# The Full List of Unreleased Canon Camera ID’s



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 30, 2018)

> Below is a list of all the unreleased Canon cameras and their codenames. We reported back in April that two full frame mirrorless cameras were being developed at the same time, and it looks like this list confirms that to be the case.
> It looks like the K424 is being developed with a 30.4mp sensor, which is the same resolution as the EOS 5D Mark IV. We don’t know if the image sensors are identical at this time.
> We also cannot confirm with absolute certainty which DSLRs the K436 and K437 are. Though there are a lot of assumptions and logical guesses as to what these cameras will turn out to be.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 30, 2018)

So, skipped over numbers are models that for one reason or another will never be released? Thanks for organizing the list.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 30, 2018)

So I'm assuming the K424 is the wireless 5D IV equivalent and the K433 would be the wireless 6D II equivalent.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2018)

Any chance K424 or K433 is a fixed lens camera?

Presuming it’s not — I’m geeked. We will finally get the answer to the FF mirrorless mount question we’ve been debating and predicting for so long. 

I’m also fairly shocked that we’re seeing what appears to be the 90D *and* the 7D3 or 5DS2 here. The 90D would be a bit early to projections, but the other two are _very_ early. 

- A


----------



## BillB (Jun 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance K424 or K433 is a fixed lens camera?
> 
> Presuming it’s not — I’m geeked. We will finally get the answer to the FF mirrorless mount question we’ve been debating and predicting for so long.
> 
> ...



If a purpose of a 5DS2 is to update the sensor to dual pixel and onboard ADC, then I am not sure normal update cycles would apply. The original 5DS was released without these features not long before the 1DXII and the 5DIV came out with them. Assuming a high megapixel dual pixel sensor is a practical possibility, I can see where Canon might want it on the street sooner rather than later. Maybe a 5DS2 (or a 5DV) would be a reconvergence of the 5D line somewhere higher than 30 megapixels.


----------



## Talys (Jun 30, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> So I'm assuming the K424 is the wireless 5D IV equivalent and the K433 would be the wireless 6D II equivalent.



You're probably right, but there is the chance that Canon is stepping up megapixels, in which case, future 6D resolutions = 30MP and future 5D resolutions > 30MP.

It actually ties in to BiilB's comment about dual pixel. We don't know how ramping DPAF > 30 megapixels entails. Is a 40 or 50 megapixel sensor possible at a reasonable cost at this time? Are there other compromises that must make? Or is such a sensor being tested as we speak?

If it's not, what's the future of the high-megapixel 5DSR? Will Canon make a non DPAF refresh to that line?

As much as I am impressed by DPAF, I'm fine with a DSLR without DPAF, because in truth, I hardly ever use it.


----------



## BillB (Jun 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm assuming the K424 is the wireless 5D IV equivalent and the K433 would be the wireless 6D II equivalent.
> ...



After my previous post, I realized that the density of current aps-c sensors seems to tell us that fullframe densities well above 30 mp should be fine. The 24 mp aps-c sensor would scale up to more than 60. If the rumor about a 28 sensor is true, that would scale to more than 70 mp.


----------



## Talys (Jun 30, 2018)

BillB said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



Good point!


----------



## Etienne (Jun 30, 2018)

BillB said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



That's not the whole story. There are a lot more losses manufacturing FF sensors due to the sensor size alone. I suspect that dual-pixel technology increases those losses again, so I doubt that simply extrapolating pixel density to FF size tells the whole story.


----------



## Woody (Jul 1, 2018)

What a list!

Canon is going all out to ensure they retain their 50% market share.

But I won't be upgrading unless the features are substantial (cough... dynamic range... cough...). I can live with current Canon stuff.


----------



## Durf (Jul 1, 2018)

The only one that captures my attention is perhaps the 7D Mark iii. 
If I ever replace my 80D it'll be with that one if it's got a flip screen.....and only in a couple/few years from now when the price on it has hopefully gone down a bit.


----------



## sdz (Jul 1, 2018)

These days, cameras are so good that investing in glass often makes more sense than buying the latest camera. Nevertheless, it would be great were Canon to improve the video on their DSLRs, while increasing the dynamic range of their sensors. These improvements would be worth more than a Gee Whiz feature or two. Even a clean HDMI signal from all of their DSLRs would help.

That said, I might upgrade to a Canon mirrorless FF camera. I'm currently considering a GH-5 because I need a good portable video camera. But, then again, I would not get that great Canon color when using the GG-5. Nor the easy integration of the lenses designed for use on an EF mount. I assume Canon's FF mirrorless camera would have an EF mount or an adapter. Canon would need to be crazy not to have either.


