with more pixels, worse per-pixel quality but better image quality than I currently have, I would take it. Would not most of us?
-h
Obviously pixel quality is just one of several factors contributing to the image quality, optics affect a LOT also raw image processing and overall post-processing. Never mind technique and light and like mentioned, everything infront of the lens!
But, the better the Pixel quality the more options one has to achieve the desired results. You can add noise later and screw up the image in many ways you like but the RAW file is the Materia Prima.
BC, C'Mon Man! Light colored clothes, light colored horse and light colored sand, that is a whole bunch of natural fill light right there! ;D
-
For photographers, I'd argue that "image quality" whatever that means is a lot more relevant than "pixel quality". Often the two are highly correlated, but they may not always be.
If I was offered a camera with more pixels, worse per-pixel quality but better image quality than I currently have, I would take it. Would not most of us?
Indeed!
And within the constraint of a given format size like 36x24mm, there is a kind of reciprocity between:
- fewer, larger photo-sites of higher per pixel DR
- more but smaller photo-sites of lower per pixel DR -- which can be downsized to fewer output pixels of higher DR than the individual photo sites.
This can end up giving very similar abilities to handle scene of high Subject Brightness Range, judged by my preferred comparison standard of displaying and viewing images from different cameras at the same size.
To me, this SBR handling is the bottom line that photographers should be thinking about, and accept that there are multiple routes to good handling of high SBR scenes.
-
As an analyst, my take on the 5D3 is that there now is severe infighting between the pro video and prosumer dSLR divisions of Canon, and rather than merge them or allow them to really compete against each other, management has decided to force them to coexist in separate watertight market compartments. This means that the still products are voluntarily castrated, with all but the most basic video capabilities voluntarily removed.
Maybe, but let me posit a more innocent possible explanation for the relatively weak video capabilities of these 50MP cameras:
a) There are too many pixels to read out the entire video frame (about 42 million of them in the crop to the 16:9 shape of HD) at video rates like 30p, let alone the 60p that is entirely missing; maybe even rain g all pixels on every third line and then downsampling within lines is not feasible. Or at least not economically feasible; possible only with a substantial extra cost to add processing power that would increase the price of the camera significantly within benefit to its main customers, and which would have the Slobodan's of the still photography world rightly complaining about the ill-effects of feature bloat.
b) With that inherent limitation to video quality, it makes little sense to waste resources on other features that are only of interest to serious video usage, who will not choose this camera for that usage anyway. For example: as has already been said, going to 100 million photo sites for a dual pixel AF system could be substantial challenge to cost, either not feasible or not worthwhile if the benefits are mostly or entirely to video.
TL;DR: sometimes, optimizing one aspect of performance is best done by not striving to make a general purpose tool.
-
I am a bit surprised about the expectation that this camera should do video well.
IMHO it reveals that the positioning of the 5Ds is not well understood.
The 5Ds was apparently not intended by Canon to be a generalist camera such as the 5DIII or D810. It is not a 5D mkIV.
It was designed and optimized for the studio with landscape as a second target (we'll have to wait for measurments on that one).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am a bit surprised about the expectation that this camera should do video well.
IMHO it reveals that the positioning of the 5Ds is not well understood.
The 5Ds was apparently not intended by Canon to be a generalist camera such as the 5DIII or D810. It is not a 5D mkIV.
It was designed and optimized for the studio with landscape as a second target (we'll have to wait for measurments on that one).
Cheers,
Bernard
A lot of people are frustrated with Canon because the technology is out there to make a great all around 24x36mm sensor Camera at the announced price point.
-Nikon D810 levels of Color Depth and Dynamic Range (14.5+) or at the very least D7100 (13.6+) levels.
-Nikon D810 pixel count (they got that covered!)
-4k 24p Video (EASILY achievable with today's processors) (not a huge deal for me but would make a LOT more people want the camera and buy it. Larger Customer Base)
-On chip AF (not a huge deal)
-Large Raw Image Buffer (again, memory is cheap nowadays)
-High Iso (not a big deal for me)
-Great Long Exposure Performance (somewhat important to me)
Never mind that Canon could, if they wanted, make an amazing mirrorless Interchangeable Lens system camera with an amazing EVF and capability to use all existing Canon EF lenses seamlessly. That is a whole nother subject.
