Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: uheck on February 06, 2015, 09:47:50 am
-
Hi dear Collegues,
today I decided to sell my Leica S2.I think the offer Canon allows us is phenomenal.Large portions of fashion, car & product shooters will move away from MF.
Canons UI (user interface) is second to none (what made me sell the Nikon after 3 days back then), so is the haptics of the camera.
I´m shure the Magic Lantern guys will work their magic thru the firmware and in tzhe end we will see 15-16f stops Dr thru "Dual ISO" options.
The price for a MF alternative and superb lenses (think SIGMA since they reinvented themselves, Zeiss, old lenses etc.) is now absolutely affordable.
Pros will love this.
I just don´t understand why Canon publishes this crap first hand.This is the first touch everyone experiences and a single image can make or break a brand.Someone should get FIRED at CANON PR.
-
Hi dear Collegues,
today I decided to sell my Leica S2.I think the offer Canon allows us is phenomenal.Large portions of fashion, car & product shooters will move away from MF.
Canons UI (user interface) is second to none (what made me sell the Nikon after 3 days back then), so is the haptics of the camera.
I´m shure the Magic Lantern guys will work their magic thru the firmware and in tzhe end we will see 15-16f stops Dr thru "Dual ISO" options.
The price for a MF alternative and superb lenses (think SIGMA since they reinvented themselves, Zeiss, old lenses etc.) is now absolutely affordable.
Pros will love this.
I just don´t understand why Canon publishes this crap first hand.This is the first touch everyone experiences and a single image can make or break a brand.Someone should get FIRED at CANON PR.
Magic Lantern's dual-ISO DR comes at a high price in resolution.
I'm sure the 5Ds will be great for studio photographers who can control their lighting, but landscape photographers have no way to control their lighting and can really use the extra DR. Certainly, moving from the 5D2 to A7r made a lot of previously-impossible shots (high-DR scenes with moving elements) trivial.
-
Well, four months before this camera ships in half a year, you'll be able to buy a Sony 50 megapixel camera with much better dynamic range at half the price. And EFCS and no flappy mirror to destroy sharpness, and the ability to critically focus in the viewfinder (needed with a 50MP camera!)
So, that's basically why.
-
Exactly.
We will now see completely new styles in car photography ( people stuff at night, long lenses etc.) and fashion.
Better cropped images, since /mediocre) ADs and clients can decide until the last second.
I will now keep my IQ180 and a 5Ds.
-
Hi dear Collegues,
today I decided to sell my Leica S2.I think the offer Canon allows us is phenomenal.Large portions of fashion, car & product shooters will move away from MF.
Canons UI (user interface) is second to none (what made me sell the Nikon after 3 days back then), so is the haptics of the camera.
I´m shure the Magic Lantern guys will work their magic thru the firmware and in tzhe end we will see 15-16f stops Dr thru "Dual ISO" options.
The price for a MF alternative and superb lenses (think SIGMA since they reinvented themselves, Zeiss, old lenses etc.) is now absolutely affordable.
Pros will love this.
I just don´t understand why Canon publishes this crap first hand.This is the first touch everyone experiences and a single image can make or break a brand.Someone should get FIRED at CANON PR.
As to user interface, I have learned that some people naturally prefer Canon while other Nikon (ignoring all the rest which also has their fans.).
The real issue with the new 5Ds is whether there a gain in sensor performance. MP is nice, but not the only thing. And at 50MPs it excludes a big segment of the market where that type of pixel count just isn't needed or desired. So everyone is waiting to see if the camera performs to the limited target market or is it the same old thing Canon has delivered (weak low ISO performance with noisy shadows and limited DR, good high ISO performance) with more pixels. And by the time it ships there will be 50MP Sony that you can bet will have the performance for that target market. And I doubt Nikon is foolish enough to sit this out considering the success of the D800/D800e and the D810.
As a D810 owner, there are aspects of the 5DmkIII that recommend it over the D810 for specific applications, but from the standpoint of the sensor output the 5DmkIII at $3000 isn't even the match for the $2000 D750. It just isn't. And I think that is the frustrating thing. If Canon had access to Sony sensors for say the 5DmkIII and 7DmkII (both at 24MP), those would be 2 stellar cameras. As they are, they are good, but not great. Similarly if you take some of the operational capabilities in the Canons and put them in the Nikons, they would be better too.
-
As to user interface, I have learned that some people naturally prefer Canon while other Nikon (ignoring all the rest which also has their fans.).
The real issue with the new 5Ds is whether there a gain in sensor performance. MP is nice, but not the only thing. And at 50MPs it excludes a big segment of the market where that type of pixel count just isn't needed or desired. So everyone is waiting to see if the camera performs to the limited target market or is it the same old thing Canon has delivered (weak low ISO performance with noisy shadows and limited DR, good high ISO performance) with more pixels. And by the time it ships there will be 50MP Sony that you can bet will have the performance for that target market. And I doubt Nikon is foolish enough to sit this out considering the success of the D800/D800e and the D810.
As a D810 owner, there are aspects of the 5DmkIII that recommend it over the D810 for specific applications, but from the standpoint of the sensor output the 5DmkIII at $3000 isn't even the match for the $2000 D750. It just isn't. And I think that is the frustrating thing. If Canon had access to Sony sensors for say the 5DmkIII and 7DmkII (both at 24MP), those would be 2 stellar cameras. As they are, they are good, but not great. Similarly if you take some of the operational capabilities in the Canons and put them in the Nikons, they would be better too.
At 50MP and max ISO 6400, the two main groups who will be interested are studio photographers and landscape photographers.
Without a significant improvement in DR (to at least match the standard set by Sony, Leica, Samsung, Nikon and everyone else that isn't Canon) they won't win the landscape photographers. Which leaves only studio photographers.
-
I found dual iso to be an excellent solution, and not very harsh in terms of overall loss in resolution as long as you stay in the lower ranges as the base. I print for a photographer locally who uses it all the time and his works really don't suffer at all. It was actually his shots, that convinced me to install the Magic Lantern in the first place.
Paul
-
they won't win the landscape photographers.
are you stating that there are no landscape/architecture photographers that use Canon cameras that might be still willing to get 50mp with not worse DR that they were able to leave with so far for years ?
-
I'm glad someone likes Canon's interface I find it quite awful.
Having used every brand out there it's not one I like using.
Handling wise there was only ever one maker to nail it right to the wall and that was Minolta with the film 7/9 and 7d bodies superb handling unmatched by anyone since, what a shame nobody has taken up the baton since.
Every time I pick up a Canon it makes me want to put it down I've shot plenty I connected to none of them, even ones I bought to use for a while.
-
are you stating that there are no landscape/architecture photographers that use Canon cameras that might be still willing to get 50mp with not worse DR that they were able to leave with so far for years ?
Sure, they'll keep some that they already have, but they won't win any back from the other side - not if Sony or Nikon releases a 50MP sensor of their own with better DR, anyway (which is highly likely). They already lost a lot of landscapers to the D800e and A7r, and won't be winning them back unless the new body delivers DR-wise.
-
At 50MP and max ISO 6400, the two main groups who will be interested are studio photographers and landscape photographers.
Without a significant improvement in DR (to at least match the standard set by Sony, Leica, Samsung, Nikon and everyone else that isn't Canon) they won't win the landscape photographers. Which leaves only studio photographers.
Believe it or not, most landscape pictures on my websites are shot with a Canon full frame, 5D, 1Ds III and 5D III. Only a small part of them are HDR blended (<1%).
-
Without a significant improvement in DR (to at least match the standard set by Sony, Leica, Samsung, Nikon and everyone else that isn't Canon) they won't win the landscape photographers. Which leaves only studio photographers.
Sigh...
That's such a lot of crap...
-
are you stating that there are no landscape/architecture photographers that use Canon cameras that might be still willing to get 50mp with not worse DR that they were able to leave with so far for years ?
Absolutely there will be people that will buy this camera to shoot landscape. And the sunk cost and learning curve hurdles of switching to some other brand aside, it baffles me. This camera was the signal to Canon owners. You can let the 7DmkII slide as it was targeted at action where high ISO is important. The 5Ds however, was the camera that should have had great base ISO performance. Canon must be sitting back laughing their asses off thanking their lucky stars that their users are willing to overpay for their gear. Cause let's face it, the 5DmkIII is at best an $2000 camera when compared to available alternatives. On the flip side, Nikon must be sitting back wondering "what are we doing wrong?" cause comparatively the D810 should be selling for $1000 - $2000 more than the 5DmkIII, but Nikon users won't go for that! This whole thing would be a fascinating study in human psychology!
-
since I am reasonably new to this, can somebody explain why 24mp is not enough for 20x30 prints? Seems like the mega
pixel race will have no end. In the landscape "Fine Art" arena, my stuff keeps getting into national juried shows, and the megapixels are the last item on a check list of what makes a good photograph.
-
Believe it or not, most landscape pictures on my websites are shot with a Canon full frame, 5D, 1Ds III and 5D III. Only a small part of them are HDR blended (<1%).
Probably 80-90% of my Canon (5D2) landscapes were blended.
Only around 10% of my Sony A7r shots are.
-
since I am reasonably new to this, can somebody explain why 24mp is not enough for 20x30 prints? Seems like the mega
pixel race will have no end. In the landscape "Fine Art" arena, my stuff keeps getting into national juried shows, and the megapixels are the last item on a check list of what makes a good photograph.
Winning competitions isn't the same as making large prints for display or commercial sale.
Winning a competition is all about the aesthetic quality of the image. But, no matter how good the image is, you won't be able to sell it if it's not big enough to suit the buyer's purpose. For hotels, bars, hospitals and other public spaces, this often mean big (40x60" or larger) prints that will be viewed up close.
-
Sure, they'll keep some that they already have, but they won't win any back from the other side - not if Sony or Nikon releases a 50MP sensor of their own with better DR, anyway (which is highly likely). They already lost a lot of landscapers to the D800e and A7r, and won't be winning them back unless the new body delivers DR-wise.
what lost is lost (in a previous situation with 36mp vs 21mp), but nothing serious is going to happen with 50mp vs 50mp and not serious changes in DR on both sides ...
-
I'm glad someone likes Canon's interface I find it quite awful.
Having used every brand out there it's not one I like using.
Handling wise there was only ever one maker to nail it right to the wall and that was Minolta with the film 7/9 and 7d bodies superb handling unmatched by anyone since, what a shame nobody has taken up the baton since.
Every time I pick up a Canon it makes me want to put it down I've shot plenty I connected to none of them, even ones I bought to use for a while.
I cannot see the problem with the interface. Once set up how often does one ever actually go into menus? And button placement is just a learned reflex. I've had my IDs for about six years and I only go into the menu to format or check the clock for accuracy (matched to other cameras). I can change all the settings I use with the camera to my eye because my fingers know when they're going. I'm lost with a Nikon, but doubtless I could learn to use it just as well after a few thousand pictures (maybe 30,000) or so.
Jim
-
what lost is lost (in a previous situation with 36mp vs 21mp), but nothing serious is going to happen with 50mp vs 50mp and not serious changes in DR on both sides ...
No change in trend, certainly. But the current momentum (in terms of landscape photographers, at least) is away from Canon, and that will only continue, if not accelerate, if Canon's DR doesn't hold up.
One generation of bodies (5D3 vs D800e) you can certainly let slide, in the hope that the next generation will make up for it and that it will not be a long-term deficit. But two generations, including a body that appears to be designed with landscape/high-res photographers in mind but doesn't hold up DR-wise, will be a signal to many that Canon no longer has the gear for them and that it's time to move on.
-
Probably around 90% of my interiors are blended. I was wishing for Exmor-like technology from the new Canons.
It would be a great help if I could cut that to half.
Something is for sure: Canon has its pride.
Eduardo
Probably 80-90% of my Canon (5D2) landscapes were blended.
Only around 10% of my Sony A7r shots are.
-
No change in trend, certainly. But the current momentum (in terms of landscape photographers, at least) is away from Canon, and that will only continue, if not accelerate, if Canon's DR doesn't hold up.
there is no trend recently... whoever was destined to defect already defected... Canon marketshare does not suffer recently and it won't suffer once they have 50 vs 50 and not 36 vs 21
-
there is no trend recently... whoever was destined to defect already defected... Canon marketshare does not suffer recently and it won't suffer once they have 50 vs 50 and not 36 vs 21
I think a lot of people have been waiting to see what Canon managed to do with its next generation before making a decision one way or another. That is, not ditching Canon just yet, but not buying new lenses and sinking more into the system either, but waiting to see if Canon improved before deciding to either stay or change.
If the final product shows no significant improvement in DR (i.e. no real improvements in two generations), I think we'll see a lot more landscape/non-action photographers changing systems.
-
I think a lot of people have been waiting to see what Canon managed to do with its next generation before making a decision one way or another. That is, not ditching Canon just yet, but not buying new lenses and sinking more into the system either, but waiting to see if Canon improved before deciding to either stay or change.
I certainly fall into that camp! Sony's solutions are looking more interesting by the day.
-
Sony's solutions are looking more interesting by the day.
Sony Semi or Sony Imaging ? because Sony Semi did not make a new FF sensor (A7s does not count in DR/resolution dept and @ high gains dialed in Canon sensors in Canon cameras are closing in) for a long long time really
-
Sony Semi or Sony Imaging ?
You pick.
peace.
-
Hi dear Collegues,
....
I just don´t understand why Canon publishes this crap first hand.This is the first touch everyone experiences and a single image can make or break a brand.Someone should get FIRED at CANON PR.
That is what happened to Kodak. They had a fantastic SLRc DSLR(14mp), and they totally blew the intended use of the camera and it was gone very quickly)....
*Not that Canon is going anywhere if they even miss this mark, and I don't think they have.
-
Hi,
My take is that previously Canon had two problems:
- They didn't offer a high resolution camera
- They lag in DR compared the competition
Now, with 5Ds they are down to one problem.
Just to say, Canon photographers have produced excellent images with existing cameras for a long time.
Best regards
Erik
-
Just to say, Canon photographers have produced excellent images with existing cameras for a long time.
That's because the quality of the photo has nothing to do with the quality of the camera.
A better camera doesn't let you take better photos. It merely lets you take the same photos you usually do in a wider range of lighting situations. I can take a great landscape with an iPhone, provided the lighting is just right. Any deviation from those conditions and it's no dice.
-
I have quite a lot invested in the Canon system and I have been shooting it for years. The last body I bought though was the 5D Mark II. I recently decided to test the Nikon waters with the D810, 14-24mm, and Sigma 50 art. I've been pretty blown away with the D810. After a few days of utter confusion, I find I like the interface far better than Canon. Things just make more sense and you don't need to go into menu's all the time. The features and image quality are a really big jump from the Mark II.
I was using the Magic Lantern, but that to me is an absolutely horrible user interface and I really hated having to use it. I want to concentrate on the image and not be fiddling in menus all the time.
On this announcement, I suspected Canon wouldn't make any dynamic range strides (or possibly make things worse), but was hoping for a suprise. I still have all my Canon gear, and I think Canon has the best lens lineup. I have so much invested in Canon glass..... Perhaps I will shoot two systems and try and use the strengths of each. Perhaps Sony will come out with a professional level mirrorless camera and I will go the route of using a Canon adapter. I imagine we are in for a multiyear wait for any future sensor innovation from Canon.
-
I have quite a lot invested in the Canon system and I have been shooting it for years. The last body I bought though was the 5D Mark II. I recently decided to test the Nikon waters with the D810, 14-24mm, and Sigma 50 art. I've been pretty blown away with the D810. After a few days of utter confusion, I find I like the interface far better than Canon. Things just make more sense and you don't need to go into menu's all the time. The features and image quality are a really big jump from the Mark II.
I was using the Magic Lantern, but that to me is an absolutely horrible user interface and I really hated having to use it. I want to concentrate on the image and not be fiddling in menus all the time.