----------



## traveller (Jul 1, 2018)

Etienne said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Whilst what Etienne writes about yield being lower for larger sensor size is true, I’m not convinced that Canon is struggling with dual-pixel sensor yields these days, as the technology has worked its way down the the M100 at the bottom of the range. Given the close relationship between the 7D2 and 5DS sensors, I would expect that whatever appears with the 7D3 (whenever that appears) will be what features on a 5DS2 a few months later.


----------



## traveller (Jul 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance K424 or K433 is a fixed lens camera?
> ...



I don't think that Canon sees urgently moving its entire lineup onto their "new" 180nm process is a goal in itself. The fact that the 6D2 was released last year using a sensor that appears to have been produced on the old 500nm process, would seem to back up my belief. I would think that Canon has far too much investment tied up in fab lines to carry out such a drastic change. Besides, if they were going to alter their planned model replacement schedules to move the entire DSLR lineup to the 180nm process (which allows all the on-chip ADC goodness), would they not have done so sooner? The 80D came out in February 2016: if moving key DSLR lines over to the new sensor architecture quickly was indeed a key goal, then why are we nearly two and a half years later with no 5DS2 or 7D3? 

It seems more that Canon is trying to standardise on as few sensor designs as possible to spread R&D costs across many different models, which is sensible considering how mature the market is now. It looks like the 6D2 and 4000D are on the old 500nm process, along with the two remaining older models (5DS/R & 7D2). I'm guessing that the 6D2 & 4000D were probably put on this fab line to take up spare capacity from declining 5DS & 7D2 production (thus extract the final value from Canon's initial capital investment).


----------



## Joatamos (Jul 1, 2018)

"K424 - Not compatible with smartphone’s Bluetooth remote control function"

Is there a good reason why they wouldn't have this support on any new camera now??


----------



## BillB (Jul 1, 2018)

traveller said:


> I don't think that Canon sees urgently moving its entire lineup onto their "new" 180nm process is a goal in itself. The fact that the 6D2 was released last year using a sensor that appears to have been produced on the old 500nm process, would seem to back up my belief. I would think that Canon has far too much investment tied up in fab lines to carry out such a drastic change. Besides, if they were going to alter their planned model replacement schedules to move the entire DSLR lineup to the 180nm process (which allows all the on-chip ADC goodness), would they not have done so sooner? The 80D came out in February 2016: if moving key DSLR lines over to the new sensor architecture quickly was indeed a key goal, then why are we nearly two and a half years later with no 5DS2 or 7D3?
> 
> It seems more that Canon is trying to standardise on as few sensor designs as possible to spread R&D costs across many different models, which is sensible considering how mature the market is now. It looks like the 6D2 and 4000D are on the old 500nm process, along with the two remaining older models (5DS/R & 7D2). I'm guessing that the 6D2 & 4000D were probably put on this fab line to take up spare capacity from declining 5DS & 7D2 production (thus extract the final value from Canon's initial capital investment).



Putting it another way, Canon is very unlikely to put out a 7DIII or an 5DSII until it can use the 180 nm fab for the sensor. So one of the questions is fab capacity, so maybe that tilts things a little toward the 7DIII with its aps-c sensor.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jul 1, 2018)

Woody said:


> Canon is going all out to ensure they retain their 50% market share.
> 
> But I won't be upgrading unless the features are substantial (cough... dynamic range... cough...). I can live with current Canon stuff.



I still haven't upgraded from my original 6D as Canon haven't made something worth upgrading to. I really hope the are going to compete more in features vs price. Let's have a £2200 Canon version of the A7III!


----------



## edoorn (Jul 1, 2018)

Joatamos said:


> "K424 - Not compatible with smartphone’s Bluetooth remote control function"
> 
> Is there a good reason why they wouldn't have this support on any new camera now??



i noticed this bit too, what's the thought behind this?


----------



## Yasko (Jul 1, 2018)

edoorn said:


> Joatamos said:
> 
> 
> > "K424 - Not compatible with smartphone’s Bluetooth remote control function"
> ...



May be Canon does not consider this meaningful enough for a Pro user (if it is indeed going to be a professional full frame mirrorless camera offering) .
I would consider it to be handy, although I have to say that me as an enthusiast, I am yet still to use the smartphone App... Shooting birds in the garden would be one very useful application for it I suppose.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 1, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is going all out to ensure they retain their 50% market share.
> ...



