# What's Next from Canon?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/whats-next-from-canon/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/whats-next-from-canon/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The latest announcements from Canon aren’t exactly receiving a lot of positive feedback in my inbox. The G1 X with an EVF for $1000 seems to be irking a lot of people. For that price, the camera needs to be the absolute best in the segment, and I think that’s going to be a hard thing to achieve.</p>
<p>To a lot of people, the resources put into the G1 X II would have probably been better served by moving the EOS M into the mainstream. The M2 isn’t coming to North America, and I highly doubt a lot of G1 X II cameras are going to sell at the introduction price of $799. When the camera is $499, things will probably be different.</p>
<p>We’re told between March and August that Canon will start to announce products that make sense and will be popular.</p>
<p>The EOS 7D Mark II will finally be unveiled and should be in your eager hands by the fall of 2014. It will set a new benchmark in the APS-C segment.</p>
<p>A lot of new lenses are coming, the biggest being a replacement of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. We’re told that could be announced as early as March, but availability will not be immediate.</p>
<p>A third DSLR will be announced in 2014, though we’re not sure what that will be.</p>
<p>The Cinema EOS line will see a new camera or two for NAB in April, we’re told a lower cost 4K camera will be the star of the show.</p>
<p>There will also be another few PowerShot cameras announced sometime between now and May. Included in that will be the replacement to the SX50 IS.</p>
<p>Things haven’t been too exciting for Canon since the introduction of the very good EOS 6D, but even that started with a whimper. We’re told to expect a lot of exciting products throughout 2014 and that the Canon customer will be happy with the direction of the company.</p>
<p>More to come….</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 14, 2014)

> ...Canon will start to announce products that make sense...



Now _that_ really would be news... :


----------



## RichM (Feb 14, 2014)

I purchased my 7d as soon as I could get my hands on it in '09. I had to send it in for its first repair. I'm hoping that the 7d2 comes out sooner rather than later!! While I dream of a 1dx, the 7d2 is more likely to be in my price ranger ;-)


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 14, 2014)

10fps + 41 cross AF points = 7D II


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 14, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told between March and August that Canon will start to announce products that make sense




Well-played. I got a chuckle, anyway.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 14, 2014)

Personally I think the G1X II is awesome (the name is pretty rough though). According to the DPreview preview, this camera has the most luminous lens/sensor setup of any large sensor compact (.7 EV better than the Sony RX100 II).
24-120 f/2-4 with IS is really in the ballpark of what I had hoped for on this camera, & ~12MP is a good sweet spot too.

The price will come down over time (you'll just have to buy a viewfinder on ebay or something if you want it cheaper). If you have one of these I don't really see a justification for carrying around a non-FF DSLR unless you need super-long or super-wide lenses, or a really fast portrait/low-light lens. The price would have been lower if they hadn't bothered with EOS M.

IMHO the execution of the EOS M system was pretty poor; theyd've been better served by further promoting the 100D/SL1 and coming out with a couple of compact EF zooms for it (the compact primes are finally coming along nicely & hopefully we'll see 50 or 85mm primes with IS soon).


----------



## Woody (Feb 14, 2014)

funkboy said:


> Personally I think the G1X II is awesome (the name is pretty rough though). According to the DPreview preview, this camera has the most luminous lens/sensor setup of any large sensor compact (.7 EV better than the Sony RX100 II).
> 24-120 f/2-4 with IS is really in the ballpark of what I had hoped for on this camera, & ~12MP is a good sweet spot too.
> 
> The price will come down over time (you'll just have to buy a viewfinder on ebay or something if you want it cheaper). If you have one of these I don't really see a justification for carrying around a non-FF DSLR unless you need super-long or super-wide lenses, or a really fast portrait/low-light lens. The price would have been lower if they hadn't bothered with EOS M.
> ...



+1. Everything you said.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 14, 2014)

Canon, please give us a new APS-C "game changer" in the future 7D mark ii. If dual pixel AF worsens the image quality, do 7D mark ii without it. Just 16 megapixel camera with low noise at ISO 3200, and I'd be happy.


----------



## linus (Feb 14, 2014)

I think what's exciting is that there is apparently going to be a hotshoe-mount evf. I don't know what they're going to do with it but it opens up the possibility at least that there will be one available for interchangeable lens cameras (which would be a very nice thing for video). I would hope to see one compatible with the last generation (year or two) of cameras but I won't exactly be holding my breath. Who knows though what secrets lie in recent firmware updates...


----------



## Woody (Feb 14, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The EOS 7D Mark II will finally be unveiled and should be in your eager hands by the fall of 2014. It will set a new benchmark in the APS-C segment...
> 
> A lot of new lenses are coming, the biggest being a replacement of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. We’re told that could be announced as early as March, but availability will not be immediate...
> 
> We’re told to expect a lot of exciting products throughout 2014 and that the Canon customer will be happy with the direction of the company.



Camera benchmarks are determined not just by fps or pixel count, sensor quality plays a very BIG role too. Canon has not been doing well in this last department for the past few years. Sigh...

As for new lenses, I am interested only in the 50 f/1.8 IS and 16-50 f/4 IS. Hopefully, I can get hold of these lenses before my big trip in July.

Canon has been moving VERY slowly in the past few years. They may be the market shares leader, but their products seem to lack the kind of awe and fanfare their competitors enjoy: D800, A7R and EM1.

I think the G1X II is an awesome camera. My only gripes are: lack of dual pixel AF (why???) and exorbitant price (which should come down after a while).


----------



## PHYSICA (Feb 14, 2014)

G1XmkII and the other stuffs are not excited news , but there's another things which made me excited is...... the NEW external EVF for G1XmkII....

why made me excited? other brand already have this kind of stuff.....? 

Yes ,it's true, but NEW External EVF means two points:
1). Canon admit the necessary of EVF (either build-in or add-on ).
2). Old useless OVF on G series is not welcome. (i seldom use it on my G16)
3). The Possibility of EVF Compatibility of later product....... E.G.: Powershot G17 ? or EOS M-3???

EOS M with a External EVF will be a good idea, Build-in one is nice , but actually i love to add EVF when i need more then already build one.


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2014)

Sounds like the rumors about the 7D II release are finally solidifying. That's good news, about time that camera was finally released. 

It is also very interesting to hear the 100-400 might finally be getting it's replacement! I'd be fairly interested in that lens. 

I totally agree about the G1X II price...very odd. I think whoever is managing the G line and the EOS-M lines are really not in tune with the western markets. The positioning of those models is too high up the price ladder for over here. They may sell like hotcakes in Japan, but Japan isn't the US or EU.

Canon needs to bring a full mirrorless ecosystem to the US. An -M with a couple basic lenses will never break through the established DSLR market. Too many people have Rebels, and too many have purchased additional lenses. EOS-M needs LENSES! Would be really nice to see something like EOS-M Pro released here in the US with a whole range of lenses from maybe a fisheye prime, through wide primes and zooms, to long primes, to long zooms and maybe a telephoto. That's a big handful of lenses, but I don't think the US market would be interested in EOS-M unless there are some good, dedicated lenses for it at the same time. (And an EVF, of course...I guess that one is a given.)