On this announcement, I suspected Canon wouldn't make any dynamic range strides (or possibly make things worse), but was hoping for a suprise. I still have all my Canon gear, and I think Canon has the best lens lineup. I have so much invested in Canon glass..... Perhaps I will shoot two systems and try and use the strengths of each. Perhaps Sony will come out with a professional level mirrorless camera and I will go the route of using a Canon adapter. I imagine we are in for a multiyear wait for any future sensor innovation from Canon.
If it weren't for the Canon TS-E lenses, I'd be shooting a D810.
As it is, I'm currently using a pair of A7r bodies with Metabones adapters.
If DxO testing confirms that Canon hasn't improved their DR, I'll probably end up shooting the D810 successor as my main body, with a Sony A9 or A7rII exclusively for use with TS-E lenses.
-
That's because the quality of the photo has nothing to do with the quality of the camera.
A better camera doesn't let you take better photos. It merely lets you take the same photos you usually do in a wider range of lighting situations. I can take a great landscape with an iPhone, provided the lighting is just right. Any deviation from those conditions and it's no dice.
While I think I understand what you are trying to say, that is just nonsense. It's the same as saying that the quality of the paper, ink and printer has nothing to do with the quality of the print. Photography has an artistic and technical side. The technical part plays into how well one is able to translate the artistic vision.
-
Probably 80-90% of my Canon (5D2) landscapes were blended.
Only around 10% of my Sony A7r shots are.
The starting point for my photos is a bracket sequence where I choose the optimal exposed shot in post processing. This will often give you1 or 2 stops more than of you don't do that. Therefore you may blend a lot more photos due to that. I'm speculating because I have seen this a lot. I haven't seen you landscape shots so this makes a bit difficult to comment on, but you have in my opinion a very high percentage that need to be blended. Alternatively you can take a look at my shots a see if yours are very different in terms of shooting conditions.
-
The starting point for my photos is a bracket sequence where I choose the optimal exposed shot in post processing. This will often give you1 or 2 stops more than of you don't do that. Therefore you may blend a lot more photos due to that. I'm speculating because I have seen this a lot. I haven't seen you landscape shots so this makes a bit difficult to comment on, but you have in my opinion a very high percentage that need to be blended. Alternatively you can take a look at my shots a see if yours are very different in terms of shooting conditions.
Looking through your photos, it seems that I often shoot in harsher light than you. Also, I print very large and am very particular about details, even in the deepest of shadows - I often blend shadows where others would simply accept noisier or less-detailed shadows.
-
Looking through your photos, it seems that I often shoot in harsher light than you. Also, I print very large and am very particular about details, even in the deepest of shadows - I often blend shadows where others would simply accept noisier or less-detailed shadows.
Would love to see some examples or link Shadowblade.
But its true, There are a number of groups to fall into, as differnet folks have different expectations of their work, the shooting conditions, and other variables that will change our needs, and tools we use.
-
While I think I understand what you are trying to say, that is just nonsense. It's the same as saying that the quality of the paper, ink and printer has nothing to do with the quality of the print. Photography has an artistic and technical side. The technical part plays into how well one is able to translate the artistic vision.
No, technical limitations are like printer or monitor gamut.
If you print entirely in monochrome, you will never see the benefits of a greater colour gamut.
Similarly, if you shoot within the limitations of a camera system (i.e. within the limitations of ISO, dynamic range and print size as dictated by resolution) you can capture any scene, however creative, within the limitations of that system. It's only when you run into one of the limit that you encounter problems in translating your vision. With some cameras, e.g. phone cameras, the limits are very narrow, and almost all photographers will regularly shoot outside of those limits. With others, the limits are much wider - that's why many people can make do with either a Nikon or Canon full-frame SLR system, with only certain select groups of photographers, who regularly shoot at the limits, encountering problems with one system that switching to the other resolves.
-
Looking through your photos, it seems that I often shoot in harsher light than you. Also, I print very large and am very particular about details, even in the deepest of shadows - I often blend shadows where others would simply accept noisier or less-detailed shadows.
I never print larger than A2+ and for that size I do not have issues with noise or lack of details. I see a lot of photos that have too much detail in the shadows. But that is a personal preference, of course. I would be interested in seeing your photos. Do you have a website that you could link to?
-
No, technical limitations are like printer or monitor gamut.
If you print entirely in monochrome, you will never see the benefits of a greater colour gamut.
Similarly, if you shoot within the limitations of a camera system (i.e. within the limitations of ISO, dynamic range and print size as dictated by resolution) you can capture any scene, however creative, within the limitations of that system. It's only when you run into one of the limit that you encounter problems in translating your vision. With some cameras, e.g. phone cameras, the limits are very narrow, and almost all photographers will regularly shoot outside of those limits. With others, the limits are much wider - that's why many people can make do with either a Nikon or Canon full-frame SLR system, with only certain select groups of photographers, who regularly shoot at the limits, encountering problems with one system that switching to the other resolves.
I agree. In the entire universe of photo opportunities, most cameras can technically execute the vast majority. It is at the margins that something like the D810 out performs the 5Ds on DR and vice versa on MP.
-
If you print entirely in monochrome, you will never see the benefits of a greater colour gamut.
Not sure that is internally true. If OOG colors can't be captured, you can't convert them to monochrome (not that OOG is often an issue with these kinds of devices).
If you have the same sRGB and ProPhoto RGB image, it's possible the later could produce a different (better?) monochrome conversion.
-
No, technical limitations are like printer or monitor gamut.
If you print entirely in monochrome, you will never see the benefits of a greater colour gamut.
Similarly, if you shoot within the limitations of a camera system (i.e. within the limitations of ISO, dynamic range and print size as dictated by resolution) you can capture any scene, however creative, within the limitations of that system. It's only when you run into one of the limit that you encounter problems in translating your vision. With some cameras, e.g. phone cameras, the limits are very narrow, and almost all photographers will regularly shoot outside of those limits. With others, the limits are much wider - that's why many people can make do with either a Nikon or Canon full-frame SLR system, with only certain select groups of photographers, who regularly shoot at the limits, encountering problems with one system that switching to the other resolves.
With both the D810 and the 5D III I will have shots that fall outside the capability of the cameras. For the 5D III it falls shot way before the D810, but in both cases bracketing and blending solves the problem. If the number of blends needed would be very large with the 5D III and very low in the same situation with the D810 then the 5D III would be problematic. I love the DR of the D810, but I can mange well with the 5D III as well with blending when needed. I shoot a lot with the 5D III and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens and I don't a lens that nice for the D810. Also I often prefer the colors from the Canon. So sometimes I will shoot a scene with both cameras and choose the best.
-
From DPReview
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5
"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!"
By the time the New 5D's are available in June I expect there will be a new Sony mirrorless camera which will have a new Sony 50MP Bayer sensor, which will also find its way into a Nikon DSLR and maybe even a Pentax DSLR. I have a collection of C/Y lenses and Canon T/S lenses so for me the best option will likely be Sony, especially if the DR is noticeable better than the Canon 5D's. Its sad to say that Canon appear to be stood still and are no longer innovators, but I'm sure the 5D's will sell well, but for me a 2nd generation A7 series camera with IBIS and a higher resolution sensor sounds very appealing, even more appealing would be a professional A9 with a none Bayer stacked CMOS sensor :)
-
I shoot a lot with the 5D III and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens and I don't a lens that nice for the D810.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by nice. Yes the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G is old and exhibits more CA than the Canon, but it is sharper. And while rumors of a VR version of the 24-70mm f/2.8 has been a mainstay for the last 4 years, I think we might actually get a new one.
-
He may have missed a word, but I think he is saying that he likes the Canon more than the compared Nikon, as he compares them side by side in the work he has encountered.
-
Well, four months before this camera ships in half a year, you'll be able to buy a Sony 50 megapixel camera with much better dynamic range at half the price. And EFCS and no flappy mirror to destroy sharpness, and the ability to critically focus in the viewfinder (needed with a 50MP camera!)
So, that's basically why.
Two things:
However good the Sony sensor is, I much prefer the look of the Canon CMOS RAW output. To my eyes there's something plasticky in the Sony output and even my old 5D sensor looks far more real.
The other thing with the Sony mirrorless camera is the EVF. Nothing beats an optical viewfinder.
-
Two things:
However good the Sony sensor is, I much prefer the look of the Canon CMOS RAW output. To my eyes there's something plasticky in the Sony output and even my old 5D sensor looks far more real.
The other thing with the Sony mirrorless camera is the EVF. Nothing beats an optical viewfinder.
And if you use a green magic marker on the outside rim of your CD it makes it sound more like vinyl.
-
I still prefer an optical viewfinder for a lot of shooting, but obviously this doesn't really apply to on-tripod non-action shooting, because I focus manually on Live View magnified 10X (like most people do).
-
And if you use a green magic marker on the outside rim of your CD it makes it sound more like vinyl.
I rarely post here but I see that also at LuLa gratuitous sarcasm and irrelevance is well and alive.
-
I rarely post here but I see that also at LuLa gratuitous sarcasm and irrelevance is well and alive.
Everyone gets their own opinion and preferences. Some like this while others that. But to say that the output of the Sony sensors look 'plasticky' is so arbitrary as to be useless. About which camera(s) are you refering? What does 'plasticky' mean?
-
I rarely post here but I see that also at LuLa gratuitous sarcasm and irrelevance is well and alive.
Yep, and those are not the only negative traits.
We're nearly six months away from the first of us getting a new R/S camera in our hands, yet once more the judge and jury have spoken and the experts have it figured out. At last it's not trees we're wasting.
The DR specs haven't been released, all cameras and software are still pre-production, and I doubt even Canon knows what the final specs will be. Besides, there was a single almost off-hand comment about what we could expect. Any chance the question was taken out of context, or the answer? Perhaps the person being questioned and doesn't know themselves and is just playing it safe by saying it will be like the current model, as in 'at least as good as the', but we still don't know.
Those of you who have been around awhile will surely remember the same discussions about DR and megapixels being thrown around when they announced the 1ds2.. "this is only for landscape and studio photographers, no one else needs that many pixels, yada yada yada" and a year later? It was a great wedding camera, some were using it for sports (with patience), and many other purposes. Heck, today smart phones have 16mp.. And the "how man megapixels does it take to make an 8x10" discussions were raging.. everyone forgetting some of us had 10x12 foot images and even billboards printed from the 2.7mp D2h..
Relax guys.. wait and see what the final specs and reviews reveal. No one knows better than Canon what's needed to be a success.. especially after such a long hiatus from being the market leader. Slow down..
I'm still shooting my old 1ds2 (gotta get my moneys worth out of it..) and 5d2 (and from that one too..) and don't really "need" anything more. If I had to pick where I'd get the most gains, I'd say from the recently released 11-22mm lens.. provided it's a winner. But I'm not going to lose a minutes sleep thinking about much less debating in a forum if it will be.. Think about how all the other great improvements will impact your photography style..
-
A new canon body or Sony with a few lenes is a small investment compared to buying a leica kit. I don't see where all the deliberation is any big deal if your really using the tool to make money it's much easier to justify buying a Sony or canon system and if you don't like it in six weeks and want to dump it for half of what you paid you still won't lose what you would on one leica lens? Which brings me to the question of why doesn't leica go the distance or at least meet the technology curve half way? They announced the new S in the early fourth quarter last year and its proposed to be a update to a existing three year old system!
-
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by nice. Yes the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G is old and exhibits more CA than the Canon, but it is sharper. And while rumors of a VR version of the 24-70mm f/2.8 has been a mainstay for the last 4 years, I think we might actually get a new one.
By nice, surprise :), I meant that it is very good optics and very sharp across the frame. I have tried two Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 on my D800E and I was not impressed. It is very sharp in the center, but not in the boundaries of the frame, so I never bought one. I think Nikon should update it like Canon did from their old one to the new mkII. If they do, I will buy one.
-
Yep, and those are not the only negative traits.
We're nearly six months away from the first of us getting a new R/S camera in our hands, yet once more the judge and jury have spoken and the experts have it figured out. At last it's not trees we're wasting.
The DR specs haven't been released, all cameras and software are still pre-production, and I doubt even Canon knows what the final specs will be. Besides, there was a single almost off-hand comment about what we could expect. Any chance the question was taken out of context, or the answer? Perhaps the person being questioned and doesn't know themselves and is just playing it safe by saying it will be like the current model, as in 'at least as good as the', but we still don't know.
Those of you who have been around awhile will surely remember the same discussions about DR and megapixels being thrown around when they announced the 1ds2.. "this is only for landscape and studio photographers, no one else needs that many pixels, yada yada yada" and a year later? It was a great wedding camera, some were using it for sports (with patience), and many other purposes. Heck, today smart phones have 16mp.. And the "how man megapixels does it take to make an 8x10" discussions were raging.. everyone forgetting some of us had 10x12 foot images and even billboards printed from the 2.7mp D2h..
Relax guys.. wait and see what the final specs and reviews reveal. No one knows better than Canon what's needed to be a success.. especially after such a long hiatus from being the market leader. Slow down..
I'm still shooting my old 1ds2 (gotta get my moneys worth out of it..) and 5d2 (and from that one too..) and don't really "need" anything more. If I had to pick where I'd get the most gains, I'd say from the recently released 11-22mm lens.. provided it's a winner. But I'm not going to lose a minutes sleep thinking about much less debating in a forum if it will be.. Think about how all the other great improvements will impact your photography style..
Canon released the info, that "Dynamic range is equivalent to the 5DIII"
http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm
-
today I decided to sell my Leica S2.I think the offer Canon allows us is phenomenal.
Frankly, you can't be for real.
I am the first to agree that the negative comments about the new Canon are idiotic since nobody has shot with the camera and we don't have any objective measurement of the sensor performance, but I just cannot believe any real photographer would decide to sell a camera as wonderful as the Leica S2 based on info posted on a website.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon released the info, that "Dynamic range is equivalent to the 5DIII"
http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm
In your linked reference he actually said "He basically said we should not expect any significant improvements compared to the 5D Mark III,"
He DID NOT state it was equivalent. He did not state an actual number we could reference. He doesn't know the number because the camera is still months out from production. What he did say was don't expect big changes.. or "significant" changes. Just as vague as the DPR information. What's significant to you? Or me? Or Canon? I have no way of knowing. What I won't do is read something into this he didn't say or what I want it to say. There is plenty of time to find out.
No matter how you look at it, this is an important release. I'm sure there's even more to come.
-
In your linked reference he actually said "He basically said we should not expect any significant improvements compared to the 5D Mark III,"
He DID NOT state it was equivalent. He did not state an actual number we could reference. He doesn't know the number because the camera is still months out from production. What he did say was don't expect big changes.. or "significant" changes. Just as vague as the DPR information. What's significant to you? Or me? Or Canon? I have no way of knowing. What I won't do is read something into this he didn't say or what I want it to say. There is plenty of time to find out.
No matter how you look at it, this is an important release. I'm sure there's even more to come.
Please take the time and watch the video. At about 02:00 Min he says: "The Dynamic Range is gonna be equivalent to the 5D Mark III". Now that is an official Canon Statement.
-
Waited for a higher-res Canon after not upgrading to the MKIII; finally in peace with abandoning Canon after 15yrs;
DR at MKIII level, no EVF options, no headphone jack, no RAW histogram, not much innovation at all in a very competitive market place right now;
the usual old Canon climbing up the spec ladder with each release one or two specs at a time;
Waiting for the first "rantatorial" from Michael on this camera and Canon ;D
-
As far as I understand the negativity rotate around one aspect -- dynamic range, the other things are just minor. This is a 12 stop camera, probably a good one without banding issues like the 7DII (remains to be seen though), but people at the forums really really wanted a 14 stop camera.
The number one favourite Nikon/Sony vs Canon bashing attack point has been DR for a few years now, and for every new release Canon supporters have hoped that Canon would be able to respond, but no. They can't. Today they have the last place in the DR race, even less known players like Samsung have broken the 12 stop limit. So I understand that the there is some major disappointment going on.