Crappy ergonomics included? I know what you are getting at given the specs of the A73 are pretty damn good. But are the trade offs worth it? Canon will produce a great mirrorless FF in the near future but I dearly hope they do NOT produce anything like the sony cameras. That would be devestating


----------



## BillB (Jul 1, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



So what A7III specs and features would you most want Canon to copy?


----------



## sanj (Jul 1, 2018)

I would be delighted to have a full frame fixed 35mm f2 IS lens.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > The Fat Fish said:
> ...



Any improvement in sensor quality would be great. Sony's eye tracking AF is pretty cool. I don't personally give a rats about video but if canon could put in awesome 4K in order to shut the whingers up that'd be great. Apart from that. Very little. But I will be damned if I would give up the ergonomics or reliability of a canon DSLR


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 1, 2018)

Hoping there will be a 5D Mark V DSLR someday. I know it is too early now, but still hoping. If not, then a 5D Mark IV when it closes out. The 5D Mark III has been a wonderful camera. Best camera I've ever owned.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 1, 2018)

sanj said:


> I would be delighted to have a full frame fixed 35mm f2 IS lens.



You can put Canon's existing really good 35mm f/2 IS on any of their full frame cameras, and just never take it off .... voila!


----------



## zim (Jul 1, 2018)

sdz said:


> These days, cameras are so good that investing in glass often makes more sense than buying the latest camera.



This, for me, has always been the truth but if I'm totally honest I'm concerned that Canon will pull an FD so until they show their hand I'm perfectly happy with what I've got, and I can easily wait a year or two (and no, adaptors are not acceptable to me)


----------



## BillB (Jul 1, 2018)

Etienne said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I would be delighted to have a full frame fixed 35mm f2 IS lens.
> ...



Yup. El cheapo solution is the shorty forty on whatever you have sitting around, in my case a 5DII.


----------



## slclick (Jul 1, 2018)

sanj said:


> I would be delighted to have a full frame fixed 35mm f2 IS lens.



Like a Canon version of an RX1Rll?


----------



## -1 (Jul 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance K424 or K433 is a fixed lens camera?
> 
> Presuming it’s not — I’m geeked. We will finally get the answer to the FF mirrorless mount question we’ve been debating and predicting for so long.
> 
> I’m also fairly shocked that we’re seeing what appears to be the 90D *and* the 7D3 or 5DS2 here. The 90D would be a bit early to projections, but the other two are _very_ early.



The 5Ds2 (non R) has fallen in price so that it's a close match to the 5D4, circa SEK 25000 without VAT while the 5DsR, basically the same camera is almost SEK 10 000 more expensive than the non R still so it's obviously a hard sell. An update to give it dual pixel RAW and 5D4 user interface might correct that... There are lots of complaints against the sensor of the 7D2 so when the 90D arrives it will be a hard sell too without an sensor and interface update.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2018)

-1 said:


> The 5Ds2 (non R) has fallen in price so that it's a close match to the 5D4, circa SEK 25000 without VAT while the 5DsR, basically the same camera is almost SEK 10 000 more expensive than the non R still so it's obviously a hard sell. An update to give it dual pixel RAW and 5D4 user interface might correct that... There are lots of complaints against the sensor of the 7D2 so when the 90D arrives it will be a hard sell too without an sensor and interface update.



I have almost no doubt that the 5DS2 and 7D3 will get new sensors, but I'd be stunned if Canon rushed those forward just to give them new sensors. I expect more traditional 'full' updates for those lines when it's their turn (both are tracking to late 2019):

7D3 would get a new sensor, wifi, more AF points, 4K, more f/8 AF points, larger buffer, possibly higher fps, touchscreen or tilty-flippy-touchscreen, etc.

5DS2 would get a new sensor, DPAF + touch or touch/tilt/flip, the 5D4 control layout, DP RAW, wifi, possibly 4K of some sort, etc.

...but I could be wrong. Perhaps the D500 is killing the 7D2 in the market, the D850 is killing the 5DS, etc. and something needs to change with Canon's lengthy product lifecycles.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2018)

Etienne said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wouldn't be nearly as tiny as tucking the (fixed) lens into the body itself, and doing that also unlocks the possibility of going with a leaf shutter. See pic, it's night and day for size -- slower wide to standard FL primes are the sweet spot for mirrorless truly looking smaller than the FF SLR sitting next to it.