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Feb 14, 2014)

I personally just need a reliable 50mm. 

1.8, 1.4, 1.X? I don't care.. Under $600 ideally, reliable, accurate, decent sharpness and bokeh, I'll buy one the day it's announced.. 



JustMeOregon said:


> > ...Canon will start to announce products that make sense...
> 
> 
> 
> Now _that_ really would be news... :



Good one.....


----------



## Cory (Feb 14, 2014)

Woody said:


> 16-50 f/4 IS


Is there a 16-50 inbound? That could be what I'm looking for.


----------



## Woody (Feb 14, 2014)

Cory said:


> Is there a 16-50 inbound? That could be what I'm looking for.



CR2 rumor of possible candidate:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15455.msg281672#msg281672


----------



## infared (Feb 14, 2014)

Well....I NEVER thought that I would say THIS....but I am more interested in What's Next From Sigma!!!


----------



## eriet30 (Feb 14, 2014)

I really think it will be too late. Competition is moving too fast. Canon is following an old school business model. Like Blackberry you can be on the top one day and totally gone the next.

I dont see ANY excitement from their recent announcements and their loyal fans are desperately looking for at big zoom update and 7d update as well as something to counter the A7r.

Need some excitement


----------



## unfocused (Feb 14, 2014)

Woody said:


> ...sensor quality plays a very BIG role too. Canon has not been doing well in this last department for the past few years. Sigh...



I just don't understand comments like that. While Canon may be a bit slow on updating its APS-C sensors, I don't know how anyone can really criticize the 1D, 5D or 6D sensors. Canon customers ripped Canon for emphasizing megapixels over ISO performance, so Canon got conservative on the megapixels and produced sensors that outshine the competition in ISO performance. 

The high megapixel D800 is a flop in comparison to the 5DIII. Nikon's flagship has less resolution than Canon's (why doesn't anyone ever ask why it is that if the high megapixel D800 is so great, Nikon steered away from high megapixels in its flagship).

In fact, judging from the comments on this forum by people who use the 70D, it sounds like the new dual-pixel sensor performs well above its pay grade.


----------



## Cory (Feb 14, 2014)

I think it's more exciting to take better pictures on old inferior gear, but I'm in for a 16-50 that's nice, priced not-too-badly and moderately compact (and f4 is a reasonable compromise).


----------



## PHYSICA (Feb 14, 2014)

Cory said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > 16-50 f/4 IS
> ...



if it is EF lens , then it's good.

If it is EF-S lens.... this is just a kit lens.....nothing special


----------



## Ricku (Feb 14, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > ...sensor quality plays a very BIG role too. Canon has not been doing well in this last department for the past few years. Sigh...
> ...


Slightly, and only on higher ISO levels.

When it comes to base ISO _(where most people shoot most of their photos)_, SoNikon completely destroys Canon's ancient sensors in terms of pure IQ and dynamic range. Canon hasn't even gotten rid of the dreadful shadow banding yet. Wtf? 

Canon is only interesting for lenses now days. My EF-glass lives a happy life on my A7R. A tiny mirrorless camera that blows the 5D and 1DX out of the water. The difference in IQ is so big that I'll most likely never use my 5D3 again.


----------



## Zv (Feb 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sounds like the rumors about the 7D II release are finally solidifying. That's good news, about time that camera was finally released.
> 
> It is also very interesting to hear the 100-400 might finally be getting it's replacement! I'd be fairly interested in that lens.
> 
> ...



I agree the G1X at around $400 is an attractive second camera but the mark 2 is ¥81,000 on amazon.jp, that's $90 away from a brand new 7D! You'd have to be mad! 

The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable. The M2 is overpriced too and selling poorly with bad reviews on amazon.jp. I don't think Japanese people want to spend over $500 for what are perceived as "digicameras" or compact cameras. Almost everyone here has an iPhone or a smartphone and I see a lot of people using them or DSLRs when it comes to events and things like cherry blossom season. 

I would like to see more lenses for the M mount. And I want Canon to take mirrorless seriously and make a decent M3 worthy of forking out five hundred bucks. The M2 is a joke. Improved AF and wifi for double the price? No. They should have been in the original M to begin with.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm curious if the successor to the SX-50 will have dual-pixel technologies and what the zoom will be.


----------



## Zv (Feb 14, 2014)

dilbert said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Well....I NEVER thought that I would say THIS....but I am more interested in What's Next From Sigma!!!
> ...



And Samyang too! I'm looking fwd to seeing what they do with AF if rumors are true. 

Sad days when a we get more excited about 3rd party gear more than Canon.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 14, 2014)

Zv said:


> Sad days when a we get more excited about 3rd party gear more than Canon.


I disagree; the more options the better. I own a Tokina super-wide, a Sigma kit lens, and the rest of my lenses are Canon. Other than brand loyalty, what does it matter who is making the best lens?

Imagine if Sigma was still the old Sigma, and Tamron was the old Tamron...you'd have poor AF lenses that break, weak warranties, and you'd basically only have expensive Canon gear as your option. You'd be stuck waiting for the Xmas rebates to get reasonable prices. Instead, the used market for gear has gotten much cheaper, and Canon has been forced to cut their prices a lot after release.

I also think people forget, all the lenses that Canon has released in the last 2-3 years have been almost universally praised. The 70-200 and 24-70 are the holy grail for most pros. The non-L IS primes are really sharp (and now reasonably priced). Even the 40mm pancake was good, if a little odd. Even their kit lenses keep getting better. They just have such a successful line that they arent forced to swing for the fences like Sigma/Tamron are


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2014)

Ricku said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



I would dispute that most people shoot at base ISO. I'd be willing to bet there are a hell of a lot more people who photograph some kind of action or shooting in low light, than there are people who photograph more still scenes. Even wedding photographers shoot at higher ISO settings, many of them even shoot at very high ISOs on purpose for that grain-like aesthetic in black and white. You have all the olympics shooters, sports shooters, street photographers, wildlife and bird photographers, concert and event shooters, air show and race shooters, the paparazzi, photo journalism is at high ISO as much as lower ISO, etc. 

People who shoot at lower ISO? Landscape photographers, maybe macro photographers (although if your going for extreme macro with an MP-E 65 or extension tubes, your at least at ISO 400 if not 800 or more), studio photographers (however when it comes to studio photography, you have total control over light, shadow, and scene DR, so having more stops of DR isn't a necessity...it's simply a nicety.) 

Oh, and, you have amateur photographers!  However, amateurs shoot at low ISO all the time out of ignorance, not because they need to. Once an amateur becomes something else, the chances they will use higher ISOs more than lower ISOs greatly increases. 

So, yeah. I STRONGLY dispute the notion that "most" photographers use base ISO. Far more things in the world involve action of some kind, in which case you are either full manual and explicitly choosing a higher ISO, or your using a priority mode and choosing your shutter speed in one way or another (leaving ISO on auto, in which case it will most certainly float above ISO 100 and 200 the majority of the time.)