Then if 14 stops rather than 12 is really going to make a big difference to your photography depends on your shooting style. As some say they blend 90% with 12 stop and 10% with 14 stop, and then it's a real difference. I use a 12 stop camera, and I don't feel that limited by it, I use grads from time to time, but my shooting style involves lots or overcast skies, sun is rarely in the frame etc I tonemap relatively rarely. Other landscape photography styles are focused around high DR subjects and various tonemapping techniques and then those 2 extra stops does make a difference.
-
Looking at your website your images are stunning. I think you could get good results with your technique using an old Kodak Brownie Starflash. ;D
-
+1
Erik
As far as I understand the negativity rotate around one aspect -- dynamic range, the other things are just minor. This is a 12 stop camera, probably a good one without banding issues like the 7DII (remains to be seen though), but people at the forums really really wanted a 14 stop camera.
The number one favourite Nikon/Sony vs Canon bashing attack point has been DR for a few years now, and for every new release Canon supporters have hoped that Canon would be able to respond, but no. They can't. Today they have the last place in the DR race, even less known players like Samsung have broken the 12 stop limit. So I understand that the there is some major disappointment going on.
Then if 14 stops rather than 12 is really going to make a big difference to your photography depends on your shooting style. As some say they blend 90% with 12 stop and 10% with 14 stop, and then it's a real difference. I use a 12 stop camera, and I don't feel that limited by it, I use grads from time to time, but my shooting style involves lots or overcast skies, sun is rarely in the frame etc I tonemap relatively rarely. Other landscape photography styles are focused around high DR subjects and various tonemapping techniques and then those 2 extra stops does make a difference.
-
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by nice. Yes the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G is old and exhibits more CA than the Canon, but it is sharper. And while rumors of a VR version of the 24-70mm f/2.8 has been a mainstay for the last 4 years, I think we might actually get a new one.
It handily beats the old Canon 24-70 f/2.8.
But the 24-70 f/2.8 II is prime-sharp corner-to-corner and has minimal CA.
Nikon is yet to release a version competitive with this.
-
... Waiting for the first "rantatorial"...
Ha! Priceless!
-
I really wonder if the current canon l lenses (especially 17ts-e & 24 ts-e) resolve 50mp at common apertures like f8 - f13 ?
does someone have info on that?
-
Hi,
Almost any good lens will resolve well on 50 MP, at least over the center of the field. The 7D has the same pixel pitch as the 5Ds, so resolution is like the 7D but the image is larger.
Lenses that are weak on the 5DIII will be as weak on the 5Ds, but if you pixel peek the difference will be more obvious. But, if you resize the images to a common size the 5Ds will always win.
Many wide angles have weak corners, and that will show even more with the 5Ds.
One more point, if you print same size, the 5Ds will always give a sharper image than the 5DIII, much or little sharper - that depends on the lens.
The 17 and 24 mm TS lenses are excellent lenses.
Best regards
Erik
-
I really wonder if the current canon l lenses (especially 17ts-e & 24 ts-e) resolve 50mp at common apertures like f8 - f13 ?
does someone have info on that?
Before I got a MFD tech camera back in 2012 I made a test with a Canon 7D and the ts-e 24 II, shifting the 7D lots of mm to simulate the edge of a full-frame sensor, the pixel density on the 7D corresponds to 45 megapixels. Unfortuantely the pixel crops are gone but my conclusion was that there was a much more significant sharpness falloff to the corner than you get on a MFD technical camera with say a Schneider Digitar 35mm (same field of view if you use a 49x37mm sensor).
So no you won't get MFD tech cam performance on the wide angles but the images will contain pretty high resolution anyway. In a way it's good when the sensor outresolves the lens, as then you get the maximum out of your lens investment.
Maybe the Zeiss Otus range will get a 24mm, and then I guess you would get MFD results in terms of corner to corner sharpness, but I don't dare to dream of the size weight and cost of that...
-
Hi,
I don't argue with "Torger", just to mention that I have seen some images shot with the 17T&S on medium format cameras, 80 MP I believe. It was compared to the Rodenstock 23 HR. At f/8 there was no match, the "Rodie" won hands down, at f/16 it was quite even.
The way I see it, the 50 MP DSLRs, combined with the best available lenses, will be able to go into MFD territory.
To mention some examples:
- I have seen a comparison of Pentax 645 with their 24 mm lens compared to Zeiss 21/2.8 on the Sony Alpha A7r at Diglloyd, the A7r comfortably won.
- I have also seen a comparison of the Leica S2 and the Nikon D800 using the Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro Planar compared to the 120/2.5 Apo Macro Summarit. In that case the Nikon/Zeiss combo outperformed the Leica S2 MFD camera comfortably in the corners. In the central areas the Leica S2 was a bit better, but had excessive moiré. http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/compare-LeicaS2-mosaic.html
Personally, I have none of these cameras. I am shooting a Sony Alpha 99 that has 6 micron pixels and a Sony Alpha 77 that has 3.8 micron pixels, pretty close to the Canon 5Ds, but at APS-C. I also shoot a lot with a P45+ back on a Hasselblad V-series camera and have some of Zeiss better lenses for that camera.
Getting back to the 3.8 micron Alpha 77 SLT, which has similar resolution to the Canon 5Ds at the pixel level. What I see is that some lenses perform very well. For instance, the 70-400 zoom is working very well at the short side. At 400 mm it is not really good enough. The 16-80/3.5-4.5 is quite decent at any focal length, even if the corners are lacking at short focal lengths.
In short, my take is this:
- You will get results that are as good as or probably better than 5DIII images with any lens.
- Really good lenses will be excellent overall
To mention a couple of examples:
- The old Canon 16-35/2.8 lens was a dog regarding corner sharpness. The new 16-35/4 is very good across the image. Just don't forget how many award winning shots have been made with that 16-35/2.8 lens…
- The 24-70/2.8L has been redesigned, the new lens is much superior to the old.
Best regards
Erik
Before I got a MFD tech camera back in 2012 I made a test with a Canon 7D and the ts-e 24 II, shifting the 7D lots of mm to simulate the edge of a full-frame sensor, the pixel density on the 7D corresponds to 45 megapixels. Unfortuantely the pixel crops are gone but my conclusion was that there was a much more significant sharpness falloff to the corner than you get on a MFD technical camera with say a Schneider Digitar 35mm (same field of view if you use a 49x37mm sensor).
So no you won't get MFD tech cam performance on the wide angles but the images will contain pretty high resolution anyway. In a way it's good when the sensor outresolves the lens, as then you get the maximum out of your lens investment.
Maybe the Zeiss Otus range will get a 24mm, and then I guess you would get MFD results in terms of corner to corner sharpness, but I don't dare to dream of the size weight and cost of that...
-
- The old Canon 16-35/2.8 lens was a dog regarding corner sharpness. The new 16-35/4 is very good across the image. Just don't forget how many award winning shots have been made with that 16-35/2.8 lens…
Hi Erik,
Just for completeness, the Digital Photo Professional Raw (DPP) converter that comes with the Canon cameras, has an option called Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO). It allows to considerably improve the raw conversions with DPP from files that were show with that lens. One has to download the correction data file for the specific lens that one would like to add to the list of options.
I've tried it on my shots with the 16-35mm f/2.8, and the corners were significantly improved, they became quite usable actually.
By now, most Canon lenses have correction data available, including for the combined use of lenses with focal length extenders. Unfortunately it only works with DPP conversions, since the corrected Raw data is added to the original Raw data (which doubles the file size), in order to keep the Raw file also compatible with other converters (which are oblivious to the existence of two sets of Raw data).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I really wonder if the current canon l lenses (especially 17ts-e & 24 ts-e) resolve 50mp at common apertures like f8 - f13 ?
Here is an experiment that someone with the right lenses could try. Put those Canon lenses on a Canon _film_ camera, load it with a very high resolution low speed monochrome film like Ilford Delta 100 or Kodak TMAX-100, photograph your favorite test chart or brick wall, and examine the results. Some of these monochrome films have higher resolution by any measure than even these 50MP sensors. And I mean useful resolution, with a healthy MTF like 50% or better, not just the extinction resolution (MTF about 7%) or measurements with high contrast 1000:1 test charts, as quoted by some "film still rules" partisans.
-
It handily beats the old Canon 24-70 f/2.8.
But the 24-70 f/2.8 II is prime-sharp corner-to-corner and has minimal CA.
Nikon is yet to release a version competitive with this.
The current Nikkor is softer in the corners wide open, but that corner softness disappears by f/4. And it is is slightly sharper in the center than the NEW Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L II. And the Nikon does exhibit approximately double the CA of the minimal CA of the Canon. Bottom Line: In the real world, these lenses are basically equivalent in performance. Nikon has not released a newer version because this lens set the standard when it was released and it is still a great performer. Of course, Rumors of a PF/VR versions abound.
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=96429.0;attach=117732)
-
I really wonder if the current canon l lenses (especially 17ts-e & 24 ts-e) resolve 50mp at common apertures like f8 - f13 ?
does someone have info on that?
TSE 17 & 24 already show softness when shifted on 36MP, whether it's a problem is up to the user/application.
-
I certainly fall into that camp! Sony's solutions are looking more interesting by the day.
+One
-
>:( Canon PR admitting to segmentation tactics...
"A Canon representative told DP Review that the ISO cap is completely "arbitrary".
In a similar vein, Canon has probably restricted the two new cameras to 5 fps continuous (the Mark III can do 6 fps)—and for some reason, the new cameras can't do uncompressed HDMI output, while the Mark III can. These differences might seem fairly insignificant, but if you look at the entire Canon DSLR lineup, there's an awful lot of feature fragmentation. That's great from a business perspective (product segmentation increases sales), but not so good for consumers, who end up having to buy more than one camera to fulfill all their needs."
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/canon-reclaims-resolution-crown-with-50-megapixel-5ds-and-5ds-r/
-
Good point, reading the past Canon rants (on the money) from Michael, i bet he has something to say...
Or LuLa may simply ignore the camera - which is entirely possible (the 5DIII was ignored.)
What would be worse for the 5Ds - LuLa ignoring it or LuLa panning it for "same IQ but more of it"?
-
I really wonder if the current canon l lenses (especially 17ts-e & 24 ts-e) resolve 50mp at common apertures like f8 - f13 ?
does someone have info on that?
Hi Mark,
I have tested that for 36MP on the A7R (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93273.0). A few megapixels less, but it should help to see, what you can expect. I think that most part of the image circle will resolve 50MP quite well. The extreme corners when fully shifted are a different story.
Best regards - Marc
-
The current Nikkor is softer in the corners wide open, but that corner softness disappears by f/4. And it is is slightly sharper in the center than the NEW Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L II. And the Nikon does exhibit approximately double the CA of the minimal CA of the Canon. Bottom Line: In the real world, these lenses are basically equivalent in performance.
Hi,
Your charts do not specify, but I assume they depict Line Pairs per Picture Height (LP/PH) scores. The big question then becomes, on which camera body? If the Picture Height is different, then we are comparing apples with oranges ...
For a fair comparison between different sized sensors, one must compensate the LP/PH scores by the ratio of the sensor heights, so e.g. 4912/5792=84% for the smaller MP sensor scores.
Also, a 50.3 MP sensor will roughly pull up to 10% more (MTF) contrast out of the same lens at certain given absolute cycles/mm resolution than a 36.2 MP sensor of the same dimensions does. This will translate into better S/N and more usable data for post-processing, with more room to improve quality by down-sampling.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Your charts do not specify, but I assume they depict Line Pairs per Picture Height (LP/PH) scores. The big question then becomes, on which camera body? If the Picture Height is different, then we are comparing apples with oranges ...
For a fair comparison between different sized sensors, one must compensate the LP/PH scores by the ratio of the sensor heights, so e.g. 4912/5792=84% for the smaller MP sensor scores.
Also, a 50.3 MP sensor will roughly pull up to 10% more (MTF) contrast out of the same lens at certain given absolute cycles/mm resolution than a 36.2 MP sensor of the same dimensions does. This will translate into better S/N and more usable data for post-processing, with more room to improve quality by down-sampling.
My point was simply to refute the often posted comment that because the Nikkor has not been updated since it's introduction 8 or 9 years ago, the Canon is superior when, in fact, they perform so similarly that they are basically identical. While Canon failed at their 1st attempt, Nikon didn't. There has not been a need to update it and doing so only to add VR would have added cost, weight and size to and already expensive, big and heavy lens. I've discounted the rumors about an update until the PF patent was discovered. If Nikon releases a PF version update to this lens that maintains current optical performance (Big if) while substantially reducing the size and weight while adding VR it will sell like hotcakes!
The Nikkor was tested on the D3x, but Photozone did not specifically indicate on which body the Canon was tested. However, they tend to test on like platforms. And they warn that tests are not directly comparable between systems. I've never seen a photoszone lens test with a 36MP Nikon on Photozone. And I chose Photozone because Canon users seem to have a big chip on their shoulders concerning DxOMark.
-
5Ds: 5 fps @ 50MP is 250MP/sec (2 x DIGIC 6)
5D3: 6 fps @ 22MP is 132MP/sec (1 x DIGIC 5+)
7D2: 10 fps @ 20MP is 200MP/sec (2 x DIGIC 6)
1DX: 12 fps @ 18MP is 216MP/sec (2 x DIGIC 5+)
I don't see the FPS as being a limitation that is arbitrary.
And it doesn't matter anyway. The 5Ds is not intended as either a sports, wildlife or general use camera. Though 5fps is still functional for those uses, just not optimal. The target audience is fairly small. Thinking 5fps and an ISO that topped out at 400 would probably been sufficient for the vast majority of the target market.
That aside, it is frustrating when camera makers do arbitrarily cripple cameras. Don't think it bothers most professionals or people looking at a camera for a specific purpose, but for me, as an amateur looking for a general use camera it hurts. The small buffer on the D7100 turned what could have been a great general use camera into merely good for sports. I can shoot the D810 in 1.2x crop mode, get the same 24MP image and 6fps, but overall performance is much better due to better data throughput and larger buffer.
-
My point was simply to refute the often posted comment that because the Nikkor has not been updated since it's introduction 8 or 9 years ago, the Canon is superior when, in fact, they perform so similarly that they are basically identical. While Canon failed at their 1st attempt, Nikon didn't. There has not been a need to update it and doing so only to add VR would have added cost, weight and size to and already expensive, big and heavy lens. I've discounted the rumors about an update until the PF patent was discovered. If Nikon releases a PF version update to this lens that maintains current optical performance (Big if) while substantially reducing the size and weight while adding VR it will sell like hotcakes!
The Nikkor was tested on the D3x, but Photozone did not specifically indicate on which body the Canon was tested. However, they tend to test on like platforms. And they warn that tests are not directly comparable between systems. I've never seen a photoszone lens test with a 36MP Nikon on Photozone. And I chose Photozone because Canon users seem to have a big chip on their shoulders concerning DxOMark.
Never realised the Nikon was that sharp.
I wonder if they'll release a new version to fix the CA and make it even sharper. Don't need VR for these focal lengths - would rather they made it as aberration-free as possible.
-
The Nikkor was tested on the D3x, but Photozone did not specifically indicate on which body the Canon was tested. However, they tend to test on like platforms. And they warn that tests are not directly comparable between systems.
In that case we are probably comparing a Canon 5D Mark II (3744 px high) with a Nikon D3X (3744 px high), according to their Imatest chart legends, which should be reasonably well comparable except for strength of AA-filter, micro-lens design, and sensel aperture.
Modern lenses have the filter stack of digital cameras incorporated in the optical design. That's one of the reasons that modern lenses perform better than those from the film era. Also computer design has improved and the choice of lens materials is different and the use of aspherical lens elements has increased since they can be produced faster on a larger scale these days.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Lens rentals compared 24-70/2.8 alternatives from Canon, Nikon and Tamron.