We Enthusiasts HATE when a company cripples a product that is capable of much more in it's current configuration and also HATE when a Company blatantly "Sandbags" or cuts features/performance to save them for another product. I don't think Canon is in a position to do all that given what Nikon and Sony have out there.
Again, the dynamic range / color and other sensor comments should be taken lightly PENDING the hands on testing of a finalized 5DS/5DSR.
-
I agree with all of this, except the "Not a huge deal" for on-chip AF. I find that fast on-chip AF is the single most useful feature in single-operator video with my GH4. I can set focus and move it between speakers just by touching the camera display, while the shutter is rolling. Most people on this forum seem to do video with crews and follow-focus, and have forgotten that such automation is really crucial for single-operators, among which of course are many newsshooters and all the mom-and-pop marriage shooters.
Another crucial feature for video is that earphone socket - in-camera audio MUST be checked with a headset at some point, especially when using wireless systems etc. Only the live check detects buzzes or fallouts, this is one of the reasons so many still employ a live sound engineer.
I do agree that the above are of no importance to still photographers - which is why I have little to say about the 5Ds as a still camera - only real use will speak - but can predict that it won't even get shortlisted by one-man operations that need to do video.
Edmund
A lot of people are frustrated with Canon because the technology is out there to make a great all around 24x36mm sensor Camera at the announced price point.
-Nikon D810 levels of Color Depth and Dynamic Range (14.5+) or at the very least D7100 (13.6+) levels.
-Nikon D810 pixel count (they got that covered!)
-4k 24p Video (EASILY achievable with today's processors) (not a huge deal for me but would make a LOT more people want the camera and buy it. Larger Customer Base)
-On chip AF (not a huge deal)
-Large Raw Image Buffer (again, memory is cheap nowadays)
-High Iso (not a big deal for me)
-Great Long Exposure Performance (somewhat important to me)
Never mind that Canon could, if they wanted, make an amazing mirrorless Interchangeable Lens system camera with an amazing EVF and capability to use all existing Canon EF lenses seamlessly. That is a whole nother subject.
We Enthusiasts HATE when a company cripples a product that is capable of much more in it's current configuration and also HATE when a Company blatantly "Sandbags" or cuts features/performance to save them for another product. I don't think Canon is in a position to do all that given what Nikon and Sony have out there.
Again, the dynamic range / color and other sensor comments should be taken lightly PENDING the hands on testing of a finalized 5DS/5DSR.
-
I believe that many are over estimating the silicon R&D capacities of Canon relative to Sony semi, Toshiba semi and Samsung semi which results in a wrong impression that they avoid delivering value on purpose while they in fact simply don't have the same level of engineering expertise.
I would focus on the value this camera delivers for Canon lens owners shooting stills, which is the intended audience.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that many are over estimating the silicon R&D capacities of Canon relative to Sony semi, Toshiba semi and Samsung semi which results in a wrong impression that they avoid delivering value on purpose while they in fact simply don't have the same level of engineering expertise.
I would focus on the value this camera delivers for Canon lens owners shooting stills, which is the intended audience.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon; if they suddenly have less competence in their core tech than a jumped-up consumer entertainment company and a minor third-world cellphone manufacturer then they are in real trouble :)
More seriously - Canon has always had total vertical control of their process, from chip design through tool manufacture to fab. If they've still got that vertical integration, but have allowed their tech to lapse, then they're very sick.
Edmund
-
I agree with all of this, except the "Not a huge deal" for on-chip AF. I find that fast on-chip AF is the single most useful feature in single-operator video with my GH4. I can set focus and move it between speakers just by touching the camera display, while the shutter is rolling. Most people on this forum seem to do video with crews and follow-focus, and have forgotten that such automation is really crucial for single-operators, among which of course are many newsshooters and all the mom-and-pop marriage shooters.
Another crucial feature for video is that earphone socket - in-camera audio MUST be checked with a headset at some point, especially when using wireless systems etc. Only the live check detects buzzes or fallouts, this is one of the reasons so many still employ a live sound engineer.
I do agree that the above are of no importance to still photographers - which is why I have little to say about the 5Ds as a still camera - only real use will speak - but can predict that it won't even get shortlisted by one-man operations that need to do video.