I'm not saying I want an RX1R or Leica Q product, but there's surely a market for a super high IQ point and shoot for the trust fund instagram crowd. I just don't think it would be a mainstream mirrorless offering.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jul 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I have almost no doubt that the 5DS2 and 7D3 will get new sensors, but I'd be stunned if Canon rushed those forward just to give them new sensors. I expect more traditional 'full' updates for those lines when it's their turn (both are tracking to late 2019):
> 
> 7D3 would get a new sensor, wifi, more AF points, 4K, more f/8 AF points, larger buffer, possibly higher fps, touchscreen or tilty-flippy-touchscreen, etc.
> 
> ...



OP has this camera listed as 2019 or later, so it seems that we are now on the same song sheet on timing. Likely coming but not real soon. Maybe 2019, maybe not.


----------



## -1 (Jul 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5Ds2 (non R) has fallen in price so that it's a close match to the 5D4, circa SEK 25000 without VAT while the 5DsR, basically the same camera is almost SEK 10 000 more expensive than the non R still so it's obviously a hard sell. An update to give it dual pixel RAW and 5D4 user interface might correct that... There are lots of complaints against the sensor of the 7D2 so when the 90D arrives it will be a hard sell too without an sensor and interface update.
> ...



The crew that handles Canons upgrade schedules seem to suffer from a diverse collection of "alphabetical" syndromes and compulsive disorders. That's the problem... ;-/


----------



## Canoneer (Jul 2, 2018)

traveller said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



Bear in mind that the M100, M5, M6, 80D, 77D (9000D), T7i (800D), SL2 (200D), and G1 X III use the same sensor. That's a lot of product consolidation for sensor manufacture. Canon is able to recuperate the R&D costs through selling same sensor across the majority of their product portfolio, so lower yield rates aren't as problematic for purposes of supply & demand. It was a very smart move on Canon's part.


----------



## melgross (Jul 2, 2018)

BillB said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I’m more concerned about per pixel quality than about ultimate number of pixels. Yes, Canon has 51mp, and Nikon and Sony are at about 45.

But even Canon’s latest are still somewhat behind on noise and dynamic range. Truthfully, once you make an actual image as a print, or worse, 4 color, much of that advantage disappears. Nevertheless, the difference is there, and sometimes it does matter, such as when correcting for vignetting, particularly when using those f1.2 and 1.4 lenses people here have been yammering about lately.

So I’d much rather see 30mp with an additional 1.5 stops of dynamic range and noise, rather than another 10-20mp with about the same pixel quality as now.


----------



## melgross (Jul 2, 2018)

traveller said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It’s likely that much of what you’re saying is true, but it’s also likely that they want to move all of their chips to onboard ADC. After all, that’s what got Nikon/Sony in front of Canon in the pixel level IQ race, and they haven’t looked back. Canon is about three generations behind there, even in the chips that do have it. And moving to a smaller process has so many advantages, that despite the upfront cost, they pretty much have no choice about it.

They can’t advance their controllers without moving smaller. Power considerations demand it too. Everywhere they look, they need it.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Funny how deceiving the photo of the cameras is fixed so the camera to the left is much farther down than the next camera and the next one farther down from the right camera to give a totally false impression of the far left one being substantially smaller than the far right camera.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 2, 2018)

camerasize compares cameras - correctly - including (protruding) viewfinder oculars and eye cups. Like other Sony mirrorless cameras, Sony RX-1R II has a very clever pop-up viewfinder. So for transportation size comparison the image shows the "real deal". It is incredibly compact, as small a camera as you can build around a 42 MP FF sensor and a good IQ lens. 

My only gripes with it are: fixed 35mm prime lens [as a matter of principle have never and will never buy such camera] and rather steep price of the Sony.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> Funny how deceiving the photo of the cameras is fixed so the camera to the left is much farther down than the next camera and the next one farther down from the right camera to give a totally false impression of the far left one being substantially smaller than the far right camera.



It's not by design or bias, it's tied to whether the page aligns things to the eye cup or the LCD -- and CameraSize isn't exactly consistent on that front.

But here you go. Corrected.

The point is sufficiently clear (at least in this instance) that PS work shouldn't be necessary: the combination of pulling the mirror and tucking parts of standard/wide lens into the body in a fixed lens design adds up to a considerably smaller package. For all the perfectly fair darts we throw at a mirrorless rigs' thinness being fairly unimportant if you use long / fast glass, a modestly/intelligently spec'd fixed lens rig can sit in this sweet spot of size savings.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jul 2, 2018)

Well Sony A7 (1st gen) form factor with a 35/1.8 attached also compares very favorably. That would be my preferred size bracket for a FF-sensored MILC. 

http://j.mp/2IMh5Yv


----------



## fullstop (Jul 2, 2018)

Very compact mirrorless FF ILCs are possible, without any need to to limit oneself with a one-trick pony camera [bolted on prime lens only].