What he found was that the Canon 24-70/2.8L II was the best of three bys some margin when tested on the MTF bench, but when the lenses were tested on the Nikon D800E and the Canon 5DIII the Canon lens was left behind. Why, because the better MTF of the Canon could not compensate for the superior resolution of the Nikon.
The article is worth reading: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison
Best regards
Erik
In that case we are probably comparing a Canon 5D Mark II (3744 px high) with a Nikon D3X (3744 px high), according to their Imatest chart legends, which should be reasonably well comparable except for strength of AA-filter, micro-lens design, and sensel aperture.
Modern lenses have the filter stack of digital cameras incorporated in the optical design. That's one of the reasons that modern lenses perform better than those from the film era. Also computer design has improved and the choice of lens materials is different and the use of aspherical lens elements has increased since they can be produced faster on a larger scale these days.
Cheers,
Bart
-
but Photozone did not specifically indicate on which body the Canon was tested.
they did - it is shown on the charts , top left corner = 5D mkII and also they always show the camera on the first page of the test report with the lens mounted
-
they did - it is shown on the charts , top left corner = 5D mkII and also they always show the camera on the first page of the test report with the lens mounted
On the nikon it is specifically stated in the 1st or 2nd paragraph.
-
Or LuLa may simply ignore the camera - which is entirely possible (the 5DIII was ignored.)
What would be worse for the 5Ds - LuLa ignoring it or LuLa panning it for "same IQ but more of it"?
If you were to use the 5Ds and the 7D to frame the same shot with the relevant lenses and printed them both to A2 or larger, surely the 5Ds would have higher resolutin because you are magnifying it less. So it would have superior IQ not 'more of the same'
-
If you were to use the 5Ds and the 7D to frame the same shot with the relevant lenses and printed them both to A2 or larger, surely the 5Ds would have higher resolutin because you are magnifying it less. So it would have superior IQ not 'more of the same'
Think the comparison would be 5DmkIII versus 5Ds. And yes, at super large output sizes there is something to be gained. Of course, from LuLa's perspective, the universe includes Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus etc. so it would really be a comparison of 5Ds vs D810 vs A7R.
The 7DmkII can get away with a less than spectacular APS-C sensor because there is nothing close in that price point ($1800) that will do 10fps. While I much prefer the image quality from the D7100, it tops out at 6fps and has an itty bitty buffer.
-
Those who read the "printers, papers & inks" forum may know that, besides being a photographer, I run a fine art printing studio, printing for several photographers and digital artists from all over the world.
One of the advantages of my work is that I am required to handle, adjust and print files produced with all existing cameras and lenses. Plus, we usually print big (24x36", 36x54", 44x66") and that gives me the chance to evaluate the printed result of the files produced by those cameras/lenses. Sure we cannot make direct comparisons as the subjects and photographers are different, but after a couple of dozen files we can get a general idea about the output quality of that specific equipment.
Last Friday I downloaded and printed one of the full resolution files from the 5Ds. I printed a crop, a strip of 8x40" from what would be a uncropped 40x60" print. Almost no adjustment, black point and white point adjustments and the print sharpening. Although it was a JPEG file and the photo was taken with a zoom lens (24-70mm f:2.8 II) the resulting print is nothing short of amazing for a 35mm DSLR. Not even a D810 with an Ottus can render that level of detail when printed at that size.
It is impossible to judge things like DR without a detailed side by side comparison and is dangerous to form an opinion based on a single example, but from the resolution and detail perspective I can assure you the 5Ds will be perfect for those who want to print big. Very clean files even on the shadows, but as it was a JPEG file we cannot say for sure that it is not due to an efficient noise reduction.
-
Hi Geraldo,
Thanks for good info! Just to say, it seem that the 24-70/28LII is a very good lens. Roger Ciala, over at LensRentals, looked into this and found that sensor resolution trump lens resolution. So a good sensor + a good lens is a very good combo.
Best regards
Erik
Those who read the "printers, papers & inks" forum may know that, besides being a photographer, I run a fine art printing studio, printing for several photographers and digital artists from all over the world.
One of the advantages of my work is that I am required to handle, adjust and print files produced with all existing cameras and lenses. Plus, we usually print big (24x36", 36x54", 44x66") and that gives me the chance to evaluate the printed result of the files produced by those cameras/lenses. Sure we cannot make direct comparisons as the subjects and photographers are different, but after a couple of dozen files we can get a general idea about the output quality of that specific equipment.
Last Friday I downloaded and printed one of the full resolution files from the 5Ds. I printed a crop, a strip of 8x40" from what would be a uncropped 40x60" print. Almost no adjustment, black point and white point adjustments and the print sharpening. Although it was a JPEG file and the photo was taken with a zoom lens (24-70mm f:2.8 II) the resulting print is nothing short of amazing for a 35mm DSLR. Not even a D810 with an Ottus can render that level of detail when printed at that size.
It is impossible to judge things like DR without a detailed side by side comparison and is dangerous to form an opinion based on a single example, but from the resolution and detail perspective I can assure you the 5Ds will be perfect for those who want to print big. Very clean files even on the shadows, but as it was a JPEG file we cannot say for sure that it is not due to an efficient noise reduction.
-
Last Friday I downloaded and printed one of the full resolution files from the 5Ds. I printed a crop, a strip of 8x40" from what would be a uncropped 40x60" print. Almost no adjustment, black point and white point adjustments and the print sharpening. Although it was a JPEG file and the photo was taken with a zoom lens (24-70mm f:2.8 II) the resulting print is nothing short of amazing for a 35mm DSLR. Not even a D810 with an Ottus can render that level of detail when printed at that size.
Hi Geraldo,
Thanks for your feedback. It does not really come as a surprise, since the sensor can resolve more detail and thus pull out more detail (and MTF contrast) out of a lens than a lower resolution sensor can. However, the important part is whether that extra technical quality translates to the final print, is the benefit significant enough to make a difference. As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and given your day-to-day experience with looking at printed results, your opinion matters to me.
And let's not forget that we are presumably looking at out-of-camera JPEGs as a basis for comparison. Imagine what can be done with a top notch Raw conversion, clarity and detail adjustments, and special care for output sharpening at a given size.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No doubt the resolution is there - if you can get the scene to fit within the technical capabilities of the camera, it will give you a great result.
My concern is that, as a landscape photographer with no control over the sun and a limited ability to use ND grads due to lens choices and uneven horizons, many scenes will not fit into the single-exposure dynamic range of the camera without a significant boost in DR over the 5D2/5D3.
-
No doubt the resolution is there - if you can get the scene to fit within the technical capabilities of the camera, it will give you a great result.
My concern is that, as a landscape photographer with no control over the sun and a limited ability to use ND grads due to lens choices and uneven horizons, many scenes will not fit into the single-exposure dynamic range of the camera without a significant boost in DR over the 5D2/5D3.
Hi,
I agree that a boost in DR would have been very welcome, but I can already manage as it is today with the 'limited' DR of my EOS 1Ds Mark III. Good technique, and to be on the safe side a few additional exposure brackets, will go a long way.
Currently I have to also stitch for additional resolution and more MTF. The 5DS will almost certainly (from a pure physical point of view) offer a significant jump in quality, even with the modest DR improvements it's supposed to have (cleaner shadows with less pattern noise, and better S/N (MTF) in the comparable medium to high spatial frequencies).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Good technique doesn't help if you're blowing the highlights at one end and the shadows at the other end at the same time. Which is something I encountered a lot with the 5D2, but much less often with the A7r. It also didn't help that the darkest few stops of the 5D2 had so much pattern noise they were unusable, even if they did contain detail.
-
Good technique doesn't help if you're blowing the highlights at one end and the shadows at the other end at the same time.
I agree, but it does help to have an optimal exposure (ETTR) to get the best feasible starting point for postprocessing. Therefore, exposure brackets at 1/3rd stop intervals if needed (when shooting tethered it will be possible to check the Raw data with e.g. Rawdigger or Fast Raw Viewer).
Attached a few crops from a single bracket tile from a larger 2-row 180 degree panorama, almost perpendicular to the harsh sun, with lots of detail and yet modest noise. Just to give you an idea, the HDR bracketed series for this tile, of which this was a single exposure, would have spanned 15.5 stops of DR, so more than 4 stops more than this frame had to offer. There is detail from the sun's reflection off of the white clouds to the interior of an opened door in the shadow.
It also didn't help that the darkest few stops of the 5D2 had so much pattern noise they were unusable, even if they did contain detail.
This is supposed to be one of the improvements in the 5DS sensor, less pattern noise. How much of an improvement, we''ll see when production models are available. Besides, for your existing files, Topaz Denoise can handle Horizontal and/or Vertical line noise, in addition to regular noise reduction (and deconvolution to compensate loss of apparent sharpness from noise reduction, because noise increases the suggestion of detail).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I agree, but it does help to have an optimal exposure (ETTR) to get the best feasible starting point for postprocessing. Therefore, exposure brackets at 1/3rd stop intervals if needed (when shooting tethered it will be possible to check the Raw data with e.g. Rawdigger or Fast Raw Viewer).
That's the thing - much of the time, you're exposing to the right and the left at the same time. Either you blow the highlights, or you blow the shadows, or you blow both, unless your sensor has enough DR to capture the entire scene in a single shot.
And that's also the attraction of RAW histogram, such as is available on Canon cameras with Magic Lantern. If only it were available for Sony and Nikon cameras...
-
And attached here is the effect of tonemapping the single file bracket, before, after.
I didn't do any noise reduction, just brightening the shadows a bit and adding some clarity.
The shadows aren't all that bad.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Lens rentals compared 24-70/2.8 alternatives from Canon, Nikon and Tamron.
What he found was that the Canon 24-70/2.8L II was the best of three bys some margin when tested on the MTF bench, but when the lenses were tested on the Nikon D800E and the Canon 5DIII the Canon lens was left behind. Why, because the better MTF of the Canon could not compensate for the superior resolution of the Nikon.
The article is worth reading: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison
Best regards
Erik
Wonder what the re-test would show on the new 5D Mk IIIs?
Jack
-
Bart, what's a "single bracket"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms?
-
Bart, what's a "single bracket"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms?
Slobodan, it is a contradiction, and it is short for 'a single frame from an exposure bracketed series' (one from a series of 7 in this case).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Geraldo,
Thanks for your feedback. It does not really come as a surprise, since the sensor can resolve more detail and thus pull out more detail (and MTF contrast) out of a lens than a lower resolution sensor can. However, the important part is whether that extra technical quality translates to the final print, is the benefit significant enough to make a difference. As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and given your day-to-day experience with looking at printed results, your opinion matters to me.
And let's not forget that we are presumably looking at out-of-camera JPEGs as a basis for comparison. Imagine what can be done with a top notch Raw conversion, clarity and detail adjustments, and special care for output sharpening at a given size.
Cheers,
Bart
Exactly! I am extremely anxious to see a raw file from a production unit taken wit a high quality prime. As Erik said, the EF 24-70mm f:2.8 II is an excellent zoom lens and it can beat some primes, but an excellent prime will deliver even better image quality for sure.
As part of my job is art reproduction, this camera looks extremely attractive. It will practically eliminate need of multishot stitching or stacking when photographing smaller originals speeding up our workflow by a fraction of the cost of a medium format system. I understand the frustration of those who demand DR, but that is not as critical for studio work as resolution and it makes this camera extremely attractive to me.
Lets wait and hope for the best!
-
I think the term negativity was a poor choice in the original question. It is more disappointment than negativity. Everyone already knew the MP count and were hoping to get DR and maybe a lower base ISO out of the deal as well.
On the upside, If your tied in as a Canon shooter your gaining a lot of megapixels and the associated benefits in one single leap from 22MP to 50MP. So we are all better off than film days and we all keep getting advancements, just not the same ones at the same time in the same amounts. I'm just wondering what navigating through the rumored 173 focus points on the D5 is going to be like, not that I will ever own one.
-
Exactly.
We will now see completely new styles in car photography.
I thought most car pictures now are rendered from CAD files… Over half of them anyway.
-
It would be good to get a raw file rather than something that has been cooked up for us.
Good cooks make tastier dishes than bad cooks, even with less capable tools ...
But let's wait for the 5DS files (which is the real topic of this thread), rather than one from a camera from 2007 (that's still doing fine with the proper amount of TLC).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Slobodan, it is a contradiction, and it is short for 'a single frame from an exposure bracketed series' (one from a series of 7 in this case).
I suspected that, just wanted to be sure. Alternatively, it could be (mis)understood as one of a bracketed series processed from a single raw file.
-
Hi All, been a long time since I posted here,
I don’t understand the negativity at all. I bought into the Canon system a long time ago as at the time it was the best choice. I have happily used the 5D mk2 since 2008 and it has served me very well and I have produced my best images on it. For my work the mk3 was just not worth the price in IQ terms. Sure the DR is a bit limited and the shadows look like hell if you try to boost them too much in post but for most scenes the use of a good set of grad filters and careful exposure is all that’s required to get very good images.
At the end of the day its still the glass that matters and that is the reason I have not switched over to Nikon, the lens line up is just not as competitive as Canon's for me. For architecture and landscape the 24 and 17 Tse are hard to argue with for image quality plus control in a very compact package. With some of the Sigma Art lenses plus most Zeiss ZE's there are quite a few lenses out there that are going to make good use of the 50mp on offer.
I am looking forward to seeing what the 5Ds can do, I'm sure the shadow grain will be massively improved from the 5Dmk2 and mk3, all you have to do is look at the 7D mk2 to realise that improvements have been made in terms of banding and noise already, even with the DR still on the low end. Playing around with the sample jpegs provided by Canon shows that there is much more room to play with shadows than the previous 5D cameras. Perhaps we will even be surprised with a bit of DR improvement too, I wouldn't rule it out just yet. Any Canon shooters who have waited this long for a stills photographer focused camera and make the move to Sony or Nikon before seeing real world tests are more likely just blowing off some steam in the forums i would guess.
Just my two cents worth.
Ben
-
I think the term negativity was a poor choice in the original question. It is more disappointment than negativity. Everyone already knew the MP count and were hoping to get DR and maybe a lower base ISO out of the deal as well.
Yes, disappointment would be more appropriate. However, I still think that most people do not understand the positive MTF effect of a denser sampling of the projected image. All lenses get instantly better, with a higher MTF modulation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, disappointment would be more appropriate. However, I still think that most people do not understand the positive MTF effect of a denser sampling of the projected image. All lenses get instantly better, with a higher MTF modulation.
Cheers,
Bart
I think the disappointment is more with the claimed dynamic range than the resolution. Obviously, it sets a new standard in resolution, but Sony/Nikon are likely to match that within months. But Canon set a new standard in IQ with the 1Ds3/5D2 - and left us there for the next seven years. And now, it seems, for another three or four at least. A real disappointment for those of us who bought into the system from MF film after the 5D2 was released.
-
I think the disappointment is more with the claimed dynamic range than the resolution. Obviously, it sets a new standard in resolution, but Sony/Nikon are likely to match that within months. But Canon set a new standard in IQ with the 1Ds3/5D2 - and left us there for the next seven years.
The high DR era indeed started with the D3x on 1-Dec-2008, which came out one+ year after the 1Ds3 and only a few months after the 5D2. The D3x already had nearly 2 stops more DR (and still 2 stops more DR compared to a 5DIII).
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3X-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III___485_483_436
The D800/D810 improved this another half/full stop, but the paradigm shift with real impact on shooting practise happened with the D3x.
I would relax until actual measurements tell us where the 5Ds stands. Most of this agitation is based on some clumsy comments by some Canon USA marketing guys. They may have gotten it wrong.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The high DR era indeed started with the D3x on 1-Dec-2008, which came out one+ year after the 1Ds3 and only a few months after the 5D2. The D3x already had nearly 2 stops more DR (and still 2 stops more DR compared to a 5DIII).
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3X-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III___485_483_436
The D800/D810 improved this another half/full stop, but the paradigm shift with real impact on shooting practise happened with the D3x.