Edmund
Oops forgot about the lack of headphone out. That basically steers away any serious video users for good.
Right on about the on chip AF, not a big deal for me but for a huge range of video users it is.
-
I believe that many are over estimating the silicon R&D capacities of Canon relative to Sony semi, Toshiba semi and Samsung semi which results in a wrong impression that they avoid delivering value on purpose while they in fact simply don't have the same level of engineering expertise.
I would focus on the value this camera delivers for Canon lens owners shooting stills, which is the intended audience.
Cheers,
Bernard
Compared to the 5D3 the new 5DS/5DSR offer more pixels / resolution but reduced high iso capability (At Least IN THEORY) and reduced speed plus much reduced video capability.
The 5DS/5DSR will attract a limited audience mainly due to its supposedly reduced dynamic range compared to the Nikon/Sonys. Architectural and Landscape photographers won't really desire this camera en masse because of that although Canon's EF lens line is a HUGE draw. Funny (and revealing) that two of the promo videos for the 5DS/5DSR are a shoot involving high iso in decreasing light levels and a studio shoot with very controlled studio lighting. Those are basically the Camera's strong suit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KyWbns0ro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBqZHn_iSY0
*at higher iso the dynamic range advantage of the Nikon/Sony sensor is greatly reduced compared to the Canon's, say at around iso 1600 and above.
-
Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon ...
SLR camera body features are rather more long-term core competencies at Canon, I would say.
Sensors became a core asset for Canon when it got the jump on everyone else with the first good, low noise execution of active pixel CMOS sensors; in the longer run, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba and above all Samsung are far bigger in the electronics design and manufacturing business, so to some extend it was just that the nimble upstart Canon aroused several complacent giants, several of which have steadily overhauled it in some aspects of sensor design.
Canon has always had total vertical control of their process
The advantages of designing and making everything in-house is often over-rated in forum discussion, in comparison with the advantages of sometimes of technology sharing (multiple companies working with Sony for sensors, improving economies of scale and giving Sony the ability to spend more on sensor development than Canon can.
But if vertical integration does help, Sony has a far broader in-house sensor shop than Canon (reaching from phones through compacts to the majority if ILCs all the way to 44x33mm medium format), and Samsung is the king of doing everything in-house on a large and efficient scale.
-
...so to some extend it was just that the nimble upstart Canon aroused several complacent giants, several of which have steadily overhauled it in some aspects of sensor design.
Do you think it's the design technology, or merely the processes that are available to the designers? I can't remember the numbers, but last time I looked at the Canon chips, the feature sizes were really large, larger than you'd want if you were trying to get the fill factors up and the pitch down.
Jim
-
Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon; if they suddenly have less competence in their core tech than a jumped-up consumer entertainment company and a minor third-world cellphone manufacturer then they are in real trouble :)
More seriously - Canon has always had total vertical control of their process, from chip design through tool manufacture to fab. If they've still got that vertical integration, but have allowed their tech to lapse, then they're very sick.
The fact remains that although Canon is a pretty large corporation, its the semi-conductor division seems tiny compared to Samsung Semi-conductor, Toshiba Semi-conductor and Sony Semi-conductor.
I cannot even find Canon listed among the top semi-conductor companies, meaning they are least 6 times smaller than Toshiba and twice smaller than Sony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year#Ranking_for_year_2013
Even among imaging sensor semi-conductor companies, Canon is seen as a niche producer:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/p/image-sensor-companies-list.html
The only thing that saved Canon for a number of years was that the big guys had not yet fully turned their attention to the topic of imaging sensors.
I do agree fully with your analysis that they probably have a problem today and the comings years are not likely to see things improving as long as they continue to bet on in-house sensors development. It's been said countless times and each release only confirms this forecast. There is a significant probability that it is the case for still alone, and it will probably only be worse for still/video joined capabilities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you think it's the design technology, or merely the processes that are available to the designers? I can't remember the numbers, but last time I looked at the Canon chips, the feature sizes were really large, larger than you'd want if you were trying to get the fill factors up and the pitch down.
Jim
Jim,
This is what everybody has been saying - Canon's company-owned fabs are obsolete, and their desire for vertical integration has prevented their sensor designers from using a modern process.