----------



## Solar Eagle (Feb 14, 2014)

I don't see why the G1X II would be any less than $799 at launch. The RX100 II is still $699, and the G1X II is offers a heck of a lot more than that camera. 

I paid full price for the original G1X, and I'll do the same here. To me the G1X was my dream camera, minus the 1cm macro form the G series. The Mark II offers 5cm macro, a full stop faster, wifi, 24mm, and almost same size as EOS M. Al-in-all it IS my dream camera, and in fact its MORE than I even dreamed of getting!!! I'm not one those folks that dreams outside the laws of physics, lol. BRAVO Canon. Proved to EVERYBODY (Not literally) that they are the best of the best. Sony looked good for a little while anyway. lol 

Bring on the Mark II, WITHOUT the EFV, which I think is pretty dorky looking in practice. hahaha


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


I tend to shoot around ISO320 in sunlight or cloudy days, 640 on darker days and early mornings/late evenings, and 3200 and above indoors, unless using the flash where I tend towards 160...


----------



## Woody (Feb 14, 2014)

Zv said:


> The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable.



That is entirely FALSE. 

After its price cut, the EOS-M is the SECOND most popular mirrorless camera in Japan in 2013 (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html) and this enabled Canon to capture 9.3% of the mirrorless camera market share (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1401/140110_27101.html). In contrast, Panasonic and Nikon with their MULTIPLE camera models only managed to capture 14.2 and 9.2% market shares.

Please get your facts straight before you post rubbish on the web.


----------



## Zv (Feb 14, 2014)

Woody said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable.
> ...



Fair enough, I stand corrected. 9.2% of the Mirrorless market is hardly anything to have a song and dance about. And second place is still second place, as in there is another camera that is more popular. 

Still hardly ever see them out in the wild. No one I know owns one. 

You could have been a bit more tactful with your put down. I hardly stated any numbers or facts to begin with, and yeah I should have researched it and added that it was my opinion that it seems a less popular option.


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2014)

Zv said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Your ignoring the fact that Canon gained 9.2% of the market share in a year. All other mirrorless contendors, including Nikon and Panasonic, were there years ahead of Canon. To gain as much market share as Nikon in a fraction of the time is very telling.

As I've said before, EOS-M seems to be selling like hotcakes in Japan, and sells relatively well in the Asian markets overall. If the current rate is sustained, Canon could easily rise to second largest mirrorless manufacturer in Japan and possibly all of the asian markets within another year or two. THAT is the point.


----------



## CanoSony (Feb 14, 2014)

Solar Eagle said:


> I don't see why the G1X II would be any less than $799 at launch. The RX100 II is still $699, and the G1X II is offers a heck of a lot more than that camera.
> 
> I paid full price for the original G1X, and I'll do the same here. To me the G1X was my dream camera, minus the 1cm macro form the G series. The Mark II offers 5cm macro, a full stop faster, wifi, 24mm, and almost same size as EOS M. Al-in-all it IS my dream camera, and in fact its MORE than I even dreamed of getting!!! I'm not one those folks that dreams outside the laws of physics, lol. BRAVO Canon. Proved to EVERYBODY (Not literally) that they are the best of the best. Sony looked good for a little while anyway. lol
> 
> Bring on the Mark II, WITHOUT the EFV, which I think is pretty dorky looking in practice. hahaha



You can get a Sony a6000 for $800 with faster AF, better DR, better lowlight, more AF points, 90% AF coverage, AND EVF.

FOR $800!


http://camerasize.com/compact/#535,534,ha,f


yeah...


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Feb 14, 2014)

Somehow I bumped into a rumor of the Nikon D4s and though "This is my perfect camera!" FF, 24MP, 10FPS. Well, only in specs because Nikon ergos and UI don't work for me. But that's a sweet camera in specs. The D4 is a nice camera too.

I wish Canon would come out with something that exciting. The 1Dx last did it for me. The 5D MKIII just missed the boat a bit. If you don't need the much improved AF, you don't need an upgrade. And the older version is already 3 or so years old. It's sad.

The G1x MKII is a $400 - $450 camera. I hope no one has their career riding on sales of that camera. Give me the EOS-M anytime.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 14, 2014)

infared said:


> Well....I NEVER thought that I would say THIS....but I am more interested in What's Next From Sigma!!!



Yup, I'm pretty much sold on the new 50mm, and If Sigma comes out with a solid supertelephoto prime it's going to make justifying the price of a Big White that much harder.
If only they could produce a decent body that puts AF with Sigma lenses at the same level as the established systems.

The 100-400 MkII could be interesting, but the SX50 IS successor actually is holding more interest than anything else at the moment.


----------



## Woody (Feb 14, 2014)

Zv said:


> And second place is still second place, as in there is another camera that is more popular.



Firstly, there are more than 30 models of mirrorless cameras out there and to be ranked in second place is nothing to snort at.

Secondly, the most popular model, NEX-5R, only managed to capture 11.9% market shares, a smidge more than the EOS-M at 9.2%. If the most popular model is commanding 20 to 30% market share, then you may have a point here. But that's clearly not the case here. 



Zv said:


> Still hardly ever see them out in the wild. No one I know owns one.
> 
> You could have been a bit more tactful with your put down. I hardly stated any numbers or facts to begin with, and yeah I should have researched it and added that it was my opinion that it seems a less popular option.



To extend your personal observations based on a small circle of people you know to the entire population of camera users in Japan is to spread falsehood with no basis.


----------



## ajndesign (Feb 14, 2014)

CanoSony said:


> Solar Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see why the G1X II would be any less than $799 at launch. The RX100 II is still $699, and the G1X II is offers a heck of a lot more than that camera.
> ...


I know eactly who the G1X mark II is marketed for.... ME!
I think what people don't get is that people like me just don't want a camera with separate lenses! but still want decent image quality. If I could buy a good m43 camera with a lens that did macro, zoom, wide appature etc, then maybe I'd think about it, but what would be the point? as I would never take off that lens!
Ok so the price is a bit steep, but it would be the only thing I'd ever need in my kit bag!
Yes you can buy the new sony with a lens for about the same price, but then you'd need extra lens for the other shooting conditions.
I have pre-ordered the new G1x and I can't wait to get out there with it!


----------



## Einstein333 (Feb 14, 2014)

"Things haven’t been too exciting for Canon since the introduction of the very good EOS 6D".
Are you kidding me? I was really disappointed with the introduction of that camera as it has only one usable AF point (way behind the competition)


----------



## Zv (Feb 14, 2014)

Woody said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > And second place is still second place, as in there is another camera that is more popular.
> ...



What exactly are we trying to achieve here?

As you can see I have an EOS M. I Like the EOS M. I want to see more lenses for the EOS M. I wish the camera had more notoriety and market share so that Canon might create more for the EOS M. 

Which part do you disagree upon? 

No one listens to my observations or opinions anyway. Sorry if I have tainted the web with my deceit!


----------



## eLroberto (Feb 14, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The EOS 7D Mark II will finally be unveiled and should be in your eager hands by the fall of 2014. It will set a new benchmark in the APS-C segment.