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Very compact mirrorless FF ILCs are possible, without any need to to limit oneself with a one-trick pony camera [bolted on prime lens only].



I wouldn't paint this as an 'or'. I think it's an 'and'. Companies could (and arguably should) do both.

Offer multiple ILCs at various price points for enthusiasts, pros, etc. and a single super-pricey FLC for non-photographers who simply want their IG work to pop. 

I'm not saying an FLC should be a high priority, but it should be in the portfolio mix somewhere.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jul 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not saying an FLC should be a high priority, but it should be in the portfolio mix somewhere.



don't see why. Nothing an ILC camera can not do better. 

It would be very very interesting to know, how many RX1R / II copies Sony has sold. I expect the number to be incredibly low.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Architect1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how deceiving the photo of the cameras is fixed so the camera to the left is much farther down than the next camera and the next one farther down from the right camera to give a totally false impression of the far left one being substantially smaller than the far right camera.
> ...



I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 2, 2018)

melgross said:


> It’s likely that much of what you’re saying is true, but it’s also likely that they want to move all of their chips to onboard ADC. After all, that’s what got Nikon/Sony in front of Canon in the pixel level IQ race, and they haven’t looked back. Canon is about three generations behind there, even in the chips that do have it.



Hmmm...seriously? Three generations behind? That would be comparing the Sony A7R III with the Canon 5D...
When you compare the *same* generation, the differences are minor and mostly indistinguishable.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.



no. when it comes to SIZE i want to see how chubby or slim that baby is ... sensor plane is totally irrelevant to me in this context. If it has a protruding eye-cup on viewfinder, that eye cup eats up valuable space in my photo bag. The way camerasize does it is perfect. Making SIZE and *mirrorslapping air-filled mirrorbox bloatedness* clearly visible.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.



If you want a smaller size and you keep the lens modestly slow, wider FL, etc.: FLC > Mirrorless ILC > SLR. 

I don't need some perfect lining up of the three of them to see that.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.
> ...



Why is a picture needed for that, though? Total volume is pretty much what you’re interested in right? It would be pretty slick if it could could come up with how to pack things to maximize density. With the modularity limits in my bag, I pretty much have to mount the longest lens to a body and then jigsaw everything around it.

To be fair, I don’t use the website. I can buy the case for picking a volumetric envelope as an aligning feature. I just gravitate towards consistency, and the sensor plane is about the only thing you can count on every digital camera having.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Why is a picture needed for that, though? Total volume is pretty much what you’re interested in right? It would be pretty slick if it could could come up with how to pack things to maximize density. With the modularity limits in my bag, I pretty much have to mount the longest lens to a body and then jigsaw everything around it.
> 
> To be fair, I don’t use the website. I can buy the case for picking a volumetric envelope as an aligning feature. I just gravitate towards consistency, and the sensor plane is about the only thing you can count on every digital camera having.



it is not only total volume. It very much depends whether there is protruding stuff. Like lens, grip, viewfinder hump, eye cup etc. 

I go about it the other way round. I go with smallest body plus smallest lens for the job. That determines my "smallest" bag size. And when size/weight don't matter, eg. any place i go to by car, then i just take the "storage pelicase" with "everything plus the kitchen sink in it". Plus tripod. 

btw. not full frame, but my daughter is very pleased that her new M50 plus her preferred 22/2.0 ["because it is so small and I can get the shots i want with it" ] fits in a Lowepro Dashpoint 20 pouch. Up to now she's been using the EOS M 1st gen plus 22/2.0 in the smaller Dashpoint 10. THOSE are "bag" sizes she and I like.  

Unfortunately M50 with 18-55 or 55/200 or 18-150 will not fit into Dashpoint 30. I have already emailed LowePro asking for a "Dashpoint 50" but so far they have nicely and politely declined ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 2, 2018)

Protrusions and bumps (eg viewfinders) don’t typically affect my packing much. The partition walls have enough give to them that they just accept the warts. As long as I can fit the biggest lens I want to bring, I can make it work. If I bring a 300/2.8 or something bigger (rental), it remains separate.


----------



## melgross (Jul 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > It’s likely that much of what you’re saying is true, but it’s also likely that they want to move all of their chips to onboard ADC. After all, that’s what got Nikon/Sony in front of Canon in the pixel level IQ race, and they haven’t looked back. Canon is about three generations behind there, even in the chips that do have it.
> ...



Eh, my post got borked, and now I don’t want to write the entire thing all over.