Edmund
-
I wonder how long this thread will last. I don't care that the camera doesn't do 4K video, or doesn't do specific things to someones interests. It does 1 thing and hopefully it does it really really well - taking their latest lenses and showcase what they can do. The profit margin isn't in the cameras, it's the lenses and nothing like a high end camera to sell lots more lenses.
It puts Canon cameras in the hands of folks whom were lusting after the Pentax Z, or were to jump to Nikon post lens refresh. It doesn't do everything perfectly, but I'm renting one, just to compare it to what I know. A lens like the 200-400 F/4L IS 1.4x isn't ever going to be made in a Mamiya, Hasselblad or Pentax 645 mount - period. Hopefully the 5Ds/R will fill in that niche.
-
This is what everybody has been saying - Canon's company-owned fabs are obsolete, and their desire for vertical integration has prevented their sensor designers from using a modern process.
Then can we go easy on the poor designers?
Maybe I'm a little thin-skinned when it comes to development engineers...
Jim
-
Then can we go easy on the poor designers?
Jim
Jim,
I have no doubt that Canon's camera designers and chip designers are first rate - I've met some of them. But something's going wrong in the company's product planning - whereas they were almost prescient in catching the fullframe trend on the upswing, then the big sensor video trend, but they are now falling behind and giving an impression of corporate disarray. Let's not forget that the cellphones have chewed up just about all their low end compact business, and my local store now has almost no camcorders on sale - this is a store that will sell you a 400mm Canon tele from stock.
Edmund
-
I'm surprised to hear so much bashing for a camera that appears to be openly marketed as a niche camera. For me, the Canon 5d3 is the best dslr I've ever owned. And as a studio shooter, the 5Ds appears to be inspiring upgrade for the work that I do, which generally requires large prints. But until it's tested under my specific working conditions I have no opinion other than it could possibly be an effective upgrade to my existing camera body.
I don't think that a camera has existed that has served all masters perfectly. Yet many seem disappointed that the latest Canon iteration isn't the Holy Grail.
-
Bernard,
Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon; if they suddenly have less competence in their core tech than a jumped-up consumer entertainment company and a minor third-world cellphone manufacturer then they are in real trouble :)
More seriously - Canon has always had total vertical control of their process, from chip design through tool manufacture to fab. If they've still got that vertical integration, but have allowed their tech to lapse, then they're very sick.
Edmund
"Minor third-world cellphone manufacturer" is pretty insulting to both Samsung (the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer by some considerable margin), and South Korea (13th largest market economy in the world by GDP).
-
Samsung is (something like) 15:th largest company in the world, so if they commit themselves into making good cameras others should be worried. NX1 is a good start into that direction and a sign of things to come.
-
"Minor third-world cellphone manufacturer" is pretty insulting to both Samsung (the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer by some considerable margin), and South Korea (13th largest market economy in the world by GDP).
Actually in 2013 Samsung was the world's second-largest semiconductor maker. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year) as well as the largest cellphone manufacturer. Obviously I must believe that such a conglomerate does not employ engineers, and has no department responsible for designing and fabricating cellphone camera sensors and processors, no expertise in signal processing, and wishes to throw away all its spare production of flash and RAM memory, and that the country in which it is sited does not support technology.
:P
Edmund
-
I've never owned a camera that didn't require a compromise.
the Nikon d3 I gave up detail and more exacting color for high iso and excellent focusing.
The Canon 1dx I gave up extreme detail for robust ethernet tethering and canon color which I find more pleasing than most.
With the Leica S2 I lose high iso and lightning fast focus for a more traditional camera, that shoots a very nice file.
In Motion it's the same.
With RED I give up small portability for a professional cinema look.
With the gh3s I lose log files for a small package and the Canon 70d I lose 4k, for excellent lifestyle mobility and thoughtful and accurate autofocus.
Would I like all the best attributes of the cameras I just mentioned in one package? Sure and of course I'd love it to be $4,000, but life just doesn't work that way.
The point most are missing is Canon has a huge user base, especially in the professional ranks.
They are also the only company (other than Sony) that makes professional still cameras, decent post production software with a lot of cross platform use with a professional cinema line.
Unlike Sony Canon is very deeply embedded in the professional ranks, with rentals or purchase on almost every metro area.
