50MP Canon 5DS/R spec leaked

[BJL]

For photographers, I'd argue that "image quality" whatever that means is a lot more relevant than "pixel quality". Often the two are highly correlated, but they may not always be.

If I was offered a camera with more pixels, worse per-pixel quality but better image quality than I currently have, I would take it. Would not most of us?

Indeed!

And within the constraint of a given format size like 36x24mm, there is a kind of reciprocity between:
- fewer, larger photo-sites of higher per pixel DR
- more but smaller photo-sites of lower per pixel DR -- which can be downsized to fewer output pixels of higher DR than the individual photo sites.
This can end up giving very similar abilities to handle scene of high Subject Brightness Range, judged by my preferred comparison standard of displaying and viewing images from different cameras at the same size.

To me, this SBR handling is the bottom line that photographers should be thinking about, and accept that there are multiple routes to good handling of high SBR scenes.

[BJL]

As an analyst, my take on the 5D3 is that there now is severe infighting between the pro video and prosumer dSLR divisions of Canon, and rather than merge them or allow them to really compete against each other, management has decided to force them to coexist in separate watertight market compartments. This means that the still products are voluntarily castrated, with all but the most basic video capabilities voluntarily removed.

Maybe, but let me posit a more innocent possible explanation for the relatively weak video capabilities of these 50MP cameras:

a) There are too many pixels to read out the entire video frame (about 42 million of them in the crop to the 16:9 shape of HD) at video rates like 30p, let alone the 60p that is entirely missing; maybe even rain g all pixels on every third line and then downsampling within lines is not feasible.  Or at least not economically feasible; possible only with a substantial extra cost to add processing power that would increase the price of the camera significantly within benefit to its main customers, and which would have the Slobodan's of the still photography world rightly complaining about the ill-effects of feature bloat.

b) With that inherent limitation to video quality, it makes little sense to waste resources on other features that are only of interest to serious video usage, who will not choose this camera for that usage anyway.  For example: as has already been said, going to 100 million photo sites for a dual pixel AF system could be substantial challenge to cost, either not feasible or not worthwhile if the benefits are mostly or entirely to video.

TL;DR: sometimes, optimizing one aspect of performance is best done by not striving to make a general purpose tool.

[BernardLanguillier]

I am a bit surprised about the expectation that this camera should do video well.

IMHO it reveals that the positioning of the 5Ds is not well understood.

The 5Ds was apparently not intended by Canon to be a generalist camera such as the 5DIII or D810. It is not a 5D mkIV.

It was designed and optimized for the studio with landscape as a second target (we'll have to wait for measurments on that one).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ken R]

I am a bit surprised about the expectation that this camera should do video well.

IMHO it reveals that the positioning of the 5Ds is not well understood.

The 5Ds was apparently not intended by Canon to be a generalist camera such as the 5DIII or D810. It is not a 5D mkIV.

It was designed and optimized for the studio with landscape as a second target (we'll have to wait for measurments on that one).

Cheers,
Bernard

A lot of people are frustrated with Canon because the technology is out there to make a great all around 24x36mm sensor Camera at the announced price point.

-Nikon D810 levels of Color Depth and Dynamic Range (14.5+) or at the very least D7100 (13.6+) levels.
-Nikon D810 pixel count (they got that covered!)
-4k 24p Video (EASILY achievable with today's processors) (not a huge deal for me but would make a LOT more people want the camera and buy it. Larger Customer Base)
-On chip AF (not a huge deal)
-Large Raw Image Buffer (again, memory is cheap nowadays)
-High Iso (not a big deal for me)
-Great Long Exposure Performance (somewhat important to me)

Never mind that Canon could, if they wanted, make an amazing mirrorless Interchangeable Lens system camera with an amazing EVF and capability to use all existing Canon EF lenses seamlessly. That is a whole nother subject.