Lets take a look on the upgrade cycle:

xxxxD Series - every three years

xxxD Series - quite every year

xxD Series - up to two years

xD Series - 7D and the 1DsIII on top with up to six years. All the others between two and four years. 

Why does it take forever for the 7D? This makes just no sense to me. I'm just quite sick of waiting... I even start thinking about buying a used 1DIV or a new 5DIII. Come on Canon, hurry up!


----------



## lw (Feb 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> THAT is the point.



But surely *the *point is - _only _in Japan...

There's no guarantee right now that Canon will sell any further M series products in the US or EU.


----------



## baldaran (Feb 14, 2014)

eLroberto said:


> Lets take a look on the upgrade cycle:
> 
> xxxxD Series - every three years
> 
> ...



Canons Update cycle in the higher segments is rather unpredictable for me. The 60D was released back in 2009 together with the 7D. The sucessor of the 60D was released last year, so it took roughly 4 years to upgrade to the 70D. If the rumors of the 7D Mark 2 are true we will see a sucessor this year. 
The G1X was released in 2012 ... so we have a 2 year upgrade cycle for this model so far. And the EOS M was released back in 2012 as well ... no "real" upgrade available so far.

I ask myself if the rumored third DSLR could be an upgrade for the 700D, the 6D, or for the EOS 100D??? I think one of the sucessors of these cameras could get Dual-Pixel technology as well


----------



## lw (Feb 14, 2014)

I think I might be in the segment that is most under threat from Canon's mirrorless competitors.

I am not a pro, never will be. I enjoy my photography, but not that enthusiastic (nor have specialist interests like sport) that I am about to buy things like a 7D mk II or L lenses...

I have had a succession of low-end Canon DSLRs - 450D, 500D, 600D - all bought a price points when I could sell on my current model and upgrade for a low cost - and been happy enough with mainly EF-S lenses and a couple of the cheaper EF primes.

I then bought lock stock and barrel into the EOS M as I wanted a more compact system and my small investment in Canon lenses and accessories was enough to tip me in favour of staying in the Canon world.

Good though the M is for the price, it does have many shortcomings. And my worry is now that Canon are not showing any commitment to the M system outside of Asia and so I have no guarantee that even if they address those shortcomings, Canon will be willing to sell it to me. Who knows? I was surprised like everyone that they didn't make the M2 available outside Asia, so there is no guarantee the M3 will be either should it arrive.

So now I look at the recent launches of the Sony A6000 and the Olympus OM-D E10, and can see that whilst they may not offer sufficient to tempt the committed Canon DSLR enthusiast away, they are good enough for the likes of me who might have bought an M2 or say a 700D.

Here in the UK it is interesting to note that the pre-order prices of the Sony A6000 (£729) and the Olympus OM-D E10 (£599) with kit lenses are both lower than the G1 X II (£749). And that is before you even add the price of the EVF to the G1 X II, that the others already have.
Now we can argue that these are not really competitors, but it does kinda highlight the VFM these cameras offer for their feature set compared to Canon.

And you might argue that I will never be able to get the quality of Canon L lenses on Sony or Olympus, but for people like me that is a mute point because I will never be buying L lenses for my existing Canon anyway...

In the mass consumer market where I am happy to select my Cameras from then I really am tempted now to jump to a A6000 or E10 as Canon offer me nothing that comes even remotely close feature wise IMO. 

The lure of an M3 or M-Pro at some distant unknown point in the future, without a guarantee that even then they will be willing to sell it to me in the EU, isn't enough.

Canon need to be making signs really quick - even if it is just lenses - that they are committed to the mirrorless market in the EU or I am gone (probably before my summer holiday when I will be contemplating what camera I will take - and I don't want to be carting around a bulky DSLR...)


----------



## funkboy (Feb 14, 2014)

tianxiaozhang said:


> I personally just need a reliable 50mm.
> 
> 1.8, 1.4, 1.X? I don't care.. Under $600 ideally, reliable, accurate, decent sharpness and bokeh, I'll buy one the day it's announced..



The new Sigma 50mm Art should get the job done for you.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> I would dispute that most people shoot at base ISO.



Agree with you completely. Ever since I got the 6D I leave it on Auto ISO 90+% of the time. If I fiddle with anything ISO related, it's the minimum shutter speed and max auto ISO parameters, which I have on the quick menu.


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 14, 2014)

well when you know what your doing you try to keep your ISO as low as possible.

sure most consumers and soccer moms will not keep such a close eye on the ISO setting.

in my small home studio i always shoot at ISO 100.
i have plenty of light so why should i go higher.

when doing nature and wildlife i try too keep the ISO as low as possible.
i never use auto ISO.

only time when i use auto ISO is is when i do city traveling.
then light changes often so fast, inside outside, shadows of buildings etc. that auto ISO is a help.


----------



## traveller (Feb 14, 2014)

Can people on these forums kindly make up their minds on what kit I should buy, because I'm getting sick of the constant opinion changes. 

First I lost thousands switching from Canon to Nikon, just to find that Sony is the new "must have". At least I can get further use of my Nikkors until Sony actually manages to release more than a handful of FE lenses. 

Lest you think that things have been easier with my mirrorless system, I was quite happy with my Panasonic until Sony NEX came out and everyone said the APS-C sensor stuffed micro-4/3rds. I'd nearly assembled a full kit of E-mount lenses, when Sony suddenly stopped making them and everyone told me that I should buy Olympus! Then Fuji released their X-mount cameras, which was really tempting until the A7R came along and everyone said that anything less than full frame was useless. 

I'm now divorced and totally broke, I can't afford a holiday or put fuel in the car. Consequently, my current photographic exploits consist of taking pictures of the outside of my house on a sunny day, then pulling the shadows indoors to show how much dynamic range my camera has. When I get bored of that, I shoot some test charts and wander down to my local cafe to take pictures of the froth on other peoples lattes. 

;D ;D ;D


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2014)

traveller said:


> Can people on these forums kindly make up their minds on what kit I should buy, because I'm getting sick of the constant opinion changes.
> 
> First I lost thousands switching from Canon to Nikon, just to find that Sony is the new "must have". At least I can get further use of my Nikkors until Sony actually manages to release more than a handful of FE lenses.
> 
> ...



Gee, if you could shoot some cats and brick walls, you'd be my favorite photographer!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 14, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The G1 X with an EVF for $1000 seems to be irking a lot of people. For that price, the camera needs to be the absolute best in the segment, and I think that’s going to be a hard thing to achieve.
> I highly doubt a lot of G1 X II cameras are going to sell at the introduction price of $799. When the camera is $499, things will probably be different.


+1



Canon Rumors said:


> To a lot of people, the resources put into the G1 X II would have probably been better served by moving the EOS M into the mainstream.


*Absolutely!*



Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told between March and August that Canon will start to announce products that make sense and will be popular. The EOS 7D Mark II will finally be unveiled and should be in your eager hands by the fall of 2014. It will set a new benchmark in the APS-C segment.
> A lot of new lenses are coming, the biggest being a replacement of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. We’re told that could be announced as early as March, but availability will not be immediate.