So if you work in advertising and mixed media, a case of Canons will pretty much cover everything I could/would/plan to shoot.
Is it free or cheap?
No, but professional equipment rarely is.
As I mentioned before, nearly all higher end digital cameras are very good, in both still and motion and the shoot budget, or talent of the artist will limit the production much more than a camera.
Internet conversation tends to lean to the negative. Don't know why, maybe it's just the human condition and you see it in this thread and that negative Leica thread, but personally I see things in a much more positive light.
I also know in the professional world, image creators don't grind on about cameras. Most have their preferences, most use what works until it either stops or something forces them to move upstream and if they can't afford to buy, they rent.
But nobody shoots poorly because of the camera and no great image is produced because of the camera.
I have and do own Nikon, Canon, Leica, RED, Panasonic, Olympus, Sonys and I've very, very rarely started production without a case of Canons and consequently rarely produced a project of any size that didn't have some or all content produced with a Canon.
I don't think anybody here needs to worry about Canon, Nikon or Leica's P+E. They're all fine.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/00014rr_salon.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Do you think it's the design technology, or merely the processes that are available to the designers? I can't remember the numbers, but last time I looked at the Canon chips, the feature sizes were really large, larger than you'd want if you were trying to get the fill factors up and the pitch down.
Jim
I have no idea of the details (designers vs equipment), and even if it is designers, it can be a matter of quantity, not quality: Sony can probably justify putting more engineers on the task of designing the next generator sensor cell or whatever, on the expectation of greater total sales. I only see the overall result; that bigger electronics operations have a natural advantage in pushing the performance of their sensors forward.
It could well be that Canon insists on using fab. equipment that it makes and owns itself, and int fab business, Canon has fallen well behind industry giant AMSL (and probably behind the industry's #2, Nikon Precision Equipment.) Contrary to what some suggest, I am sure that Sony is happy to buy its fab. equipment from whoever offers the best tool for the job, even it means using AMSL gear to make sensors for Nikon.
-
I have no idea of the details (designers vs equipment), and even if it is designers, it can be a matter of quantity, not quality: Sony can probably justify putting more engineers on the task of designing the next generator sensor cell or whatever, on the expectation of greater total sales. I only see the overall result; that bigger electronics operations have a natural advantage in pushing the performance of their sensors forward.
It could well be that Canon insists on using fab. equipment that it makes and owns itself, and int fab business, Canon has fallen well behind industry giant AMSL (and probably behind the industry's #2, Nikon Precision Equipment.) Contrary to what some suggest, I am sure that Sony is happy to buy its fab. equipment from whoever offers the best tool for the job, even it means using AMSL gear to make sensors for Nikon.
BJL, Jim,
AFAIK, sensors like memory are mainly repetitive structures, and when I was a student, received wisdom was the design itself is a matter of having a few really good designers to create the elementary cells, rather than an army of average ones. On the other hand, the device itself is often at the upper limit of economically viable yield, and so process control is crucial.
I talked to the Aptina guys a couple of years ago, they thought cellphone tech is now driving the sensor business - this is where the most R&D dollars get invested. Of course Sony is a very big player in cellphone modules which may explain why its tech has advanced so quickly.
Edmund
-
AFAIK, sensors like memory are mainly repetitive structures, and when I was a student, received wisdom was the design itself is a matter of having a few really good designers to create the elementary cells, rather than an army of average ones. On the other hand, the device itself is often at the upper limit of economically viable yield, and so process control is crucial.
I think with analog designs -- and most of a sensor is analog -- it was ever thus. You're probably too young to remember rock-star analog IC designers like Bob Widlar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Widlar).
Jim
-
I think with analog designs -- and most of a sensor is analog -- it was ever thus. You're probably too young to remember rock-star analog IC designers like Bob Widlar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Widlar).
Jim
Jim, you made my day with that reference!
However, the story about Widlar bringing a goat to trim the lawn in front of his office, retold by The New York Times after his death,[8] was incorrect.[11] It was a sheep, not a goat;[71] Widlar brought her in his Mercedes-Benz convertible for just one day, which included a photo op for the local journalists.[11] According to Pease, Widlar abandoned her in the nearest bar;[11] according to Lojek the sheep was "mysteriously stolen".[71]
This rings a bell with me, because I remember how astonished I was, walking across the Cam bridge to the back gate of King's when I saw this flock of sheep grazing inside the grounds. So I asked around and was told that the college rented the meadow out to a farmer :)
I find it incredible that in an industry that thrives on reverse engineering people found it so difficult to replicate his designs.