I would relax until actual measurements tell us where the 5Ds stands. Most of this agitation is based on some clumsy comments by some Canon USA marketing guys. They may have gotten it wrong.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yep.
Although the D3x cost $8k, was useless at more than ISO 400 or so and only shot at slightly over a frame per second, so it wasn't much of an all-rounder. The D800/D800e changed all that.
-
Just seen this over on Northlight, suggesting seriously improved DR and colour accuracy compared to any existing Canon camera we have seen.
Several more people with testing experience of the new 5Ds have written to agree with some of the comments in the previous days.
In particular, one commented that:
"Canon's new 50.6mp sensor at low ISO will perform much better then any other EOS camera currently in the pro line.
The colour filters on the sensor are designed to produce a higher level of colour accuracy and separation, the sensor itself runs at a significantly lower temperature.
This will come at a price since high ISO performance will drop significantly.
The new sensor will capture 14 stops of DR (just like the 5D III) ... However it will produce remarkably cleaner results when lifting deep shadows".
Once again this is not something I can directly verify.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html)
The fly in the ointment in this quote is suggesting that the 5D3 is capable of 14 stops DR which it clearly is not.
Hopefully the photographer-centric design approach Canon have taken with regard to mirror vibration and body stiffness and so on have also been applied to the actual sensor architecture of this new camera.
Ben
-
Just seen this over on Northlight, suggesting seriously improved DR and colour accuracy compared to any existing Canon camera we have seen.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html)
The fly in the ointment in this quote is suggesting that the 5D3 is capable of 14 stops DR which it clearly is not.
Hopefully the photographer-centric design approach Canon have taken with regard to mirror vibration and body stiffness and so on have also been applied to the actual sensor architecture of this new camera.
Ben
I can only hope that '14 stops of DR' is correct and not 'like the 5D3'. Hopefully, when the Canon reps (who are obviously marketing/sales people rather than technical/engineering people) mentioned that DR was 'equal' to the 5D3, they meant 'no worse than' the 5D3 (i.e. better) rather than 'the same as' the 5D3... people use the term 'equal' in a number of ways, and not always in the scientific or mathematical sense.
-
I can only hope that '14 stops of DR' is correct and not 'like the 5D3'. Hopefully, when the Canon reps (who are obviously marketing/sales people rather than technical/engineering people) mentioned that DR was 'equal' to the 5D3, they meant 'no worse than' the 5D3 (i.e. better) rather than 'the same as' the 5D3... people use the term 'equal' in a number of ways, and not always in the scientific or mathematical sense.
There is another mention on Keith's page, supposedly from an actual tester of the 5dsR, that says: "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".
Hummm... But if that is true, why Canon isn't using it as marketing?
-
Personally I prefer to hold back on judging any photo product until real-world users are putting it to real-world use. I particularly don't pay much attention to PR flacks or beta testers (unless I happen to know the beta testers, in which case private discussions typically reveal more nuanced views than do public statements).
-Dave-
-
Personally I prefer to hold back on judging any photo product until real-world users are putting it to real-world use. I particularly don't pay much attention to PR flacks or beta testers (unless I happen to know the beta testers, in which case private discussions typically reveal more nuanced views than do public statements).
-Dave-
I'm generally more interested in formal, objective test results than real-world use and, especially, sample photos. This is because sample photos are very user-dependent and don't tell me anything about the limitations and capabilities of the camera, only how good the photographer was. And opinions on real-world use don't say very much either, since most real-world use (by definition) stays well within the technical capabilities of the equipment. As a potential user of any equipment, I'm interested in defining the performance limits of equipment - ISO, noise, DR - so that I know whether they actually expand the boundaries of what i'm able to do with it.
Same goes with everything else I buy, really, be it cars, medical equipment or power tools. Objective measurements beat a subjective review any day.
-
There is another mention on Keith's page, supposedly from an actual tester of the 5dsR, that says: "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".
Hi Geraldo,
I take those comments as subjective, they are just impressions. But I put them in the same category of previous claims about the 16 stop DR of medium format Digital backs, not substantiated by cold hard facts.
Hummm... But if that is true, why Canon isn't using it as marketing?
Probably because Canon knows it isn't so. What may be true, but we'll have to wait and see, is that the pattern noise is reduced. That would be helpful, because the remaining read-noise + low shot-noise is more random (easier to remove) and less obnoxious. It allows better demosaicing as well, if one doesn't have to hold back in order to avoid amplifying pattern noise.
The way I read the comments so far, is that it is mostly due to the help of the dual Digic6 performance that the data can be cleaned up a bit, but that the inherent CMOS electronics have not been improved enough to really lower the read noise like on the Sony sensors. Which is already something if you account for the much smaller sensels.
So read noise is probably about the same, pattern noise is reduced, and the photographic S/N ratio (not that of the sensor in isolation) is improved due to denser sampling of the lens projected image. There may be other improvements in lower noise generating components, but that would be unsubstantiated speculation. Let's wait for the DxO analysis on noise and DR (I expect 11.5 stops or slightly more), or for people to get their hands on some Raws to analyze.
I expect an overall cleaner image, with higher resolution, and more robust data for post-processing due to the improved photographic S/N ratio. Let's also not forget the role of the Raw converter. Some converters are consistently producing technically better, more easy to work with raw conversions, and others do all sort of funky tone compression stuff that first needs to be tamed, if the aliasing and mazing artifacts are even not creating another challenge. Capture One offers a very nice low artifact conversion, with lots of control that is not swamped with under the hood automatic tone adjustments (unless the user specifically tells it to have a go).
I recently had a look at Canon DPP's Digital Lens Optimization (DLO) for images I shot with the older EF 16-35mm f/2.8, and the DLO even improved the corners towards being useful. The DLO creates and embeds an additional corrected Raw instead of just postprocessing the Raw converted data, which kind of proves that Raw converters (working on better Raw data) and intimate knowledge/understanding of the Raw data can make a huge difference. Luckily Canon has (so far) not taken the route to actively reduce noise or compress tone-curves by default, before writing the Raw data. The data quality is usually as Raw as Raw can be (including an offset to not cripple the read noise), which offers an excellent starting point for those who know how to do a proper Raw conversion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
This new Canon EOS 5DS / 5DSR (why not just 5DR?) pair may not be heralded as the new ant's pants in dynamic range, but for me it's possibly good enough...
or the bee's knees in high iso, but also quite adequate...
or the duck's n*ts in under expose / over in processing to turn black into daylight, but again...(you got it)
but if the R & D energy put into this thing really means it can (with disciplined technique) deliver some of the best detail, accurate colour, high and low light tolerance currently available, straight out of the can,
then it will finally be showing some real pedigree and Canon will get my money.
-
This new Canon EOS 5DS / 5DSR (why not just 5DR?) pair may not be heralded as the new ant's pants in dynamic range, but for me it's possibly good enough...
or the bee's knees in high iso, but also quite adequate...
or the duck's n*ts in under expose / over in processing to turn black into daylight, but again...(you got it)
but if the R & D energy put into this thing really means it can (with disciplined technique) deliver some of the best detail, accurate colour, high and low light tolerance currently available, straight out of the can,
then it will finally be showing some real pedigree and Canon will get my money.
+1
-
I'm generally more interested in formal, objective test results than real-world use and, especially, sample photos.
Well, I wasn't referring to Jane & Joe Happysnapper. :D In my experience serious owners/users tend to put high-end cameras like these through the ringer. Issues often come up that beta testers either miss or at least don't publicly report. And…I care about a lot more than just image quality. Handling & feel, how clunky or fluid the UI is, etc. Thus my preference for holding back judgment 'til folks with skin in the game have their say.
Edit: interesting how dwswager (just below) & I both use the phrase skin in the game in our posts. I think he's referring to the brand affinity beta testers often (okay, pretty much always) feel, which can get in the way of objectively evaluating a new product. (Given that pure objectivity is impossible.) Whereas I'm referring to the kind of person who lays down her/his money and then has a heightened interest in the damn camera measuring up to the outlay. ;) And who will be vocal about it if it doesn't.
-Dave-
-
Personally I prefer to hold back on judging any photo product until real-world users are putting it to real-world use. I particularly don't pay much attention to PR flacks or beta testers (unless I happen to know the beta testers, in which case private discussions typically reveal more nuanced views than do public statements).
-Dave-
Exactly! Until a product like this gets into the hands of a significant number of real user's hands, you have little idea what the actual performance is going to be. Beta testers typically have skin in the game already. Most aren't intentionally misleading, but the bias is baked in. You get used to the quirks and issues in developmental products and then assume they are supposed to be there.
-
Fortunately, when I switched to Nikon about 3 years ago, I kept all my Canon lenses. The last Canon upgrade I made was the purchase of the 50D. Whilst it's impossible to be certain about the extent of improvement of DR in the new camera, until the model is tested, there has already been a precedent set by Nikon when they introduce a 36mp D800 that had essentially the same pixels as the earlier, cropped-format D7000.
If we check the test results at DXOMark, comparing the Nikon D7000 with the D800 or D800E, we see that at a given print size, the SNR of the D800 is about 4-5 dB greater than that of the D7000 and DR is around one full stop greater.
Since Canon representatives have claimed the 5DS pixel is essentially the same as the 7D2 pixel, we can make a reasonable deduction about the DR and SNR of the 5DS by checking the results for the 7D2 at the DXOMark website.
According to DXOMark tests, the DR of the 7D Mk II, between ISO 100-400, is equal to that of the 5D Mk III and the 1Ds Mk III. That's a significant improvement for a cropped format to have the same DR as a full-frame.
It is therefore reasonable to expect that the 5DS will have about one stop better DR than the 5D3 or 1Ds3, between ISO 100-400. If the shadows are also free of banding and pattern noise, as the 7D2 is, then that's also an additional, worthwhile improvement.
The significant increase in the resolution of the sensor to a massive 50mp effectively upgrades all of one's Canon lenses in one fell swoop. Even if you think you don't need 50mp, it's still an advantage. A 50mp image shot with a zoom lens, when down-sampled to say 23mp, will look like a shot from the 5D3 using a prime lens. A 50mp image shot with a merely good quality prime, when down-sampled to 23mp, will look like a shot from the 5D3 using a superb or excellent quality prime.
I'm not sure I'll be able to resist buying this new model. ;)
-
It is therefore reasonable to expect that the 5DS will have about one stop better DR than the 5D3 or 1Ds3, between ISO 100-400. If the shadows are also free of banding and pattern noise, as the 7D2 is, then that's also an additional, worthwhile improvement.
I share your optimism about the SNR but I have doubts about your DR conclusions. I'm betting it will be 11.8 Evs compared to the 14.8 for the D810. I'll go out on a limb and guess the DxO score for low-light ISO is in the 2600-2800 range compared to the 7DMKII 1082. It will still be a fine camera and I'm also hoping for stellar colour rendition.
-
I share your optimism about the SNR but I have doubts about your DR conclusions. I'm betting it will be 11.8 Evs compared to the 14.8 for the D810. I'll go out on a limb and guess the DxO score for low-light ISO is in the 2600-2800 range compared to the 7DMKII 1082. It will still be a fine camera and I'm also hoping for stellar colour rendition.
Even if they just scaled up the 7D2 and kept the same pixel quality, the standardised DxOMark DR would be 11.8 (the 7D2's pixel quality) + 1.32 (log base 2 of 50.6/20.16) = 13.12, based on the resolution alone.
To achieve a DR of only 11.8, they'd have to put in really crummy pixels...
-
Even if they just scaled up the 7D2 and kept the same pixel quality, the standardised DxOMark DR would be 11.8 (the 7D2's pixel quality) + 1.32 (log base 2 of 50.6/20.16) = 13.12, based on the resolution alone.
To achieve a DR of only 11.8, they'd have to put in really crummy pixels...
You are assuming DR scales like SNR. What is the basis for that assumption?
-
You are assuming DR scales like SNR. What is the basis for that assumption?
DR is basically SNR at low signal levels. The composition of the noise at low signal levels might be different to the noise at 18% grey, but the nature of the larger sensor, which gathers more light from the same scene, is that noise across the whole range will be reduced.
The D5S sensor has approximately 2.5x the area of the 7D2 sensor and therefore gathers about 2.5x as much light, which is more than an additional stop. One would expect noise to be reduced by at least a stop across the visible range. Of course, noise is more of a problem in the shadows and the mid-tones, which is why DXO produce test results for DR and SNR at 18% grey which is about the level of skin tones.
My impression, comparing camera sensors at DXOMark, is that the DR of the 5Ds will be improved by approximately 1 stop (or 1 EV), compared with the 7D2, and SNR at 18% will be improved by 4-5dB, which is a bit more than a stop. This is assuming the 5DS pixel and associated electronics is of the same quality as the 7D2 pixel.
-
I guess we will have to wait and see.
-
by 4-5dB, which is a bit more than a stop
1 stop ~= 6 dB
-
1 stop ~= 6 dB
Maybe Bart can explain what's going on here. The Nikon D7000 was the first DSLR that was claimed to be ISO-less. By that, it was meant if one underexposes by one or more stops at any particular ISO, in order to use the desired shutter speed at the desired f/stop, then it made no difference to image quality if shooting in RAW mode. One could compensate for underexposure in ACR or Lightroom, raise shadows and blacks and get an image with no more noise than the same exposure used at a higher ISO.
The graphs for the D7000 on DXOMark are very linear and straight. If you check the values for DR and SNR at 18% at each ISO setting, you'll see there is approximately a 3dB fall in SNR that corresponds with each fall in ISO, and a fall of approximately 1 EV of DR for each fall in ISO.
I suspect that the figure of 6dB that is sometimes equated to a change of 1 stop of exposure applies only to the deep shadows. In other words, at very low signal levels a change of 1 EV is equivalent to a change of 6dB in SNR. However, in the mid-tones, or at 18% grey, a change of 3dB in SNR is equivalent to a change of 1 stop of exposure. I think I've got that right. If not, I'm sure Bart will correct me. ;)
-
Maybe Bart can explain what's going on here. The Nikon D7000 was the first DSLR that was claimed to be ISO-less. By that, it was meant if one underexposes by one or more stops at any particular ISO, in order to use the desired shutter speed at the desired f/stop, then it made no difference to image quality if shooting in RAW mode. One could compensate for underexposure in ACR or Lightroom, raise shadows and blacks and get an image with no more noise than the same exposure used at a higher ISO.
The graphs for the D7000 on DXOMark are very linear and straight. If you check the values for DR and SNR at 18% at each ISO setting, you'll see there is approximately a 3dB fall in SNR that corresponds with each fall in ISO, and a fall of approximately 1 EV of DR for each fall in ISO.
I suspect that the figure of 6dB that is sometimes equated to a change of 1 stop of exposure applies only to the deep shadows. In other words, at very low signal levels a change of 1 EV is equivalent to a change of 6dB in SNR. However, in the mid-tones, or at 18% grey, a change of 3dB in SNR is equivalent to a change of 1 stop of exposure. I think I've got that right. If not, I'm sure Bart will correct me. ;)
DR is about what is happening in deep shadows, not about midtones
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Noise-characterization/Summary
-
DR is about what is happening in deep shadows, not about midtones
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Noise-characterization/Summary
Yes, of course it is. Thanks for the link to the DXO explanation which confirms what I wrote, that a 6dB change in SNR is equivalent to a 1 EV change (or a one stop change) in DR, whereas a 3dB change in SNR in the midtones , ie. SNR at 18% grey, is equivalent to a one stop change in exposure, approximately.
What perhaps needs to be clarified is that there is a gradual change from that 6dB figure as one moves from the deepest shadows to the highlights. In other words, the deepest shadows might have greater than a 6dB change for a 1 EV change in exposure. The lower mid-tones will have slightly less than a 6dB change, perhaps 5dB or 4dB, and the upper mid-tones slightly less than a 3dB change for each 1 EV change in exposure.