So in short form (heh):

Yes 3 generations of sensor. A sensor generation is about 1.5 years. The reason is that Sony has been coming out with new cameras about every 1.5 years, and have been using newer sensors. But a camera model must last about 3 years, so that sensor, in that particular camera has a generation of the same time as the camera.

Canon started well behind Nikon/Sony With the onboard ADC. The Nikon D700 was the model that killed Canon’s sensor leadership. Before that, Canon’s sensors were well ahead of Nikon’s. While because it’s been several years, Canon’s latest sensors are better than otherwise. But don’t go by charts, nikon/Sony are still noticeably ahead. Just consider the resolution of those competing sensors when reading the chart. Even so, I’ve seen noticeable differences between the D850 and my 5Dmk IV. Not in favor of Canon.

It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2018)

melgross said:


> It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.



I hear you, but that's neither reasonable nor consistent with the trends of sensor progress over time. Using the generically cruddy numbers from DXO (as a convenience to make a general point):

A7 I: 14.2 Base ISO DR / 2248 ISO (using their SNR / DR / Color high ISO cutoff)
A7 II: 13.6 / 2449 
A7 III: 14.7 / 3730 

A7R I: 14.1 / 2746
A7R II: 13.9 / 3434 (in fairness, this is a jump from 36 to 42 MP here)
A7R III: 14.7 / 3523

From gen I to gen III, both A7 lines above gained a fraction of a stop of DR and high ISO performance. _A fraction of a stop._ It's easy to look at how these sensors test (or how RAW files handle in post) and declare the latest product 'the best ever' -- but when you look at it critically, it's more a trend of creeping up on an asymptote over time. 

Of course, on chip ADC was a huge deal. But everyone's done that now and any one-time bump to base ISO DR is effectively industry standard now.

Yes, Canon sensors are behind Nikon and Sony. But they are not tremendously behind them for me to want to walk away from the EF lenses + first party AF routines, build quality, ergonomics, service, 3rd party ecosystem, etc. 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 2, 2018)

I don’t think it’s necessarily right to assume canon will need to learn the same lessons Sony did, so being 3 (defined by on-dye ACD it’s really 2, right?) generations behind does not imply they can’t “catch” sony’s sensor-level performance.

However, canon is focusing on other areas. They might for example constrain ISO performance by using the dual-diode-per-pixel architecture of DPAF sensors, and decide that on balance it’s worthwhile to camera performance especially as they march towards more mirrorless systems. Where does that show up in the sensor lineage?


----------



## melgross (Jul 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.
> ...


When you compare a 45mp sensor with better noise and dynamic range to a 30mp sensor, the the jump is bigger than you’re stating. Those are significantly smaller pixels, and formthem to still be better, even by a half stop, is significant. Why? Because of the well known phenomenon whareas two images of the same size, with equal pixel quality won’t look equal if one has significantly higher resolution. And I’m not talking about sharpness. It’s noise. The higher Rez picture will always look less noisy. We did tests on that in my own lab, years ago, and it still holds true today.

The the practical result is that with the same size image, the 45mp Nikon image (which is slightly better than the Sony sensor) will look quieter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.
> ...



No they aren't, if ultimate DR is your primary criteria then the 5D MkIV with dual pixel RAW processing ETTR'ed is the best performing 135 format sensor available. Yes the 5D MkIV out DR's any Sony or Nikon ff camera.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2018)

But the goalposts have moved to “exposure latitude.”

In a way that’s fair, most Competing sensors are within spitting distance of each other in one category, so it makes sense to focus them on another category. Of course you’re not gonna get any of the big camera measurement sites to use some weird rawdigger plug-in thingamajig, So unless Canon decides it’s as important as the most vocal forum dwellers and builds it into an accessible format, it might as well not exist.


----------



## slclick (Jul 3, 2018)

Y'all must have tiny hands for your teeny FF MILC wishlist. Me, I need button and dial separation for no bumping or opening of menus. I have learned I simply cannot do macro on a rail with the M5 like I can the 5D3 since close quarters down low equate to making constant adjustments and when controls are too tight, things get moved. It's also a reason I ditched the Olympus Pen F. Oh to be a small person...(plus you can sleep on jets)


----------



## dak723 (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.
> ...



You can throw charts at folks, you can show them the numbers, but if people truly want to believe that Canon is way behind then they will believe! No use for the truth to get in the way! Belief, belief is all that matters!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

melgross said:


> When you compare a 45mp sensor with better noise and dynamic range to a 30mp sensor, the the jump is bigger than you’re stating.