Edmund
-
I have no idea of the details (designers vs equipment), and even if it is designers, it can be a matter of quantity, not quality: Sony can probably justify putting more engineers on the task of designing the next generator sensor cell or whatever, on the expectation of greater total sales. I only see the overall result; that bigger electronics operations have a natural advantage in pushing the performance of their sensors forward.
Sony semi-conductor is basically the leader in every segment of consumer imaging sensors, including mobile phones, compact, 1 inch, APS-C, FF and now [smallish] MF.
They probably sell about as many APS-C/FF sensors as Canon does (most probably at higher average prices since only a subset of their sales are internal), but then also 10 times more compact camera sensors and probably 30~40 times more sensors overall when you take into account mobile phones.
As always in consumer electronics, the larger the volume the higher the technological investments that can be done. Sony can probably spend 10 times more in R&D than Canon can without taking any risk from a profitability standpoint.
So it would take incredibly talented engineers on Canon side to compensate for this.
A person I know reported 3-4 years ago that Sony already had at that time samples of non linear sensors behaving like negative film in terms of highlight response... They haven't had to release such technologies to the market yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony ...
They haven't had to release such technologies to the market yet.
Bernard
Yes. Sad innit?
However, I think it was Noyce at Intel who said that the only real strategy of survival as a market leader is to obsolete your own products by means of new introductions as quickly as possible ... before your competitors do it for you.
Edmund
-
I find it incredible that in an industry that thrives on reverse engineering people found it so difficult to replicate his designs.
There weren't a lot of companies interested in analog IC's in those days. Fairchild, National, maybe Signetics, later Intersil, and a few others that my advanced age has suppressed. There were other designers who got a lot of ink in Electronics News and the San Jose Merc: Pease and Dobkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dobkin). Both Bobs, and both Widlar disciples. But, to make your point, probably the most successful op amp of all time, the ua741, was designed by a distinctly non-rock star Dave Fullagar working at Fairchild (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/engineer-in-wonderland/general/an-engineer-in-wonderland-inventing-the-555-and-2009-03/)-- after Widlar spurned it and ran off to National. Based on Widlar's LM101 (that was the mil-spec version, the commercial version was the 301) the 741 went on to far outsell its intellectual progenitor.
So the tortoise won out over the hare in the end.
There's a Canon connection, too. From the link above:
"Although the 741 is Fullagar’s most famous design, the one he best remembers was for a Canon: “My favourite product was a camera circuit developed for Canon Camera in Japan. It took the log of three inputs (aperture film speed and light intensity) summed the logs took the antilog and derived a shutter speed output. The whole circuit was temperature compensated and used a total of about ten transistors.”
Jim
-
So the tortoise won out over the hare in the end.
Jim
Interesting story. Also quite astonishing that the japanese would hire an outside designer to do a circuit for them.
I just chased down the 0.9V 555 redesign commissioned from Camenzind himself (http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/ZSCT1555.pdf) - and something else in the same vein (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/components/analogue-and-discretes/sub-1v-555-like-timer-includes-led-driver-and-charger-2010-11/). I guess my son will soon be old enough so I can breadboard some 555 circuits with him ...
Update - the "led-driver-charger" thingy has already been obsoleted ....Camenzind's low-voltage 555 still exists as ZSCT1555 - I'd love to get hold of a few samples!
Edmund
-
Hi,
Chipworks discusses it here:
http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/?lang=en&Itemid=815
This sentence is interesting: While Chipworks didn’t analyze that camera, every Canon FF sensor analyzed since has used the same 0.5 µm design rules. It is a credit to Canon that it has remained competitive by continuing to optimize its pixels fabricated in a relatively mature process.
The article gives Canon a lot of credit for refining the design, and I get the impression that the pixels are quit good but it is the readout that fail. That is the reason that Canon is pretty good on high ISO but fails in DR.