We Enthusiasts HATE when a company cripples a product that is capable of much more in it's current configuration and also HATE when a Company blatantly "Sandbags" or cuts features/performance to save them for another product. I don't think Canon is in a position to do all that given what Nikon and Sony have out there.

Again, the dynamic range / color and other sensor comments should be taken lightly PENDING the hands on testing of a finalized 5DS/5DSR.

[eronald]

I agree with all of this, except the "Not a huge deal" for on-chip AF. I find that fast on-chip AF is the single most useful feature in single-operator video with my GH4. I can set focus and move it between speakers just by touching the camera display, while the shutter is rolling. Most people on this forum seem to do video with crews and follow-focus, and have forgotten that such automation is really crucial for single-operators, among which of course are many newsshooters and all the mom-and-pop marriage shooters.

Another crucial feature for video is that earphone socket -  in-camera audio MUST be checked with a headset at some point, especially when using wireless systems etc. Only the live check detects buzzes or fallouts, this is one of the reasons so many still employ a live sound engineer.

I do agree that the above are of no importance to still photographers - which is why I have little to say about the 5Ds as a still camera - only real use will speak - but can predict that it won't even get shortlisted by one-man operations that need to do video.


Edmund

A lot of people are frustrated with Canon because the technology is out there to make a great all around 24x36mm sensor Camera at the announced price point.

-Nikon D810 levels of Color Depth and Dynamic Range (14.5+) or at the very least D7100 (13.6+) levels.
-Nikon D810 pixel count (they got that covered!)
-4k 24p Video (EASILY achievable with today's processors) (not a huge deal for me but would make a LOT more people want the camera and buy it. Larger Customer Base)
-On chip AF (not a huge deal)
-Large Raw Image Buffer (again, memory is cheap nowadays)
-High Iso (not a big deal for me)
-Great Long Exposure Performance (somewhat important to me)

Never mind that Canon could, if they wanted, make an amazing mirrorless Interchangeable Lens system camera with an amazing EVF and capability to use all existing Canon EF lenses seamlessly. That is a whole nother subject.

We Enthusiasts HATE when a company cripples a product that is capable of much more in it's current configuration and also HATE when a Company blatantly "Sandbags" or cuts features/performance to save them for another product. I don't think Canon is in a position to do all that given what Nikon and Sony have out there.

Again, the dynamic range / color and other sensor comments should be taken lightly PENDING the hands on testing of a finalized 5DS/5DSR.

[BernardLanguillier]

I believe that many are over estimating the silicon R&D capacities of Canon relative to Sony semi, Toshiba semi and Samsung semi which results in a wrong impression that they avoid delivering value on purpose while they in fact simply don't have the same level of engineering expertise.

I would focus on the value this camera delivers for Canon lens owners shooting stills, which is the intended audience.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

I believe that many are over estimating the silicon R&D capacities of Canon relative to Sony semi, Toshiba semi and Samsung semi which results in a wrong impression that they avoid delivering value on purpose while they in fact simply don't have the same level of engineering expertise.

I would focus on the value this camera delivers for Canon lens owners shooting stills, which is the intended audience.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,  

 Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon; if they suddenly have less competence in their core tech than a jumped-up consumer entertainment company and a minor third-world cellphone manufacturer then they are in real trouble

 More seriously - Canon has always had total vertical control of their process, from chip design through tool manufacture to fab. If they've still got that vertical integration, but have allowed their tech to lapse, then they're very sick.

Edmund

[Ken R]

I agree with all of this, except the "Not a huge deal" for on-chip AF. I find that fast on-chip AF is the single most useful feature in single-operator video with my GH4. I can set focus and move it between speakers just by touching the camera display, while the shutter is rolling. Most people on this forum seem to do video with crews and follow-focus, and have forgotten that such automation is really crucial for single-operators, among which of course are many newsshooters and all the mom-and-pop marriage shooters.

Another crucial feature for video is that earphone socket -  in-camera audio MUST be checked with a headset at some point, especially when using wireless systems etc. Only the live check detects buzzes or fallouts, this is one of the reasons so many still employ a live sound engineer.