So my A7 I/II/III comparison of three different Sony sensors at the same resolution but from three different points in time was inappropriate... why exactly? 

I'll wait.

My point was that sensors aren't galloping ahead in performance year over year. They are creeping forward ever so slightly, as those numbers show.

Your D850 vs. 5D4 reference is misplaced. I concede Canon is slightly behind, but I was talking improvement over time. But, while I'm here:

D810: 14.8 / 2853
D850: 14.8 / 2660 (3 years later, +9 more MP)

If you want to moan about Canon in comparison to Nikon or Sony, go for it. But the idea that everyone's sensors are smashing performance barriers and obsoleting last-gen sensors with frequent large performance bumps, that's simply not happening right now.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > When you compare a 45mp sensor with better noise and dynamic range to a 30mp sensor, the the jump is bigger than you’re stating.
> ...



I’d say that’s only true if you concern yourself with base sensitivity dynamic range. 

Perhaps 13 +/-1 ev or so of dynamic range is roughly the maximum for the prevailing architecture, but there are other performance measures, arguably more important than marginal improvements in DR. There have been advances in other areas, for example framerate, readout speed, OSPDAF, etc.

Note the sensor in the A7R/D800 is only good for ~5FPS. Sony managed a 17% resolution increase and 100% framerate increase (A7R3) without giving up noise performance (in fact improving it). Canon split its pixels in two and, properly processed, has the best DR in class. The narrow focus is good for easy clicks on measurement sites, but tells a fraction of the CMOS image sensor state of the art.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I’d say that’s only true if you concern yourself with base sensitivity dynamic range. There have been advances in other areas, for example framerate, readout speed, OSPDAF, etc.



Sure, I'm not saying other aspects of bodies aren't getting better and we should stop buying new cameras. Throughput in particular has gone up considerably in the last gen, video keeps improving, etc. I'm just saying that the 'film' in the camera isn't getting that much better over time any more.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I’d say that’s only true if you concern yourself with base sensitivity dynamic range. There have been advances in other areas, for example framerate, readout speed, OSPDAF, etc.
> ...



But many of those body aspects are limited by the “film”! It’s not sufficient to limit the scope of a sensor performance discussion two one or two factors. Doing so is a disservice to the CMOS manufacturers and to the users.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> But many of those body aspects are limited by the “film”! It’s not sufficient to limit the scope of a sensor performance discussion two one or two factors. Doing so it a disservice to the CMOS manufacturers and to the users.



Complete agreement. I'm just saying folks by and large aren't flipping tables over in anger over read noise or throughput like they are for those two sensor metrics. When someone whinges about Canon vs. Sony sensors, it's overwhelmingly about DR, it seems. Because we _all _live at base ISO on a tripod or in a studio. :

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > But many of those body aspects are limited by the “film”! It’s not sufficient to limit the scope of a sensor performance discussion two one or two factors. Doing so it a disservice to the CMOS manufacturers and to the users.
> ...



flipping tables over in anger ;D ;D



> When someone whinges about Canon vs. Sony sensors, it's overwhelmingly about DR, it seems



I copy.

And I believe that is largely due to what ratings sites choose to focus on, which I suspect is largely determined by what is easy to objectively review.


----------



## melgross (Jul 3, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > melgross said:
> ...



I’d like to see some real evidence of that.


----------



## melgross (Jul 3, 2018)

dak723 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > melgross said:
> ...



Well, if you actually looked at that chart, you would see that they’re behind. But that chart is just a single thing, showing just one thing. Not terribly useful.


----------



## melgross (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > When you compare a 45mp sensor with better noise and dynamic range to a 30mp sensor, the the jump is bigger than you’re stating.
> ...



The fact that they can add 9mp more, and have the same basic numbers proves my point, and by the way, the 850 is widely considered to have better IQ. That’s not really in dispute. How fast are these advances coming, well, we never really know. That because while we see the improvements from year to year, historically, it doesn’t tell us what’s going on behind the lab doors. Remember that the Nikon D700 shocked everybody when it came out, and ended Canon’s Sensor dominance.

We don’t need to f]defend Canon’s honor here, they’re just cameras, after all, and they’re what I use exclusively, and have since about 1970, so I’m not trying to dig anything here. But the fact is that Canon is behind, though by not much, it’s true. But I’d like to see them move ahead decisively. Don’t all of us here?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’d like to see some real evidence of that.