Comparing "tonal range" which I think is pretty close to "photographic DR" the Canon 6D and Nikon D750 are quite close, but Nikon has a great advantage in DR below 1200 ISO.
Well, tonal range is much dependent on full well capacity, while DR (in the DxO sense) is very much depending on readout noise.
Best regards
Erik
Do you think it's the design technology, or merely the processes that are available to the designers? I can't remember the numbers, but last time I looked at the Canon chips, the feature sizes were really large, larger than you'd want if you were trying to get the fill factors up and the pitch down.
Jim
-
However, I think it was Noyce at Intel who said that the only real strategy of survival as a market leader is to obsolete your own products by means of new introductions as quickly as possible ... before your competitors do it for you.
A good reminder, and the subject of "obsoleting yourself first" is a theme in this book on Intel:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/creating-the-digital-future-albert-yc-yu/1002976578?ean=9780684839882
That is why I laugh when forum pundits declare that a company will not or should not introduce some new product or feature because "it would just cannibalize an existing product". Some complacent market leaders do hold back like that (Canon and Nikon seem to be in that mode with respect to making ILCs with an EVF in place of the OVF), but others like Intel and Apple are happy to indulge in a bit of cannibalism.
-
btw, if some here orders chips on a regular basis and could add a couple of samples of the ztc low voltage 555 to their next order and dump them in an envelope ... I don't think I can get them here in Paris without some huge overhead.
Edmund
-
A good reminder, and the subject of "obsoleting yourself first" is a theme in this book on Intel:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/creating-the-digital-future-albert-yc-yu/1002976578?ean=9780684839882
That is why I laugh when forum pundits declare that a company will not or should not introduce some new product or feature because "it would just cannibalize an existing product". Some complacent market leaders do hold back like that (Canon and Nikon seem to be in that mode with respect to making ILCs with an EVF in place of the OVF), but others like Intel and Apple are happy to indulge in a bit of cannibalism.
BJL,
Yes, that was exactly what I meant, in answer also to Bernard"s post about Sony "having" technology but seeing no need to release it "yet". Interestingly, Panasonic and Samsung who were for a long time "mainstream followers" as an avowed strategy are now leapfrogging ahead of Nikon and Canon with their well-recieved photo/video hybrid mirrorless products. The focus system on the GH4 is fast and novel, it analyzes the OOF zones thereby bypassing the need for special pixels for a phase contrast system ...
I think Noyce watched IBM commit slow-motion suicide by attempting to hold back the tide of progress, and learnt from that. I still remember talking to a team that designed the first portable PC for IBM. They had an advanced small laptop design. IBM made them throw it away, and insisted on a redesign so marketing an obsolete monstruosity ... of course the japanese didn't see things in the same way. IBM's attitude in refusing to market what they had technically pioneered was deeply ingrained, and afforded entry points to any small competitor - DEC in particular ate their lunch even before the PC became an issue, but of course once the PC appeared every manager in every company got involved in computer purchasing and the blood in the water was calling out to the sharks.
Edmund
-
Hi,
About 1.5 years ago Sonyalpha rumors had some strong indications that Sony developed a new generation of sensors around 50 MP. The rumor also said it was extremely expensive in production and that it would not come to market in 2014 but hopefully in 2015.
It can just be that the sensor is still not available in feasible numbers at a feasible price.
Best regards
Erik
BJL,
Yes, that was exactly what I meant, in answer also to Bernard"s post about Sony "having" technology but seeing no need to release it "yet". Interestingly, Panasonic and Samsung who were for a long time "mainstream followers" as an avowed strategy are now leapfrogging ahead of Nikon and Canon with their well-recieved photo/video hybrid mirrorless products. The focus system on the GH4 is fast and novel, it analyzes the OOF zones thereby bypassing the need for special pixels for a phase contrast system ...
I think Noyce watched IBM commit slow-motion suicide by attempting to hold back the tide of progress, and learnt from that. I still remember talking to a team that designed the first portable PC for IBM. They had an advanced small laptop design. IBM made them throw it away, and insisted on a redesign so marketing an obsolete monstruosity ... of course the japanese didn't see things in the same way. IBM's attitude in refusing to market what they had technically pioneered was deeply ingrained, and afforded entry points to any small competitor - DEC in particular, ate their lunch even before the PC became an issue.
Edmund