I do agree that the above are of no importance to still photographers - which is why I have little to say about the 5Ds as a still camera - only real use will speak - but can predict that it won't even get shortlisted by one-man operations that need to do video.


Edmund

Oops forgot about the lack of headphone out. That basically steers away any serious video users for good.

Right on about the on chip AF, not a big deal for me but for a huge range of video users it is. 

[Ken R]

I believe that many are over estimating the silicon R&D capacities of Canon relative to Sony semi, Toshiba semi and Samsung semi which results in a wrong impression that they avoid delivering value on purpose while they in fact simply don't have the same level of engineering expertise.

I would focus on the value this camera delivers for Canon lens owners shooting stills, which is the intended audience.

Cheers,
Bernard

Compared to the 5D3 the new 5DS/5DSR offer more pixels / resolution but reduced high iso capability (At Least IN THEORY) and reduced speed plus much reduced video capability.

The 5DS/5DSR will attract a limited audience mainly due to its supposedly reduced dynamic range compared to the Nikon/Sonys. Architectural and Landscape photographers won't really desire this camera en masse because of that although Canon's EF lens line is a HUGE draw. Funny (and revealing) that two of the promo videos for the 5DS/5DSR are a shoot involving high iso in decreasing light levels and a studio shoot with very controlled studio lighting. Those are basically the Camera's strong suit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KyWbns0ro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBqZHn_iSY0

*at higher iso the dynamic range advantage of the Nikon/Sony sensor is greatly reduced compared to the Canon's, say at around iso 1600 and above.

[BJL]

Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon ...

SLR camera body features are rather more long-term core competencies at Canon, I would say.

Sensors became a core asset for Canon when it got the jump on everyone else with the first good, low noise execution of active pixel CMOS sensors; in the longer run, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba and above all Samsung are far bigger in the electronics design and manufacturing business, so to some extend it was just that the nimble upstart Canon aroused several complacent giants, several of which have steadily overhauled it in some aspects of sensor design.

Canon has always had total vertical control of their process

The advantages of designing and making everything in-house is often over-rated in forum discussion, in comparison with the advantages of sometimes of technology sharing (multiple companies working with Sony for sensors, improving economies of scale and giving Sony the ability to spend more on sensor development than Canon can.

But if vertical integration does help, Sony has a far broader in-house sensor shop than Canon (reaching from phones through compacts to the majority if ILCs all the way to 44x33mm medium format), and Samsung is the king of doing everything in-house on a large and efficient scale.

[Jim Kasson]

...so to some extend it was just that the nimble upstart Canon aroused several complacent giants, several of which have steadily overhauled it in some aspects of sensor design.

Do you think it's the design technology, or merely the processes that are available to the designers? I can't remember the numbers, but last time I looked at the Canon chips, the feature sizes were really large, larger than you'd want if you were trying to get the fill factors up and the pitch down.

Jim

[BernardLanguillier]

Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon; if they suddenly have less competence in their core tech than a jumped-up consumer entertainment company and a minor third-world cellphone manufacturer then they are in real trouble

 More seriously - Canon has always had total vertical control of their process, from chip design through tool manufacture to fab. If they've still got that vertical integration, but have allowed their tech to lapse, then they're very sick.

The fact remains that although Canon is a pretty large corporation, its the semi-conductor division seems tiny compared to Samsung Semi-conductor, Toshiba Semi-conductor and Sony Semi-conductor.

I cannot even find Canon listed among the top semi-conductor companies, meaning they are least 6 times smaller than Toshiba and twice smaller than Sony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year#Ranking_for_year_2013

Even among imaging sensor semi-conductor companies, Canon is seen as a niche producer:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/p/image-sensor-companies-list.html

The only thing that saved Canon for a number of years was that the big guys had not yet fully turned their attention to the topic of imaging sensors.