Yippee!


----------



## Azathoth (Feb 14, 2014)

traveller said:


> Can people on these forums kindly make up their minds on what kit I should buy, because I'm getting sick of the constant opinion changes.
> 
> First I lost thousands switching from Canon to Nikon, just to find that Sony is the new "must have". At least I can get further use of my Nikkors until Sony actually manages to release more than a handful of FE lenses.
> 
> ...



Well at least you take more pictures than most of the people here.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 14, 2014)

lw said:


> ...



My sentiments exactly. I've been on the fence for a while now regarding micro-4/3, as I am not too keen on losing the use of my 400mm lens. But ... Olympus has just announced that they will be bringing a 300mm lens to market in early 2015. This means that micro-4/3 will then satisfy all my lens needs.

Personally I'm getting tired of basing my future with Canon on rumours. What Canon needs to do _right now_ is publish a roadmap ... for EF-S lenses and their mirrorless plans.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 14, 2014)

traveller said:


> Can people on these forums kindly make up their minds on what kit I should buy, because I'm getting sick of the constant opinion changes.
> 
> First I lost thousands switching from Canon to Nikon, just to find that Sony is the new "must have". At least I can get further use of my Nikkors until Sony actually manages to release more than a handful of FE lenses.
> 
> ...



I am not totally convinced that peoples advice will be listened to, as you mention that you switch systems on what seems to be a whim. All of the systems seems to have worked for you, until something new has appeared on the horizon... Does that make your current or old gear suddenly bad? 

Photographic equipment is expensive for all of us, but I have to say that if your monetary situation is as bad as you mention... Now might not be the ideal time to invest? Unless you live of photograpy, and in that case you have sold the means to make a living.. 

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Marauder (Feb 14, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/whats-next-from-canon/\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/whats-next-from-canon/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>The latest announcements from Canon aren’t exactly receiving a lot of positive feedback in my inbox. The G1 X with an EVF for $1000 seems to be irking a lot of people. For that price, the camera needs to be the absolute best in the segment, and I think that’s going to be a hard thing to achieve.</p>
> <p>To a lot of people, the resources put into the G1 X II would have probably been better served by moving the EOS M into the mainstream. The M2 isn’t coming to North America, and I highly doubt a lot of G1 X II cameras are going to sell at the introduction price of $799. When the camera is $499, things will probably be different.</p>
> <p>We’re told between March and August that Canon will start to announce products that make sense and will be popular.</p>
> ...



What about the 70D? It outperforms the 60D massively and even outperforms the 7D in most respects!


----------



## scyrene (Feb 14, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> well when you know what your doing you try to keep your ISO as low as possible.
> 
> sure most consumers and soccer moms will not keep such a close eye on the ISO setting.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree with this to an extent. I don't use auto ISO incidentally, as I find it too unpredictable, and I like control over all the settings. But I have gradually learned that shooting at higher ISOs is often better for some subjects. I shoot a lot of birds, and it's much better to get a slightly overexposed shot with no motion blur, that can be darkened in postprocessing, than either have a dark image that you have to brighten, or one where you've used too long an exposure (which with birds and long lenses is anything under 1/250 in my experience). I used to try and keep the ISO as low as possible, but exposing to the right is often better (and this involves higher ISO because there's often nothing you can do about aperture or exposure time in this situation).

Incidentally, I rarely shoot at base ISO. Even in good light, my bird shots require 800, and given the low light I usually contend with, 3200 is probably commonest.

And as a general point (returning to the original theme of the thread), I feel like there are three broad camps of people who complain on this forum. People who have the 7D and want a newer version; people who like mirrorless and want a robust option from Canon; and people who would moan whatever - who dislike Canon, who have unrealistic expectations, and don't understand the reality of business or technology - and the compromises they entail.

I got a 5DIII, so I'm still happy with them. I understand the 7D crowd's impatience, but as for the rest... nobody is forcing you to choose Canon. If you like other companies' offerings, and aren't tied to a bunch of lenses, go with them. Not every company has to do everything all the time.

Innocent that I am, I think I didn't expect a Canon forum to be so full of relentlessly anti-Canon sentiment.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 14, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Innocent that I am, I think I didn't expect a Canon forum to be so full of relentlessly anti-Canon sentiment.



Actually, some of us really like Canon, but feel that due to them being too conservative we are being "left behind" as other manufacturers bring innovative products to market.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 14, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Innocent that I am, I think I didn't expect a Canon forum to be so full of relentlessly anti-Canon sentiment.
> ...



I understand that, but I think it is largely mistaken - you can buy those other companies' products if they suit better. As I say, *unless* you're tied to a load of legacy lenses, flash guns, etc., there's nothing to tie you to one brand over another. And even if you are, you can use them on some other bodies, or sell them with not too big a loss.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 14, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I understand that, but I think it is largely mistaken - you can buy those other companies' products if they suit better. As I say, *unless* you're tied to a load of legacy lenses, flash guns, etc., there's nothing to tie you to one brand over another. And even if you are, you can use them on some other bodies, or sell them with not too big a loss.



True that theoretically "we" can just buy the other offerings or even "switch" completely. But ... in some ways Canon is the only game in town, either due to product availability or due to them making a specific product that the other manufacturers don't offer. For example, with micro-4/3 ... native telephoto lenses is non-existent (although Olympus has suggested a 300mm f/4 by 2015), so in this department Canon is the only option. Or ... apparently Canon has an excellent flash system (I wouldn't know, because I don't use flashes), which is unequaled by anybody else; so, if you're into flash photography, Canon has the best goods.

But in general, yeah, you're right. I've already decided on (possibly) going with Fujifilm for my sub-100mm work; and as soon as they offer an equivalent for my 70-200mm, then that goes over to Fujifilm as well; and as soon as Fujifilm offers a 300~500mm lens, it's bye-bye Canon.

But I'd really prefer not having to "rebuy" three lenses I already own and like very much, just because Canon doesn't offer what I want in a camera right now. That's _my_ beef.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> So, yeah. I STRONGLY dispute the notion that "most" photographers use base ISO. Far more things in the world involve action of some kind, in which case you are either full manual and explicitly choosing a higher ISO, or your using a priority mode and choosing your shutter speed in one way or another (leaving ISO on auto, in which case it will most certainly float above ISO 100 and 200 the majority of the time.)



Completely agree. But "most" DRones apparently use only base ISO, which might explain their rabid criticism of Canon's sensors. 



Lightmaster said:


> well when you know what your doing you try to keep your ISO as low as possible.
> 
> sure most consumers and soccer moms will not keep such a close eye on the ISO setting.
> 
> ...



Yes, "as low as possible." So, if you're shooting in a studio, or walking around on a bright, sunny day shooting things that move relatively slowly, that's fine. Many of us shoot in less than ideal lighting conditions, and shoot things that move fast in those conditions.