There is also a curious characteristic of Canon cameras with respect to DR at low ISOs, typically between ISO 100 and 400. There's no change in DR for each doubling in ISO. ;D
If one is comparing the midtones of the 5DS with the midtones of the 7D2 on the basis that the pixels of the two cameras are the same quality, then the midtones of the 5Ds should be slightly more than 3dB better because the sensor gathers 2.5x the amount of light, which is equivalent to more than a 1 EV increase.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Noise-characterization/Summary
Shadows (): the SNR increases 6dB for every EV and loses 6dB for each doubling of the ISO setting.
Midtones (): the SNR increases 3dB for every EV and decreases by 3dB for each doubling of the ISO setting.
Highlights (): the SNR is constant and does not depend on the ISO.
-
Given that this is all a lot of speculation based on some cursory remarks that the noise of the 5DS would be comparable to that of a 5D Mark III or a 7D Mark II, this is as much as one can tell. They all have different sensel pitches, so most likely they use (similar but) different technology. The DR (screen) of the mentioned cameras at nominal ISO 100 according to DxOmark, 10.97 and 11.11 respectively, suggests that we may expect something in the order of 11.1 for the 5DS.
Normalization (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization) as a function of megapixel size will add an amount of DR (stops) in the order of +Log(Sqrt(N1/N0)) / Log(2) , where N0 is the number of pixels for the reference camera and N1 is the number of pixels of the camera under investigation. Therefore, due to down-sampling potential of the larger MP sensor, the relative gain is 0.59 or 0.67 stops of DR, so a normalized total of 11.6 to 11.8 stops of DR.
IOW, native sensor DR is not something to write home about, but that's not too much of an issue for studio settings where the lighting can be controlled. For stationary subjects one could average several images (4 images will reduce all random noise, in both shadows and highlights, to 50%, i.e. add more than 1 stop of DR). For landscape use, the tried and trusted techniques (ETTR, Bracketing, Exposure fusion/HDR compositing) remain useful.
Having said that, I do expect that these 50.3MP files will have very good post-processing quality, due to the significantly higher system SNR caused by a higher MTF (due to denser sampling of the optical signal) from the given lenses. The high MP count will in many cases allow to down-sample, or require less upsampling, which will improve the received output quality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Given that this is all a lot of speculation based on some cursory remarks that the noise of the 5DS would be comparable to that of a 5D Mark III or a 7D Mark II, this is as much as one can tell. They all have different sensel pitches, so most likely they use (similar but) different technology. The DR (screen) of the mentioned cameras at nominal ISO 100 according to DxOmark, 10.97 and 11.11 respectively, suggests that we may expect something in the order of 11.1 for the 5DS.
Hi Bart,
I'm confused. Are you using a Mac by any chance? ;D On my PC, the DXO graphs show the 7D2 as having a DR of 11.78 EV and the 5D3 a DR of 11.74 at base ISO, essentially the same. The DR at ISO 200 and 400 is also the same, although both cameras are down an insignificant 1/3rd of a stop at ISO 400. Refer attached image.
I see no reason not to expect the 5DS to have one full stop better DR than the 7D2, ie. 12.78 EV at ISO 100 and 12.39 EV at ISO 400, approximately. That's still well behind the Nikon D800E of course, which has a claimed DR of 14.33 EV at the nominal ISO of 100, but not so far behind at ISO 400; maybe just 1/2 a stop behind.
I think it's also reasonable to expect that the DR of the 5DSR will be better than that of the D800E above ISO 1600 because the DR of the 5D3 is already about the same as the DR of the D800E from ISO 3200 onwards, and only 1/4th of a stop behind at ISO 1600.
Cheers!
-
Hi Bart,
I'm confused. Are you using a Mac by any chance? ;D On my PC, the DXO graphs show the 7D2 as having a DR of 11.78 EV and the 5D3 a DR of 11.74 at base ISO, essentially the same.
Hi Ray,
That is when comparing down-sampled output at some size of print resolution, which says nothing about the sensors themselves. That's why one needs to use the 'screen' settings on the charts, instead of the 'print' settings. The 'print' settings have already been normalized, to an arbitrary size, thus making all subsequent normalizations 'iffy' at best. IMHO, it's better to take the native sensor quality ('Screen' settings) and draw conclusions based on that, optionally with normalization to a common size if one wants to compare apples and oranges.
The 5D Mark II also had a DR of 11.16, so basically the same as the later models, although the sensels got smaller. That suggests that the fabrication technology is relatively constant, despite features getting smaller. The 5DS has marginally larger sensels than the 7DII, so a different design of which we yet have to see solid test data.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe Bart can explain what's going on here. ... The graphs for the D7000 on DXOMark are very linear and straight. If you check the values for DR and SNR at 18% at each ISO setting, you'll see there is approximately a 3dB fall in SNR that corresponds with each fall in ISO, and a fall of approximately 1 EV of DR for each fall in ISO.
I suspect that the figure of 6dB that is sometimes equated to a change of 1 stop of exposure applies only to the deep shadows. In other words, at very low signal levels a change of 1 EV is equivalent to a change of 6dB in SNR.
I'm no Bart, but we must distinguish two things here:
a) "DR" in the sense of total SNR; the rest of maximum possible signal at a given Exposure Index ["ISO"] setting (limited by highlight clipping) down to the noise floor
b) SNR at a given level of signal, like the level that gives 18% of maximum level, which is then the ratio of that signal to the noise level in parts of the image at that signal level.
Putting aside the fact that I think sense (a) is a bit silly, since it is mostly measuring amplifier clipping of highlights due to excessive amplification, and could be avoided in a truly "ISO-less" sensor by applying that same analog amplification at all EI settings and then adjusting in the digital domain, here goes:
In sense (a), each doubling of ISO setting corresponds to a halving of the maximum photosite output level before clipping, while leaving the noise floor unchanged, so reducing the SNR by a fact of 2, or 6dB.
For the 18% tone level comparison (b) doubling the IS again halving the signal level (photoelectron count) corresponding to that 18% level, but at all but very high EI settings, the noise at 18% level is dominated by shot noise, not sensor dark noise, and halving the signal also reduces this shot noise by a factor of sqrt(2), so that the SNR, being roughly "mid-tone signal to mid-tone shot noise" is reduced by only a factor of sqrt(2), which on the logarithmic dB scale is 3dB instead of 6dB.
By the way, I would expect that as you push to extremely high EI settings, the increase in 18% SNR for each doubling of EI gradually increases from 3dB towards 6dB, a sign that sensor dark noise has become significant even in the "18% mid-tone" region. Is that what you see?
-
But let's wait for the 5DS files (which is the real topic of this thread), rather than one from a camera from 2007 (that's still doing fine with the proper amount of TLC).
Cheers,
Bart
Interesting you say this Bart. With ever better RAW converters, I've been able to massage some very nice images out of elderly digital files from the original 1D and 1Ds.
And that said, I think the 5Ds will be just fine. How can people bitch about something they've never used or even seen? For my money, though the camera body is not what I would have wished (always being a 1-series guy), as long as the camera delivers the same quality and dynamic range of the 5D3, I will be happy. It remains to be seen what Sony can actually come up with if they have a res that high. It basically comes down to the physics of the photosites and the software that interprets the signal. Sure, Sony MAY be able to come up with something better, but I personally HATE the direction of their cameras. Call me old fashion -- I like an optical viewfinder 99% of the time. So could they have a better sensor at that res? Possibly. Would I care? Not really.
Nemo
-
The 5D Mark II also had a DR of 11.16, so basically the same as the later models, although the sensels got smaller.
One possible explanation is that Canon photo-sites have a total SNR (full well capacity to dark noise level) of well over 11.2 stops, but the Canon sensor design with off-chip ADC and its long path of:
- signal transfer from photo-site to sensor edge (probably with variable charge amplification at this stage in recent Canon sensors)
- change or voltage transport along the sensor edge and off the chip, through possible further amplification and then to the ADC
imposes that DR limit -- so changes in "photosite DR" do not effect the final DR.
The evidence suggesting this is that, from what I have read:
- Canon's DSLR photosites do not have a substantially smaller full well capacity that Sony's (base ISOs-speeds are not substantially higher, etc.)
- Canon's DSLR photosites do not have a substantially higher dark noise floor that Sony's, as shown by their good low-light (high exposure index) performance.
In other words, I think that Canon's photo-sites themselves are fine; the disadvantage of current Canon designs is extra read noise at low EI settings (when less of the early on-sensor charge amplification is applied) arising during to the long, old-fashioned analog signal path from photo-site to ADC, compared to the modern approach of column-parallel ADC's.
-
Sure, Sony MAY be able to come up with something better, but I personally HATE the direction of their cameras. Call me old fashion -- I like an optical viewfinder 99% of the time. So could they have a better sensor at that res? Possibly. Would I care? Not really.
with Sony sensors you have 2 more alternatives (at least) with OVF = Nikon and now finally Ricoh/Pentax... now lenses for those 2 mounts are (might be for you) a different story
-
In other words, I think that Canon's photo-sites themselves are fine; the designs's disadvantage is extra read noise at low EI settings (when less of the early on-sensor charge amplification is applied) due to the long, old-fashioned long path from photo-site to ADC compared to the modern approach of column-parallel ADC's.
That could indeed be the explanation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
50MPs is basically the selling point for this Camera. But both Sony and Nikon are likely to match it in pretty short order.
So considering there is not a significant DR upgrade in the offering to match the Sony sensor, is Canon going to throw a bone or 2 to make their camera different? I find it baffling that RAW histograms or a ETTR metering mode isn't included for the landscape guys. Without some differentiation, if Nikon releases a 50MP D910 that has 3 more stops DR and less shadow noise, then only for those people locked into Canon does the 5Ds make any sense.
My point is, already knowing you are going to loose the DR/Shadow noise contest to your competitors for the entire development cycle of this camera, would it not make sense to offer something else to 1) keep people in the fold and 2) attract new customers. Increased color fidelity, it it does actually test out certainly is nothing to sneeze at I guess.
-
50MPs is basically the selling point for this Camera. But both Sony and Nikon are likely to match it in pretty short order.
So considering there is not a significant DR upgrade in the offering to match the Sony sensor, is Canon going to throw a bone or 2 to make their camera different? I find it baffling that RAW histograms or a ETTR metering mode isn't included for the landscape guys. Without some differentiation, if Nikon releases a 50MP D910 that has 3 more stops DR and less shadow noise, then only for those people locked into Canon does the 5Ds make any sense.
My point is, already knowing you are going to loose the DR/Shadow noise contest to your competitors for the entire development cycle of this camera, would it not make sense to offer something else to 1) keep people in the fold and 2) attract new customers. Increased color fidelity, it it does actually test out certainly is nothing to sneeze at I guess.
As a landscape photographer, I'd just get the Sony A7r or A9 and put Canon lenses onto that.
Without any improvement in DR, the only reason to get the 5Ds is as a high-pixel-density camera for wildlife photography, since it has a high-performance AF system and enough resolution to function as a full-frame and crop sensor at the same time.
-
So considering there is not a significant DR upgrade in the offering to match the Sony sensor, is Canon going to throw a bone or 2 to make their camera different? I find it baffling that RAW histograms or a ETTR metering mode isn't included for the landscape guys. Without some differentiation, if Nikon releases a 50MP D910 that has 3 more stops DR and less shadow noise, then only for those people locked into Canon does the 5Ds make any sense.
It's more a when than an if really. The 2 years old D7100 pixels already have significantly more DR than the current FF Canon sensors at lower ISO.
Now it remains to be seen whether Nikon will finally decide to release their lng patented next gen T/S lenses.
Cheers!
Bernard
-
Hi Ray,
That is when comparing down-sampled output at some size of print resolution, which says nothing about the sensors themselves. That's why one needs to use the 'screen' settings on the charts, instead of the 'print' settings. The 'print' settings have already been normalized, to an arbitrary size, thus making all subsequent normalizations 'iffy' at best. IMHO, it's better to take the native sensor quality ('Screen' settings) and draw conclusions based on that, optionally with normalization to a common size if one wants to compare apples and oranges.
Hi Bart,
Yes, of course. I should have realised that. How silly of me. ;D
I guess I get so used to looking at the 'print' values on the DXOMark charts because I find them more useful for comparison purposes, and because I believe they more accurately relate to the performance of the entire sensor. It is generally the entire sensor that I use when taking a photo, so that's what interests me most.
When comparing the image quality in prints, I also insist on comparing prints of the same size. It makes no sense to do otherwise.
However, what I find quite remarkable in this comparison of the 7D2 and the 5D3 at the pixel level, is how close the performance of the individual pixels are with respect to DR, yet the 5D3 pixels are significantly bigger. Before this announcement of the new 50mp camera came to my attention, I wasn't aware that Canon had made such significant strides in the development of the 7D2. I'm now a Nikon shooter and pay less attention to Canon developments, unless they grab my attention because they are so mindboggling. ;)
Some years ago I was using the Canon 5D a lot, and my main gripe was not so much the grain-like noise in the shadows, but the banding. Grain tends to be more acceptable for anyone who has shot with film, but banding seems totally unnatural. When I see banding in the shadows, I feel like I have a defective camera.
I'm pleased to learn that Canon have removed all banding and pattern noise in the 7D2 (or at least significantly reduced it) so it is reasonable to expect that the 5DS will have the same improvements.
If Nikon were to announce a 60mp full-frame based upon D7100 pixels, I would want to be assured they had removed the banding that is quite prominent in D7100 shadows.
Cheers!
-
If Nikon were to announce a 60mp full-frame based upon D7100 pixels
it is not a Sony sensor, is it ? it is from Toshiba (24mp = D5200, D7100)... do you expect Toshiba to leap to 60mp FF ?
I would want to be assured they had removed the banding that is quite prominent in D7100 shadows.
and are Sony Semi sensors known for banding like some of their competition are ?
-
By the way, I would expect that as you push to extremely high EI settings, the increase in 18% SNR for each doubling of EI gradually increases from 3dB towards 6dB, a sign that sensor dark noise has become significant even in the "18% mid-tone" region. Is that what you see?
Hi BJL,
What I see on the DXOMark graphs is that the 18% SNR difference for the 5D3, between ISOs 51,200 and 102,400 is still only 2.9dB. I rarely use ISO settings greater than 3200, so any increase in the 3dB reduction in SNR, likely only for underexposures at maximum ISO settings, is not even nearly a problem for me. ;)
I'm just hoping that DXO get onto the job quickly, of testing the 5DS as soon as it's available. I'm disappointed they haven't yet tested the Samsung NX1, despite it having been available for a number of months now.
-
it is not a Sony sensor, is it ? it is from Toshiba (24mp = D5200, D7100)... do you expect Toshiba to leap to 60mp FF ?
Why not? Sony leapt from 16mp to 36mp, and Canon are now about to leap from 20mp to 50mp. The question I ask myself is why did Nikon choose a Toshiba sensor for the D7100? Did Sony not have the manufacturing capability?
-
The question I ask myself is why did Nikon choose a Toshiba sensor for the D7100? Did Sony not have the manufacturing capability?
- Price?
- The willingness to have less dependency on Sony?
- Part of a broader collaboration framework?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
- Price?
- The willingness to have less dependency on Sony?
- Part of a broader collaboration framework?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
Does Sony produce a 24mp cropped-format camera?
I'm not on top of all the recent developments. I tend not to pay much attention to camera brands I'm unlikely to buy due to lens incompatibility or the requirement to splash out more money on yet more lenses.
ps. The Samsung NX1 is an exception, being 28mp and having 4k video capability. I'm puzzled why DXOMark is so tardy in testing the camera. Perhaps it has too many unresolved issues.
-
The Sony nex-7 was a 24mp cropped 1.5x sensor. I can't remember if the A6000 is 24mp or not. DR of the nex-7 was not very good past around iso400.
Paul
-
The Sony nex-7 was a 24mp cropped 1.5x sensor. I can't remember if the A6000 is 24mp or not. DR of the nex-7 was not very good past around iso400.