I do agree fully with your analysis that they probably have a problem today and the comings years are not likely to see things improving as long as they continue to bet on in-house sensors development. It's been said countless times and each release only confirms this forecast. There is a significant probability that it is the case for still alone, and it will probably only be worse for still/video joined capabilities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

Do you think it's the design technology, or merely the processes that are available to the designers? I can't remember the numbers, but last time I looked at the Canon chips, the feature sizes were really large, larger than you'd want if you were trying to get the fill factors up and the pitch down.

Jim

Jim,

 This is what everybody has been saying - Canon's company-owned fabs are obsolete, and their desire for vertical integration has prevented their sensor designers from using a modern process.

Edmund

[Joe Towner]

I wonder how long this thread will last.  I don't care that the camera doesn't do 4K video, or doesn't do specific things to someones interests.  It does 1 thing and hopefully it does it really really well - taking their latest lenses and showcase what they can do.  The profit margin isn't in the cameras, it's the lenses and nothing like a high end camera to sell lots more lenses.

It puts Canon cameras in the hands of folks whom were lusting after the Pentax Z, or were to jump to Nikon post lens refresh.  It doesn't do everything perfectly, but I'm renting one, just to compare it to what I know.  A lens like the 200-400 F/4L IS 1.4x isn't ever going to be made in a Mamiya, Hasselblad or Pentax 645 mount - period.  Hopefully the 5Ds/R will fill in that niche.

[Jim Kasson]

This is what everybody has been saying - Canon's company-owned fabs are obsolete, and their desire for vertical integration has prevented their sensor designers from using a modern process.

Then can we go easy on the poor designers?

Maybe I'm a little thin-skinned when it comes to development engineers...

Jim

[eronald]

Then can we go easy on the poor designers?

Jim

Jim,

 I have no doubt that Canon's camera designers and chip designers are first rate - I've met some of them. But something's going wrong in the company's product planning - whereas they were almost prescient in catching the fullframe trend on the upswing, then the big sensor video trend, but they are now falling behind and giving an impression of corporate disarray. Let's not forget that the cellphones have chewed up just about all their low end compact business, and my local store now has almost no camcorders on sale - this is a store that will sell you a 400mm Canon tele from stock.

Edmund

[Dshelly]

I'm surprised to hear so much bashing for a camera that appears to be openly marketed as a niche camera. For me, the Canon 5d3 is the best dslr I've ever owned. And as a studio shooter, the 5Ds appears to be inspiring upgrade for the work that I do, which generally requires large prints. But until it's tested under my specific working conditions I have no opinion other than it could possibly be an effective upgrade to my existing camera body.

I don't think that a camera has existed that has served all masters perfectly. Yet many seem disappointed that the latest Canon iteration isn't the Holy Grail.

[gerald.d]

Bernard,  

 Optical technology and sensors are the core business of Canon; if they suddenly have less competence in their core tech than a jumped-up consumer entertainment company and a minor third-world cellphone manufacturer then they are in real trouble

 More seriously - Canon has always had total vertical control of their process, from chip design through tool manufacture to fab. If they've still got that vertical integration, but have allowed their tech to lapse, then they're very sick.

Edmund

"Minor third-world cellphone manufacturer" is pretty insulting to both Samsung (the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer by some considerable margin), and South Korea (13th largest market economy in the world by GDP).

[Petrus]

Samsung is (something like) 15:th largest company in the world, so if they commit themselves into making good cameras others should be worried. NX1 is a good start into that direction and a sign of things to come.

[eronald]

"Minor third-world cellphone manufacturer" is pretty insulting to both Samsung (the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer by some considerable margin), and South Korea (13th largest market economy in the world by GDP).

Actually in 2013 Samsung was the world's second-largest semiconductor maker. as well as the largest cellphone manufacturer. Obviously I must believe that such a conglomerate does not employ engineers, and has no department responsible for designing and fabricating cellphone camera sensors and processors, no expertise in signal processing, and wishes to throw away all its spare production of flash and RAM memory, and that the country in which it is sited does not support technology.



Edmund