Personally, less than 20% of my shots are at ISO 100…I shoot far more shots at higher than ISO 800 than I do at ISO 100, and for those shots, Canon's sensor-based IQ is superior.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 14, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that, but I think it is largely mistaken - you can buy those other companies' products if they suit better. As I say, *unless* you're tied to a load of legacy lenses, flash guns, etc., there's nothing to tie you to one brand over another. And even if you are, you can use them on some other bodies, or sell them with not too big a loss.
> ...



That's fair enough  I think I'm less partisan partly because I got into Canon by accident. The first secondhand DSLR I bought was Canon, so I got lenses, and so always stuck with them when I upgraded. Plus, I'm quite happy with my setup at present.

That's not to say I wouldn't love them to release a 50MP camera going up to ISO 400000 though! Not that I could afford it...


----------



## funkboy (Feb 14, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> well when you know what your doing you try to keep your ISO as low as possible.



I do try to keep ISO as low as possible. I shoot aperture priority on my 6D (unless I'm using a speedlite) and set the auto ISO to stay low until correct exposure needs a shutter speed about 1/2 stop faster than the focal length of whatever lens I'm using at the time (yet another good reason to use prime lenses . I just have to set the aperture to whatever is appropriate for the scene & the auto ISO & auto shutter speed does the rest.

This setup works marvelously, & I wish my older cameras had it as ISO really is a "3rd priority" in addition to aperture & shutter speed.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 14, 2014)

In fact, the next from Canon should be T6i in the coming months. If 7D mark ii (or 8D) is not announced until Photokina this year, it will never exist.


----------



## mrzero (Feb 14, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The latest announcements from Canon aren’t exactly receiving a lot of positive feedback in my inbox. The G1 X with an EVF for $1000 seems to be irking a lot of people. For that price, the camera needs to be the absolute best in the segment, and I think that’s going to be a hard thing to achieve.
> 
> To a lot of people, the resources put into the G1 X II would have probably been better served by moving the EOS M into the mainstream. The M2 isn’t coming to North America, and I highly doubt a lot of G1 X II cameras are going to sell at the introduction price of $799. When the camera is $499, things will probably be different.



I don't know why you say this. The EOS M might have sold well in Asia from the beginning, but nobody in North America was that interested until it dropped to $300. It sold so poorly that Canon didn't even bother introducing the M2 or the 11-22 lens here. What exactly would "move it into the mainstream" -- other than bargain prices? 

The G1X mark I followed the same path as every other product introduced by Canon since the introduction of MAP. It started out at a high price and moved lower over time. The G1X II is going to do the same thing. It is starting out at $799 and it will move cheaper. I don't think it will ever hit $499, except on the super sales and right before the G1X III is announced. The mark I was a very good camera. It still is. The Mark II looks like it will be a great camera. 

Comparing these two lines is apples and oranges. I have the G1X because I want to grab an all-in-one, fixed lens, one-hand-operable camera with a big sensor and a decent lens, and a swivel screen. I don't want to buy into a second "system," or buy a camera that I can only use with my EF system lenses via an adapter. The nice thing about point-and-shoots is you don't have to buy into a system. Like Sony's offering better? just buy it and move on. If too many people do that, Canon will shift into a higher gear. If not, they won't.

Could Canon introduce the new/best stuff faster? Sure. Cheaper? Sure. But as long as we keep buying it, then they're going to keep up the same pace, internet complaining aside.

Oh, and I love the external EVF. It means I don't have to buy it. I'm glad the price of the G1XII doesn't include it, because I never wanted it to begin with. Optional. Don't like it? Great, save your money, and move on.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



thank you, was about to type out a long reply to this saying mostly the same stuff.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 14, 2014)

Einstein333 said:


> "Things haven’t been too exciting for Canon since the introduction of the very good EOS 6D".
> Are you kidding me? I was really disappointed with the introduction of that camera as it has only one usable AF point (way behind the competition)



This is fairly false. In most lighting situations all points on the 6d are usable. Of course, the center is the most accurate. But, all points are usable to a certain light level. And the extra sensitivity of that center point can AF in situations the 5d3 can't. As others have said to me when I rant against the new sony FF mirrorless...have you ever used a 6d? 

Also, what are we to expect? Canon isn't nikon, they aren't going to put out a rushed to market throwback body just to have something new on the market - we are in between product cycles (at least for FF offerings). Other than a big MP body (if that big MP body is it's own entity, not a product upgrade), we're excited to see new lenses that will rock on the next cycle of bodies (5d4, 1dx2, 6d2).


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 14, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> well when you know what your doing you try to keep your ISO as low as possible.
> 
> sure most consumers and soccer moms will not keep such a close eye on the ISO setting.
> 
> ...



Most shooters don't have studios - whether its in the home or not. Most shooters are shooting where they are shooting, if that happens to be when the sun is down, then your using a higher ISO. 

As a wedding shooter, the day starts early. Sometimes it's in a salon where yeah, there's big windows and generally lots of light, so ISO's are under 1000. Then where do you go, either a hotel room or home, which will have a variety of light. do you have the time to set up lighting? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, you just have to work with what you got.

what's next? Off to the church. some churches are filled with light and yeah you can shoot in the 1600 range. But, if it's not a sunny day, then all that glorious light from the windows is lessened. Then you have the darker churches, or the ones with a big skylight but not many other windows. For ceremonies, ISO can vary wildly!!!!

Oh, then it's time for those fun family shots which most want done inside the church. Shooting groups you can't exactly be using f2.8, your bumping that aperture up to at leastr 5.6, more preferably f8. 

then it's the fun stuff, and yeah for most of the bride and groom shots your using closer to base ISO. But for the bridal party, you may want f8 or higher so even in daylight you may be as high as ISO 1600.

then it's to the reception, and yeah, lighting can vary wildly there too. high ISO and off camera light, or just high iso depending on the scene your shooting is the name of the game. 

To say most shoot at base ISO is just really a narrow view of what, when and where people are shooting....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> To say most shoot at base ISO is just really a narrow view of what, when and where people are shooting....



What: a black awning on a random building or a black barbecue with a QPcard on it
When: midday, in full sun
Where: somewhere in Sweden

A narrow view, indeed.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > To say most shoot at base ISO is just really a narrow view of what, when and where people are shooting....
> ...


Now neuro I admit that you come up with new ideas to make us laugh... ;D


----------



## eirehotspur (Feb 14, 2014)

*Re: My favourite line of this post*

The Cinema EOS line will see a new camera or two for NAB in April, we’re told a lower cost 4K camera will be the star of the show.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm not sure what happened to the "*Year of the Lens*" but it's off to a slow start. The macro flash announcement seemed out of context, but as I keep saying, it's a Photokina year, so I think the goodies are all coming in September.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm not sure what happened to the "*Year of the Lens*" but it's off to a slow start. The macro flash announcement seemed out of context, but as I keep saying, it's a Photokina year, so *I think the goodies are all coming in September*.


So their releases will come next year ;D But there is a CR3 that some year will be exiting, we just don't know which yet...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 14, 2014)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what happened to the "*Year of the Lens*" but it's off to a slow start. The macro flash announcement seemed out of context, but as I keep saying, it's a Photokina year, so *I think the goodies are all coming in September*.
> ...