Paul
Thanks, Paul. Checking the DXOMark site, I see that the DR of the NEX-7 is almost a whole stop behind that of the D7100 at ISO 200. The A6000 is also a 24mp cropped-format and at ISO 200 is still a stop behind the D7100, despite being a more recent model than the D7100. At ISO 3200, the A6000 is about 1/2 stop behind the D7100, although SNR at 18% is about the same for both cameras at all ISOs.
Could the better DR be the reason, or at least one of the reasons, why Nikon opted for a Toshiba sensor? ;)
-
Why not? Sony leapt from 16mp to 36mp, and Canon are now about to leap from 20mp to 50mp. The question I ask myself is why did Nikon choose a Toshiba sensor for the D7100? Did Sony not have the manufacturing capability?
how about just the price or making sure that Sony feels a competition and next time comes with a better offer... and for the quality of Toshiba design the banding speaks for it (vs Sony Semi)... not yet there.
-
Thanks, Paul. Checking the DXOMark site, I see that the DR of the NEX-7 is almost a whole stop behind that of the D7100 at ISO 200.
that just speaks about camera manufacturer getting max DR from sensor - you can compare Sony Imaging cameras vs Nikon cameras where both are using Sony Semi sensor and still see Nikon (or Pentax) pulling ahead of Sony Imaging...
or compare E-M1 with GH4, both Panasonic sensor - yet DR graphs are noticeably different... different camera/possibly on die ADC programming/sensor assembly (including CFA, etc) design/etc with the same chip inside.
-
that just speaks about camera manufacturer getting max DR from sensor - you can compare Sony Imaging cameras vs Nikon cameras where both are using Sony Semi sensor and still see Nikon (or Pentax) pulling ahead of Sony Imaging...
or compare E-M1 with GH4, both Panasonic sensor - yet DR graphs are noticeably different... different camera/possibly on die ADC programming/sensor assembly (including CFA, etc) design/etc with the same chip inside.
All this sound like mere speculation. You asked me if I expect Toshiba to leap to 60mp full-frame. I have no inside information on Toshiba's manufacturing capabilities, and actually do not care who manufactures the sensor in my camera, as long as it performs well and is reliable.
The Toshiba sensor in the D7100 does not perform entirely to my satisfaction because of the banding. The board room intrigues surrounding the Nikon decision to opt for the Toshiba sensor in preference to the Sony sensor used in the NEX-7, might be interesting. Have you got reliable information on this?
-
However, what I find quite remarkable in this comparison of the 7D2 and the 5D3 at the pixel level, is how close the performance of the individual pixels are with respect to DR, yet the 5D3 pixels are significantly bigger. Before this announcement of the new 50mp camera came to my attention, I wasn't aware that Canon had made such significant strides in the development of the 7D2.
Indeed Ray, there was progress but it is not obvious as an increase of the engineering DR, where Sony has improved that aspect (and even on 4.88 micron pitch sensor arrays). Unfortunately Sony also crippled the Raw data a bit by introducing a sort of 'lossy' tonal compression. Canon have always been using very pure Raw data, which is a huge benefit if one intends to further utilize that data in post-processing.
It's by looking at the DxOmark 'screen' charts of DR that some of the underlying characteristics come foreward. In the case of Canon, we see a constant Engineering DR but at shrinking sensel pitches. Maybe it is indeed the ADC path length that is holding back a further increase of the DR.
Cheers,
Bart
-
All this sound like mere speculation. You asked me if I expect Toshiba to leap to 60mp full-frame. I have no inside information on Toshiba's manufacturing capabilities, and actually do not care who manufactures the sensor in my camera, as long as it performs well and is reliable.
No insider info here, but Toshiba semi-conductor is much larger than Sony semi. I don't believe they have invested in high performance imaging sensor technolgy to stop at APS-C sizes.
Sony is also probably not in a position businesswise to refuse significant business from Nikon either and they know that letting Toshiba get the D3x/D900 business would only help Toshiba invest more in imaging sensors.
Future will tell but Nikon appears to be in a superb bargaining position.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks, Paul. Checking the DXOMark site, I see that the DR of the NEX-7 is almost a whole stop behind that of the D7100 at ISO 200. The A6000 is also a 24mp cropped-format and at ISO 200 is still a stop behind the D7100, despite being a more recent model than the D7100. At ISO 3200, the A6000 is about 1/2 stop behind the D7100, although SNR at 18% is about the same for both cameras at all ISOs.
Could the better DR be the reason, or at least one of the reasons, why Nikon opted for a Toshiba sensor? ;)
Hello Ray
I was never that impressed with the Nikon 7100 DR and always assumed it was a Sony sensor. Nikon to my eyes is a bit behind Canon on the APS-C cameras and the 7DMKii was a bit step forward.
Where I still see the leadership is in the D810. My only complaint on that camera is no tilting screen.
I have a 750 on the short list mainly for night work and will let my D800e go.
Back to rhw original post, I feel that the Canons will show very well once the cameras ship and photographers get them into some true field use.
Paul
-
Hello Ray
I was never that impressed with the Nikon 7100 DR and always assumed it was a Sony sensor. Nikon to my eyes is a bit behind Canon on the APS-C cameras and the 7DMKii was a bit step forward.
Where I still see the leadership is in the D810. My only complaint on that camera is no tilting screen.
I have a 750 on the short list mainly for night work and will let my D800e go.
Back to rhw original post, I feel that the Canons will show very well once the cameras ship and photographers get them into some true field use.
Paul
That's because the D7100 corresponds to the Canon 70D, while Nikon doesn't have an equivalent to the 7D2.
The D7100's sensor, while not the best (the 24MP Sony sensor does better), still beats anything Canon has, even two years down the line in 2015. It's the other features - AF, frame rate, card slots, buffer, etc. - that mark it as a strictly amateur or 'beginner plus' body rather than a pro crop body like the 7D2.
-
Hello Ray
I was never that impressed with the Nikon 7100 DR and always assumed it was a Sony sensor. Nikon to my eyes is a bit behind Canon on the APS-C cameras and the 7DMKii was a bit step forward.
I'm not sure in what areas you might think Nikon is behind Canon in APS-C, but it's not in the sensor subsystem. I've got about 80,000 shutter releases on a D7100 and am more than satisfied with it. If you are thinking processing speed to support a little better AF tracking or a 2-4 frame per second bump in the frame rate, then yeah, I agree. Put the D7100 sensor in a body with the Expeed4 and CF to support 8fps and better focus tracking and you basically have a 7DmkIII with better quality output. The D7100 is a spectacular performer at it's current price point, but it is disappointing, that Nikon does not have a 8-10fps D300 replacement in the line up. BTW, I do not have the shadow banding issue that people mention, but I don't use this camera for a lot of low key or long exposure images. To me the usable ISO range tops out somewhere between 1600 and 3200 depending on all other factors.
Where I still see the leadership is in the D810. My only complaint on that camera is no tilting screen.
I have a 750 on the short list mainly for night work and will let my D800e go.
Back to rhw original post, I feel that the Canons will show very well once the cameras ship and photographers get them into some true field use.
Paul
A tilting screen would be nice on my D810, but it is an awesome camera. It is a whole different animal than the D800e. It is a little better in dozens of ways. I debated between the D750 and D810 and now am I get down on my knees and thank God, I got the D810. Theoretically, the larger pixels in the D750 should produce cleaner images, but that is only on the signal side. The quality of the entire electronics package has a big impact on the noise end. At the end of the day there really isn't going to be much difference. I don't want to loose the 36MPs for a flippy screen. Especially since the D810 in 6-7fps 25MP 1.2x and 15.6MP 1.5x Crop modes is fast enough to shoot a majority of the action stuff I do. The D800/D800e could never pull that off.
-
I'm not sure in what areas you might think Nikon is behind Canon in APS-C, but it's not in the sensor subsystem. I've got about 80,000 shutter releases on a D7100 and am more than satisfied with it. If you are thinking processing speed to support a little better AF tracking or a 2-4 frame per second bump in the frame rate, then yeah, I agree. Put the D7100 sensor in a body with the Expeed4 and CF to support 8fps and better focus tracking and you basically have a 7DmkIII with better quality output. The D7100 is a spectacular performer at it's current price point, but it is disappointing, that Nikon does not have a 8-10fps D300 replacement in the line up. BTW, I do not have the shadow banding issue that people mention, but I don't use this camera for a lot of low key or long exposure images. To me the usable ISO range tops out somewhere between 1600 and 3200 depending on all other factors.
A tilting screen would be nice on my D810, but it is an awesome camera. It is a whole different animal than the D800e. It is a little better in dozens of ways. I debated between the D750 and D810 and now am I get down on my knees and thank God, I got the D810. Theoretically, the larger pixels in the D750 should produce cleaner images, but that is only on the signal side. The quality of the entire electronics package has a big impact on the noise end. At the end of the day there really isn't going to be much difference. I don't want to loose the 36MPs for a flippy screen. Especially since the D810 in 6-7fps 25MP 1.2x and 15.6MP 1.5x Crop modes is fast enough to shoot a majority of the action stuff I do. The D800/D800e could never pull that off.
I may need to revisit the 7100, I only worked with it for a brief time, and in the shots I took, I did not see what I was looking for in the shadows.
Yes the D810 is an amazing body, but at my age, and tired old back, the ability to have a camera such as the D810 held in a waist level is "priceless".
What is even more disappointing is the huge dive the value of the D800e has taken, below 1K on quotes from various sources, so I guess best price on ebay would be in the 1.2K range, but after fees and shipping, it's all about the same.
Paul
-
No insider info here, but Toshiba semi-conductor is much larger than Sony semi. I don't believe they have invested in high performance imaging sensor technolgy to stop at APS-C sizes.
This indicate to me the mistake of judging the capabilities of companies in a particular product based on total size, or the total size of a broadly diversified division like "electronics": there can be very different distribution of resources, expertise, relevant patents and trade-secrets within the corporation. So although Toshiba, Panasonic and Samsung have bigger overall electronics operations that Sony, Sony seems to have a larger sensor business, with larger revenues through its "wall to wall" coverage of the sensor market from phones to DMF, and possibly still including the sensors for the majority of Canon cameras (at least most Canon compacts used to use Sony sensors; I have not kept track recently).
The ability to market a new sensor technology (like improved column-parallel ADC designs with more DR and less banding) in everything from hundred of millions of iPhones to millions of ILC's to some thousands of DMF backs could well enable Sony to allocate more resources to improving the design and fabrication details for such sensors.
-
This indicate to me the mistake of judging the capabilities of companies in a particular product based on total size, or the total size of a broadly diversified division like "electronics": there can be very different distribution of resources, expertise, relevant patents and trade-secrets within the corporation. So although Toshiba, Panasonic and Samsung have bigger overall electronics operations that Sony, Sony seems to have a larger sensor business, with larger revenues through its "wall to wall" coverage of the sensor market from phones to DMF, and possibly still including the sensors for the majority of Canon cameras (at least most Canon compacts used to use Sony sensors; I have not kept track recently).
The ability to market a new sensor technology (like improved column-parallel ADC designs with more DR and less banding) in everything from hundred of millions of iPhones to millions of ILC's to some thousands of DMF backs could well enable Sony to allocate more resources to improving the design and fabrication details for such sensors.
I was not talking about Toshiba "electronics", but specifically about their semi-conductor division.
Sony is obviously larger today in imaging sensor terms, but my point was that Toshiba is obviously interested in the domain, already did a job superior to Canon in terms of image quality for what appears to be their first serious attempt (D7100) and has the technological potential and financial means to improve further quickly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was not talking about Toshiba "electronics", but specifically about their semi-conductor division.
Sony is obviously larger today in imaging sensor terms, but my point was that Toshiba is obviously interested in the domain, already did a job superior to Canon in terms of image quality for what appears to be their first serious attempt (D7100) and has the technological potential and financial means to improve further quickly.
Alright, replace "electronics" by "semi-conductor" (how much difference is there these days?) It comes down to how much of good sensor design depends on general semi-conductor resources, which is often purely digital stuff where high SNR is irrelevant, versus how much is specific to the mixed-mode analog and digital nature of image sensors. I agree that Toshiba has already done some good work with image sensors.
The greater mystery to me is why Canon has so far not followed the entire rest of the industry in moving to on-chip column parallel ADC, especially given that even far smaller design-only companies like CMOSIS and Aptina have made that transition, and there is no hint that Sony has a patent lock-up, given that for example Samsung was doing it even before Sony. Maybe Canon still sees some advantage its its off-board ADC approach (low light performance?).
-
Good question, my un-substanciated guess is that it may simply result from the mental deadlock of a key influencer near the top of their sensor design teams.
I have first hand experience in Japan with irrational behaviors that take companies in wrong directions for years simply because one key senior guy is mistaken and nobody around him (above or below) has the ability/guts to prove him wrong.
It can get to pretty unreal levels.
It could be something else at Canon, but it is really reminiscent of what happened at Nikon pre-D3 or at Sigma while the father of the current CEO was in charge. I bet that there are many frustrated sensor designers in Canon's team.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Good question, my un-substanciated guess is that it may simply result from the mental deadlock of a key influencer near the top of their sensor design teams.
I have first hand experience in Japan with irrational behaviors that take companies in wrong directions for years simply because one key senior guy is mistaken and nobody around him (above or below) has the ability/guts to prove him wrong.
It can get to pretty unreal levels.
It could be something else at Canon, but it is really reminiscent of what happened at Nikon pre-D3 or at Sigma while the father of the current CEO was in charge. I bet that there are many frustrated sensor designers in Canon's team.
A big reason is the user base, especially one step down from the professional paid spokesmen. But also the rank and file professionals and high end enthusiasts. Nikon had the brass ring at their fingertips when they released the D1 and proceeded to step on their wang in the follow through. Nikon shooters switched to Canon in droves because Canon executed better cameras. Now that Canon is the one floundering around, Canon users continue to support their incompetence.
Let's face it. The 7DmkII with a better sensor is a world beater. As it sits, its a trade off you make to get the focus and frame rates at a decent price point. From a functionality standpoint, Canon is from competitive to leading. Only their sensor subsystems really hold them back.
-
Let's face it. The 7DmkII with a better sensor is a world beater. As it sits, its a trade off you make to get the focus and frame rates at a decent price point. From a functionality standpoint, Canon is from competitive to leading. Only their sensor subsystems really hold them back.
But is the DR@ISO100 something that significantly holds back 7Dmk2 users at the tasks that the camera is targeted? Won't such a camera typically be used at higher ISO (where Canon seems to be quite competitive), and image quality held back by things like tele lens quality, IS/camera shake, AF (tracking) accuracy etc?
I understand that failure to have competitive max DR at low ISO may be an issue for landscape photographers using a 5Ds/r vs the Sony A9 (or whatever it will be called). Scenes where you have no active control over light, that may be printed very large, and where some might like to lift shadows by a lot. Stuff that is sort of solved by "HDR" at the cost of inconvenience, more time spent in front of a computer and hard-to-fix movement errors.
-h
-
Well it has been a while since I posted and after reading this thread I thought I was on the Dpreview website, I had to check the status bar just to make sure I was not. Without an actual production camera and raw data the discussion here can be compared to arguing about how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin. Most of the discussion focuses on lack of DR in Canon sensors, this is what I have learned, DR changes with ISO and lenses, so do not expect the same DR across all lenses and ISO range. I use a Sekonic L758 DR light meter and I exposure profiled my camera and lenses, a very lengthy process, and yes there is a slight change with different lenses. My 5D MkIII with the 24-70 f2.8 has a rage of +3 to -5 EV from ISO 320 to 2500 and 2.5 to 4.6 at ISO 5000. For the more knowledgeable readers they will have figured out that I pull my ISO and they may also know that Canon sensors perform their best with pulled ISO. To get the most out of my sensor I set my ISO 2 button on the light meter for filter compensation and a setting of +2.3 for a safety margin in preserving highlights; I read the brightest part of the scene, press my ISO 2 button and the light meter gives me the best exposure setting for the sensor and lens, for both stills and video. This works for 95% of the shots, for the other 5%, the in camera raw blending (HDR) does more than an adequate job and there is always post processing. I try to reproduce the image my eyes sent to my brain, I let nature do the cooking not my software and since I do not overcook my pictures in post processing the 5D MKIII has not let me down. If I am unhappy with a shot or it does not turn out the way I saw it, the failing is mine not the cameras and certainly not the DR of the sensor, good photographs are about composition and light not about megapixels and DR.