I'm completely lost. Aren't you the one demanding the sensors catch up to the bad guys?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

melgross said:


> We don’t need to f]defend Canon’s honor here, they’re just cameras, after all, and they’re what I use exclusively, and have since about 1970, so I’m not trying to dig anything here. But the fact is that Canon is behind, though by not much, it’s true. But I’d like to see them move ahead decisively. Don’t all of us here?



I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying present evidence from virtually every manufacturer would imply that a massive performance leap forward isn't likely in 2018 unless more drastic changes are taken on -- like going to medium format.

Canon, like Sony, like Nikon, will continue to tweak and improve their sensor designs. But I think the days of 1-2 stops better performance than the last model (in the same size / price point) are behind us, that's all.

Don't misunderstand me: I'd love what you are asking for. I just don't think it's a reasonable ask.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2018)

melgross said:


> Remember that the Nikon D700 shocked everybody when it came out, and ended Canon’s Sensor dominance.



Sensor dominance? Is that really a thing’? Fine, it ended. So what? Outside of propagating interminable internet debates, what was the result of the end of Canon’s ‘sensor dominance’? What happened to Canon’s market share after they no longer had ‘sensor dominance’? 

By all means, continue the debate – I’m sure it’s highly relevant here on the internet. But please realize that in the real world – out there where people buy cameras and take pictures – it’s completely irrelevant.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2018)

melgross said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Can you define “real evidence”?

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

For my uses, it is too much of a pain in the butt to consider, but then I’m able to “make do” with 1Dx dynamic range.


----------



## melgross (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > I’d like to see some real evidence of that.
> ...



I would just like to see some evidence of what was said. There was a claim made. That’s all.


----------



## melgross (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t need to f]defend Canon’s honor here, they’re just cameras, after all, and they’re what I use exclusively, and have since about 1970, so I’m not trying to dig anything here. But the fact is that Canon is behind, though by not much, it’s true. But I’d like to see them move ahead decisively. Don’t all of us here?
> ...



I don’t consider it to be a massive step. But again, when looking at sensors with a lot more pixels - smaller pixels, and yet better pixel performance, even as you say, it’s slight, I can see Canon making a bigger per pixel performance boost if they don’t add all those pixels. I don’t understand what the controversy is all about. It’s pretty straightforward. I would,d like to see a 1.5 stop improvement. I’m not saying they can do that right now.

I’m not happy about the renewed megapixel race. It seems that it’s the amateur market that cares about that. Meanwhile both Canon and Nikon have top shelf pro cameras that are at the 20mp level, and have been for some time.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2018)

melgross said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > melgross said:
> ...



I don’t think wanting an improvement is controversial. Rather, the precipitating post that canon is behind was merely incorrect. If one goes through the trouble of exploiting the subframe associated with DCRAW, you can recover a ~14 stop scene with a single exposure from a 5D4, which is above the 13.5 and 13.55 of a7R3 and D850, respectively.

1.5 stops more? Sure, that would be nice. Might be impossible, but nice.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 3, 2018)

melgross said:


> I would,d like to see a 1.5 stop improvement. I’m not saying they can do that right now.



Ah. That red bit above was not clear to me. Most folks who want stronger sensors want everything immediately. 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > I would,d like to see a 1.5 stop improvement. I’m not saying they can do that right now.
> ...



What do we want?
“Time travel”
When do we want it?
“That’s irrelevant.


----------



## Cryve (Jul 4, 2018)

As for Aps-c the nikon d500 has the cleanest iso performance. It has nearly zero color noise, while the 7dii and 80d have much more color noise. 

Do you think that canon can make the 7d iii have the same or better iso performance than the d500 and correct their color noise issues?


----------



## melgross (Jul 4, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



That’s nice. Rawdigger is comparing the Canon sensor to the same Canon sensor. I get the dual pixel technology v]Canon has, and it has a lot of potential. I will agree with that. But that link only shows the Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > melgross said:
> ...



I don't make a "claim" I made a statement.

The above linked page illustrates that there is another stop of highlight latitude within the second frame, which if you think about the way they are processing the master file is obvious. Ergo add 1 stop to any testers DR range for a normal 5D MkIV file.

Most agree that the measurements here are the best indicator. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7R

On this chart the standard 5D MkIV reading is 0.8 of a stop behind the D850 and 0.82 of a stop behind the A7R (Sony's best performer). Add back the stop the Dual Pixel RAW affords you and the 5D MkIV is the best by 0.18 of a stop. I'd also point out that below 600 iso the 5D MkIV comfortably outperforms the Sony A9 even without the dual pixel cleverness.

These are not "claims" they are facts backed up with results and a published methodology you can replicate yourself.


----------