Are you suggesting that Canon would announce a lens months (or years) before it's available? No, never happened. Ever. Really. I promise. Whatever they announce in September will surely be available the very next day, worldwide. Really. I'm not kidding.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 14, 2014)

I still have faith in these guys. I'd love to see a new 100-400, IS on the 400 5.6, and a 14-24.


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm all giddy for the T6 in November!

seriously tho:

16-35 Mk2
100-400 Mk2
400 5.6 IS
50 IS
85 IS
135 IS
180 Macro Mk2


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


No, I suggest that if they announce something in Sept of year X it will be available year X+1.
So if X = 2014 then X+1 = 2015 => 2014 not exhiting ;D

In addition I name it X because we cannot be certain. X may be 2015, or 2016, or ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2014)

slclick said:



> 16-35 Mk2



I guess you missed the announcement of that one, it's been out for a few years.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2014)

16-35 2.8 L III    (especially since 2 months ago I sold my 16-35 2.8 L version I ...) 

However, to tell the truth I do not expect it for the next 2 years...


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35 Mk2
> ...



dang, miss a single character and the forums brainiac is all over you like fanboyz on a Nikon!


p.s. I should know, had one, sold it!


----------



## mkabi (Feb 14, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that, but I think it is largely mistaken - you can buy those other companies' products if they suit better. As I say, *unless* you're tied to a load of legacy lenses, flash guns, etc., there's nothing to tie you to one brand over another. And even if you are, you can use them on some other bodies, or sell them with not too big a loss.
> ...



Out of curiosity, what kind of photography do you do, Sella?
From your previous posts, plus looking at your existing gear list... you can really benefit from getting anything that was released within the last 2 years (i.e. 70D, 6D, 5DIII or even the 1DX). Just saying...

My father in-law has a 5D Classic, and my cousin just got a 70D, and he was blown away by the IQ... he had a T1i before getting the 5D. After checking out the 70D, he plans on selling the 5D and getting a 6D.

The other thing is your lenses, you have nothing under f/2.5... perhaps a 85mm f/1.8???


----------



## Niki (Feb 15, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/whats-next-from-canon/\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/whats-next-from-canon/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>The latest announcements from Canon aren’t exactly receiving a lot of positive feedback in my inbox. The G1 X with an EVF for $1000 seems to be irking a lot of people. For that price, the camera needs to be the absolute best in the segment, and I think that’s going to be a hard thing to achieve.</p>
> <p>To a lot of people, the resources put into the G1 X II would have probably been better served by moving the EOS M into the mainstream. The M2 isn’t coming to North America, and I highly doubt a lot of G1 X II cameras are going to sell at the introduction price of $799. When the camera is $499, things will probably be different.</p>
> <p>We’re told between March and August that Canon will start to announce products that make sense and will be popular.</p>
> ...




sounds good to me


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2014)

Ricku said:


> When it comes to base ISO _(where most people shoot most of their photos)_,....



?????

16.9% of my SLR shots are at base ISO, 3% fewer than are at ISO 1600.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I'm curious if the successor to the SX-50 will have dual-pixel technologies and what the zoom will be.



Very unlikely. The pixels are too small to be divided in half, at least by Canon with their current fabrication technologies.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious if the successor to the SX-50 will have dual-pixel technologies and what the zoom will be.
> ...



Canon's fabrication tech is only limited (supposedly, we don't really know this for sure) in the fabs for APS-C and FF. Canon already moved to 180nm fabrication several years ago for their small form factor sensors. The SX-50's sensor is 1/2.3", so it would be manufactured by their newer fabs. I'd be surprised if Canon wasn't using a smaller fabrication process than even 180nm for these sensors, honestly, but there isn't much information in the sensor world on Canon's fabrication tech (at least, they certainly don't seem to headline nearly as much as the other major players in the smartphone and video market sectors.)


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 15, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Out of curiosity, what kind of photography do you do, Sella?



Archival ... so mostly I document people and their interaction with their environment ... building a record of what was then and what is now. I find it a lot less stressful to just take heaps of photographs of an old building before it is torn down, than to fight for its preservation ... and then of course what is put up in its place.

And dogs, horses, birds, lizards, butterflies, and when I get another cat, cats.



mkabi said:


> From your previous posts, plus looking at your existing gear list... you can really benefit from getting anything that was released within the last 2 years (i.e. 70D, 6D, 5DIII or even the 1DX). Just saying...



In terms of pure megapixels, possibly (but see below); in terms of almost anything else, no ... well, OK, since they released the 70D and 5DIII, yes ... but by this time mirrorless has shown its stuff and I kind of like the concept.



mkabi said:


> My father in-law has a 5D Classic, and my cousin just got a 70D, and he was blown away by the IQ... he had a T1i before getting the 5D. After checking out the 70D, he plans on selling the 5D and getting a 6D.



I looked at the 60D when it was a few months old (borrowed one for a week) and found the images from my 30D much better. The 6D equates to roughly 8MP equivalent in APS-C, which is the same as my 30D ... so, in my warped opinion, no big improvement there; as for the low-light capabilities of the 6D, well, over here the sun is so bright that I'm nearly always on ISO200 (because it's a good trade-off).



mkabi said:


> The other thing is your lenses, you have nothing under f/2.5... perhaps a 85mm f/1.8???



Don't need 'em ... I'm not a razor-thin DoF warrior. And when I really want to go for shallow DoF, I've got MF primes for the job - which is another reason why mirrorless pulls my interest.

So, please stop dumping on my gear. It works for me.

But just as an aside, if Canon right now announces a new "EOS 10D" that is basically a mirrorless version of the 70D (dual-pixel AF and EVF), with availability by June/July of this year, then I'll buy two of 'em, right there and then. Plus I'll probably buy another three lenses. :-\


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 15, 2014)

[/quote]

I looked at the 60D when it was a few months old (borrowed one for a week) and found the images from my 30D much better.

[/quote]

I find that strange. I had the 60D before I got my 5DMkIII and my brother in law had the 30D before he got his 6D. When we shot together with the old gear it he 60D pretty much always came out on top. Maybe we're just looking for different things.

I agree with you on the mirrorless, I will definitely get me a mirrorless in some shape as a complement. I wish for an updated M, otherwise I'll just get an M really cheap. It will be perfect for its purpose.


----------



## Velo Steve (Feb 15, 2014)

Not responding to any one post...

On the G1X II: without a viewfinder, it's a toy camera to me. I'm fine with EVF or optical, as long as it's a good view and I can hold the camera properly. I'll probably not look at this line again unless the viewfinder is integrated, rather than an add-on.

I do use a smaller powershot occasionally, when my 5D III is too much to carry. The right fixed-lens higher quality camera WOULD be tempting.

On the low ISO topic - my default ISO is 400. In the rare cases where I have the light, stability, and slow-moving subject to go lower, I will. Much more often, I'm pushing the ISO up to keep the shutter speed within reason. A bald eagle hunting on a winter morning just isn't going to stop and let me shoot at 1/8 second.

As a result, lower noise at ISO 3200 would be worth a lot more to me than amazing image quality at ISO 100.