-
But is the DR@ISO100 something that significantly holds back 7Dmk2 users at the tasks that the camera is targeted? Won't such a camera typically be used at higher ISO (where Canon seems to be quite competitive), and image quality held back by things like tele lens quality, IS/camera shake, AF (tracking) accuracy etc?
I understand that failure to have competitive max DR at low ISO may be an issue for landscape photographers using a 5Ds/r vs the Sony A9 (or whatever it will be called). Scenes where you have no active control over light, that may be printed very large, and where some might like to lift shadows by a lot. Stuff that is sort of solved by "HDR" at the cost of inconvenience, more time spent in front of a computer and hard-to-fix movement errors.
-h
The answer is...sometimes. Yes, when shooting action you are inevitably going to start jumping up the ISO. But I shot a high school soccer game a few days ago at base ISO! Of course, it was set to Auto ISO 100-1600. Had I had the D810 it would have been set 64-1600. I was shooting in manual mode BTW. Your comment about usually shooting at higher ISO basically says the 7DmkII is fine as a one trick pony (low light, high speed). And it's not just DR, but noise as well.
To be equally harsh to Nikon, it is a crime that their best crop sensor camera is the D7100 and they never followed up on the spectacularly successful D300. For less than a $1000, the D7100 is a great camera. It can handle about 90% of all photo taking opportunities with output as good or better than the 7DmkII which makes it a great value. So in the crop sensor market, you are forced to trade image quality/value on the Nikon side with Low light and fast speed on the Canon side. Neither of these trades should need to be made. Canon could purchase a decent sensor (if they can't make one) and Nikon could design a camera to go around the sensors they have available to them.
-
Only their sensor subsystems really hold them back.
something shall hold it back... we do not want one Canon to rule them all
-
something shall hold it back... we do not want one Canon to rule them all
LOL!
All I can say is had the introduction of the 7DmkII shown that Canon understood they had a problem and was doing something to fix it, then I might have considered moving back to Canon. As it was, I went out and bought a Nikon D810 and AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR.
-
...Your comment about usually shooting at higher ISO basically says the 7DmkII is fine as a one trick pony (low light, high speed).
I am playing a bit of devils advocate here because I own the 7D mk1, and I have been quite vocal about the DR limitations of Canon.
What I am trying to say is that product differentation is to be expected. Canon (or Nikon) will never offer their best set of features in a mid-end product. They might sacrifice component cost/quality or artificially limit their products in order to make the most expensive ones shine. As long as the products still sells (i.e. the total product package is perceived as competitive by their customers), I guess all is ok.
When the 7Dmk2 is heavily pitched as a birds-in-flight or soccer-game camera using tele lens, tracking PDAF and medium-high ISO, it is not surprising that Canon did not equip it with a possible significant improvement in DR@ISO100. It is a lot more surprising that they did not (according to my interpretation of some official statements) bump low ISO DR of the 5Ds to state-of-the-art, a camera where such qualities may really be of importance.
And it's not just DR, but noise as well....
I believe that the sole reason why Canon cameras have less DR @ low ISO is because they have higher (read) noise. Am I missing something?
-h
-
Hi,
I don't think you miss something.
On the other hand I would guess that Canon cannot really improve readout noise, possibly depending on the design rules they use. According to Lensworks all Canon DSLR sensors are made using 0.5 micron design rules. All low noise CMOS sensors from Sony, Toshiba and Leica/CMOSIS seem to used on sensor columnwise raw converters, and Canon does not seem to have that capability.
Best regards
Erik
I believe that the sole reason why Canon cameras have less DR @ low ISO is because they have higher (read) noise. Am I missing something?
-h
-
Your comment about usually shooting at higher ISO basically says the 7DmkII is fine as a one trick pony (low light, high speed).
It's a matter of priorities and preferences in subject matter I guess:
- for some, an advantage only in low light/high speed situation is a niche use case (= "one trick pony");
- for others, an advantage only at base ISO-speed and in scenes with unusually large subject brightness range is the niche case.
-
It's a matter of priorities and preferences in subject matter I guess:
- for some, an advantage only in low light/high speed situation is a niche use case (= "one trick pony");
- for others, an advantage only at base ISO-speed and in scenes with unusually large subject brightness range is the niche case.
The thing is, for anyone other than Canon, they come together.
All other manufacturers have managed to linearise the lower part of the DR/ISO curve, so that their sensors are essentially ISO-less. Therefore, increase the high-ISO capability by 1 stop and you've also increased the low-ISO DR by one stop.
But this doesn't apply to Canon because their curve isn't linear. When Canon increases their high-ISO capability, their low-ISO DR is still capped at around 12 - just that it can achieve a DR of 12 at one stop higher ISO (say, it can achieve DR 12 at ISO 800 instead of 400). If and when Canon increases their low-ISO DR, their high-ISO capability won't change (without separate improvements, anyway), wince the only way they can improve their low-ISO DR is to improve their A/D conversion and straighten out the curve, which doesn't help high ISOs at all.
-
Well it has been a while since I posted and after reading this thread I thought I was on the Dpreview website, I had to check the status bar just to make sure I was not. Without an actual production camera and raw data the discussion here can be compared to arguing about how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin. Most of the discussion focuses on lack of DR in Canon sensors, this is what I have learned, DR changes with ISO and lenses, so do not expect the same DR across all lenses and ISO range. I use a Sekonic L758 DR light meter and I exposure profiled my camera and lenses, a very lengthy process, and yes there is a slight change with different lenses. My 5D MkIII with the 24-70 f2.8 has a rage of +3 to -5 EV from ISO 320 to 2500 and 2.5 to 4.6 at ISO 5000. For the more knowledgeable readers they will have figured out that I pull my ISO and they may also know that Canon sensors perform their best with pulled ISO. To get the most out of my sensor I set my ISO 2 button on the light meter for filter compensation and a setting of +2.3 for a safety margin in preserving highlights; I read the brightest part of the scene, press my ISO 2 button and the light meter gives me the best exposure setting for the sensor and lens, for both stills and video. This works for 95% of the shots, for the other 5%, the in camera raw blending (HDR) does more than an adequate job and there is always post processing. I try to reproduce the image my eyes sent to my brain, I let nature do the cooking not my software and since I do not overcook my pictures in post processing the 5D MKIII has not let me down. If I am unhappy with a shot or it does not turn out the way I saw it, the failing is mine not the cameras and certainly not the DR of the sensor, good photographs are about composition and light not about megapixels and DR.
Excellent post. Thank you!!
-
Well it has been a while since I posted and after reading this thread I thought I was on the Dpreview website, I had to check the status bar just to make sure I was not. Without an actual production camera and raw data the discussion here can be compared to arguing about how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin. Most of the discussion focuses on lack of DR in Canon sensors, this is what I have learned, DR changes with ISO and lenses, so do not expect the same DR across all lenses and ISO range. I use a Sekonic L758 DR light meter and I exposure profiled my camera and lenses, a very lengthy process, and yes there is a slight change with different lenses. My 5D MkIII with the 24-70 f2.8 has a rage of +3 to -5 EV from ISO 320 to 2500 and 2.5 to 4.6 at ISO 5000. For the more knowledgeable readers they will have figured out that I pull my ISO and they may also know that Canon sensors perform their best with pulled ISO. To get the most out of my sensor I set my ISO 2 button on the light meter for filter compensation and a setting of +2.3 for a safety margin in preserving highlights; I read the brightest part of the scene, press my ISO 2 button and the light meter gives me the best exposure setting for the sensor and lens, for both stills and video. This works for 95% of the shots, for the other 5%, the in camera raw blending (HDR) does more than an adequate job and there is always post processing. I try to reproduce the image my eyes sent to my brain, I let nature do the cooking not my software and since I do not overcook my pictures in post processing the 5D MKIII has not let me down. If I am unhappy with a shot or it does not turn out the way I saw it, the failing is mine not the cameras and certainly not the DR of the sensor, good photographs are about composition and light not about megapixels and DR.
Without megapixels, you can't print them very big and have them hold up to close scrutiny.
Without DR, you lose much of the shadow detail, unless you allow the highlights to blow out.
Some scenes are harder on a sensor than others (and strongly-backlit sunsets where you don't want the foreground to be silhouetted are one of the hardest) and, without a sensor with the technical capability, you just can't capture them.
Aesthetic quality and technical quality are two completely unrelated aspects of a photo. Neither DR nor resolution make your photos any better, but they let you capture good photos in a wider variety of lighting conditions, and do more with them once you've captured them.
-
Good question, my un-substanciated guess is that it may simply result from the mental deadlock of a key influencer near the top of their sensor design teams.
I have first hand experience in Japan with irrational behaviors that take companies in wrong directions for years simply because one key senior guy is mistaken and nobody around him (above or below) has the ability/guts to prove him wrong.
It can get to pretty unreal levels.
It could be something else at Canon, but it is really reminiscent of what happened at Nikon pre-D3 or at Sigma while the father of the current CEO was in charge. I bet that there are many frustrated sensor designers in Canon's team.
Cheers,
Bernard
You may well be right. Even in companies outside of Japan similar behavior can be found. But I also suspect there is more to it than just that.
At least Canon has made some awesome lenses in the recent few years and replaced lots of older designs. Canon recently went up from 18MP to 24MP for their 750D/760D APS-C cameras. I suspect the DR on these haven't improved either.
-
Thank you for your comment, I do not disagree regarding megapixels and DR, however, how people actually print large prints, for the majority of picture takers out there 10 or 12 megapixels is more than enough. That leaves a small market for people that actually need the megapixels, and up to this point if you needed it, you shot medium format. Also the majority of people do not understand the limitations of the increased megapixel, having to use a tripod and not to shoot above f8 (the limit for 30 megapixels); otherwise you are negating the advantage of the increased megapixels. A good tripod and head costs more than most cameras and high end ND filters that do not have a color cast are not cheap. I still believe features and feel of the camera are more import, I upgrade to the 5D MKIII for the features, the most important being the focusing not the megapixels. All cameras have trade-offs and limitations and companies make those design decisions probably based on marketing not necessarily what photographers want. It all depends on what each of us is willing to live with. The point I wanted to make was that megapixels and DR are not the most important aspects of photography. When I look at a photograph I look for what it is conveying and the effect it has on me, I do not look for minute details that would take away from the overall effect. Unfortunately technology is advancing in photography and art is retreating and the worst part is that very few people actually understand the technology and fewer people understand the art.
-
Thank you for your comment, I do not disagree regarding megapixels and DR, however, how people actually print large prints, for the majority of picture takers out there 10 or 12 megapixels is more than enough. That leaves a small market for people that actually need the megapixels, and up to this point if you needed it, you shot medium format. Also the majority of people do not understand the limitations of the increased megapixel, having to use a tripod and not to shoot above f8 (the limit for 30 megapixels); otherwise you are negating the advantage of the increased megapixels. A good tripod and head costs more than most cameras and high end ND filters that do not have a color cast are not cheap. I still believe features and feel of the camera are more import, I upgrade to the 5D MKIII for the features, the most important being the focusing not the megapixels. All cameras have trade-offs and limitations and companies make those design decisions probably based on marketing not necessarily what photographers want. It all depends on what each of us is willing to live with. The point I wanted to make was that megapixels and DR are not the most important aspects of photography. When I look at a photograph I look for what it is conveying and the effect it has on me, I do not look for minute details that would take away from the overall effect. Unfortunately technology is advancing in photography and art is retreating and the worst part is that very few people actually understand the technology and fewer people understand the art.
Most people that do print now print larger. What was a large print 10 years ago is not and 30”+ isn’t large on a wall and don’t forget even 36MP can only get to a modest print of 24.5" by 16.4" @ 300ppi before any cropping. f/8 and a tripod or the benefit is negated simply isn’t true - a high res image will always be better than a lower res one at the same size. I shoot mostly handheld (fashion) and the difference going from a D700 to D800 has been staggering.
What a photograph is conveying and the effect it has can be directly influenced by DR and MP. The picture takes on a realistic you-are-there experience due to the detail rather than blocky mush from upressing and the deep shadows and bight sunrise are all captured without clipping. Instead of fighting the limits of the equipment more capable equipment allows better work to be produced; 36MP and 14+ stops of DR certainly has for me and when I shoot my X100 I really notice it. No longer do I have to underexpose to keep the sky hoping the colours will hold up when I push the exposure in post, blend or stitch together many frames to get a decent size print.
-
There are nine pages of conjecture in this thread alone about a camera that won't even be released, much less tested, for three more months. It almost makes me wish I'd been here exercising my clairvoyance instead of out taking photos for the last couple weeks. ;)
-
There are nine pages of conjecture in this thread alone about a camera that won't even be released, much less tested, for three more months.
More than 4 months in fact. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, four months before this camera ships in half a year, you'll be able to buy a Sony 50 megapixel camera with much better dynamic range at half the price. And EFCS and no flappy mirror to destroy sharpness, and the ability to critically focus in the viewfinder (needed with a 50MP camera!)
So, that's basically why.
Flappy mirror. I expect this garbage elsewhere but not here. I guess times have changed.
-
ON the bright side if you care less about more pixels you could take advantage of this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221116170557?customid=d88eb4d3bdb446cb867caa10ea843d61&pub=5574652453&afepn=5337259887&campid=5337259887&icep_id=117&ipn=icep&item=221116170557&afepn=5337259887&rmvSB=true
-
Hi,
Just to make two points:
- Canon essentially stated that the 5Ds sensor is based on the 7DII sensor, with some refinement. The 7DII sensor is a well known reference. So we now how it will perform.
- Lot of Canon users eye Nikon D810 and/or Sony A7r for higher resolution or extended DR. Those needs may be perceived or real. The new camera is interesting for anyone considering jumping ships.
Best regards
Erik
More than 4 months in fact. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
ON the bright side if you care less about more pixels you could take advantage of this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221116170557?customid=d88eb4d3bdb446cb867caa10ea843d61&pub=5574652453&afepn=5337259887&campid=5337259887&icep_id=117&ipn=icep&item=221116170557&afepn=5337259887&rmvSB=true
$1999 is an appropriate price for a 5DmkIII considering available alternatives.
-
$1999 is an appropriate price for a 5DmkIII considering available alternatives.
Alternatives such as? .. 5dMark2?
If I didn't have a M2 I would certainly get a M3. With the 5Ds on the rise, I will likely ignore the M3 and double down.
-
Alternatives such as? .. 5dMark2?
If I didn't have a M2 I would certainly get a M3. With the 5Ds on the rise, I will likely ignore the M3 and double down.
While buyers within a system have a barrier to change due to sunken costs of lenses, accessories and familiarity, I was thinking all alternatives available. Every manufacturer estimates their retention rates and new buyer adoption rates at various price points and prices to maximize profit. Looking at the current price of $2900 for the D810, I suspect Nikon could get more out of the camera with current Nikon shooters, but is attempting to offset that revenue with new adopters to which they can sell lenses and accessories. Canon, on the other hand will likely price the 5Ds based on getting as much out of current Canon shooters as possible since they are getting a big step up in resolution compared to previous offerings, but not that big compared to outside offerings.
Though what prompted my comment is that if I had to choose between the D810 and the 5DmkIII, and the D810 is priced at $2900, then I would consider the 5DmkIII at the $1999 price point (trading pixels, DR and Low shadow noise for $1000), but would opt for the D810 if it continued to be priced at $2999.