The best way for Canon, Sigma, or some other third party to get my money right now would be a big sharp telephoto that doesn't cost a fortune. I know there's a lot of expensive glass (or fluorite) in the big lenses, but the jump from say a 300mm F4 for under $1400 to a 600mm F4 for over $12000 is pretty daunting.

Telephoto isn't the only thing I do, by the way. It's just that from 24mm to 200mm I'm happy with the equipment I have. I'm much more limited by my skill and creativity than by the hardware until I get to the longer focal lengths.

One question: am I right in perceiving that mirrorless is more about the buzzword than about function? I know that mirrors can be noisy, slow, and bulky. Still, I get the feeling that a large group of people have just decided that it's what they want, regardless of whether they will get better photos for the size or price.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 15, 2014)

Velo Steve said:


> One question: am I right in perceiving that mirrorless is more about the buzzword than about function? I know that mirrors can be noisy, slow, and bulky. Still, I get the feeling that a large group of people have just decided that it's what they want, regardless of whether they will get better photos for the size or price.



In a mirrorless system the sensor is active all the time, so you can leverage that to do stuff you cannot do with a DSLR (in mirrored mode), like subject tracking using face recognition, and metering using the light that actually falls on the sensor (no more using the histogram to determine critical exposure), and heaps more because the camera can now effectively "see" what's going on. Obviously all this can be done in LiveView mode, but getting rid of the mirror _permanently_ just simplifies the process.


----------



## sanj (Feb 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to base ISO _(where most people shoot most of their photos)_,....
> ...



Similar percentages for me as well.


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I rarely shoot below ISO 1000. But I also don't shoot in the mid day when the light is strong (and harsh). For me it's the bookends of the day that I'm out and why it is so important to me that ISO perfomance is improved over DR.


----------



## eml58 (Feb 15, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I rarely shoot below ISO 1000. But I also don't shoot in the mid day when the light is strong (and harsh). For me it's the bookends of the day that I'm out and why it is so important to me that ISO perfomance is improved over DR.



Yes, I'de agree with this & jrista's previous comment, certainly with my own Wildlife Photography my 1Dx & 5DMK III are always set on ISO400 or ISO800 and depending on available light I move from that base point.

Even my Underwater Photography is generally at ISO200-800, Macro with Flash may get down to ISO100 but rarely.

Most wildlife is at it's best early morning late afternoon, so I very rarely get to use ISO100/200 unless I'm shooting People/Objects in the middle of the day.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Velo Steve said:
> 
> 
> > One question: am I right in perceiving that mirrorless is more about the buzzword than about function? I know that mirrors can be noisy, slow, and bulky. Still, I get the feeling that a large group of people have just decided that it's what they want, regardless of whether they will get better photos for the size or price.
> ...



This also causes a drastic loss of battery life, and the resulting information overload is distracting. I turn it all of in my EVF cameras and the EVF is lousy in every way compared to an OVF. There are only two reasons I want a hybrid viewfinder - video and focus assist when using my telescope.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> This also causes a drastic loss of battery life ...



Which is solved by bigger batteries ... which is why I keep shouting for people to stop harping on "the small size of mirrorless" as a feature. Make a mirrorless camera as big as 5DIII and cram the sucker full of batteries.



Lee Jay said:


> ... and the resulting information overload is distracting. I turn it all of in my EVF cameras ...



For some. But isn't it great that you _can_ actually turn it off, huh? 



Lee Jay said:


> ... the EVF is lousy in every way compared to an OVF.



Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.


----------



## Stone (Feb 15, 2014)

didn't we hear that Canon has an exciting pipeline last year as well and if I'm not mistaken the year before? At this point, it's put up or shut up, I happy with my current kit and Canon won't be getting another dime until I actually see something worth buying...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 15, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This also causes a drastic loss of battery life ...
> ...


I'm not a fan of mirrorless. But if the size and ergonomics are equal to the 7D, fully compatible with EF / EF-S lenses without adapter, and the viewfinder evolves much compared to current, I would like to have one. However, may not be more expensive than DSLR cameras such as the Olympus cameras are today.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This also causes a drastic loss of battery life ...
> ...



Well, as always, nothing is so simple. 

First, when it comes to batteries, even if someone makes a "mirrorless" with the same body design as a 5D III, it wouldn't necessarily be so easy to just cram it all full of batteries. For one, batteries are where a significant part of camera weight comes from. For the people who care MOST about camera footprint, size and weight are the two things they really only care about. In which case, they honestly don't care that an ultra tiny mirrorless camera that can barely be controlled with one hand, let alone two hands, has a microscopic battery with a microscopic battery life.

Batteries are also one of those areas of manufacturing that governments just love to regulate. Batteries utilize a number of relatively toxic chemicals and highly reactive metals. Environmentalists hate batteries, so governments regulate the crap out of batteries. The 5D II and 7D batteries were great, there was nothing wrong with them, however the 5D III had to be released along with a new battery type because of Japanese regulations. It's still compatible with the old ones, but in Japan, you have to use the new ones. Same deal with the 1D X, it's battery had to be completely redesigned to conform to Japanese and EU regulations. Stuffing some super large battery into a 5D III sized mirrorless would be fraught with regulatory issues...so it is probably far from as easy as it _*sounds*_.

When it comes to EVFs, in most respects even with the newest and greatest versions from 2013, they are woefully inadequate to those of us who NEED what OVFs offer...unlimited dynamic range, higher resolution than even the best theoretically possible with an EVF (@1" eye relief), 100% realtime behavior (i.e. the motion of subjects is replicated in real time by the OPTICAL viewfinder system), and are already capable of offering a considerable amount of functionality in a HUD-style display via the kind of transmissive LCD technology Canon uses in their current OVFs. Tricks like focus peaking, live hud histogram, face identification blinking, and a whole host of other features could actually be implemented in an OVF with a transmissive LCD. You do not actually HAVE to switch to an EVF in order to do these things. All you really need is a high resolution RGB metering sensor (something like what the 1D X has), and you would have all the information you needed to render all sorts of information onto an OVF Trans LCD real-time, superimposed over a REAL image that is not limited by the dynamic range of the sensor or EVF screen.

Canon has hinted at a Hybrid VF. I'm honestly curious to see what that is. I am hoping it is something like I've described above, because IMO that would be the best of both worlds. Even the BEST of EVFs from last year fall far short of what is necessary on the DR and resolution fronts. Dynamic range is doubly limited...first it is limited by the sensor, and second it is limited by the design of the EVF screen itself. Resolution in EVFs needs to be over 5000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1.25" eye relief for 20/20 vision. It needs to be over 12,000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1" eye relief for 20/10 vision. However, 12,000ppi is likely impossible, as the pixels would have to be so small, you would be filtering out red light...you would basically have a blue/green screen. EVFs have a very long way to go before they compare to OVFs, especially if OVFs eventually get more embedded HUD technology in their Transmissive LCD layers (at which point, I honestly do not think an EVF could EVER compare to a TLCD OVF).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 15, 2014)

I have the Mark I that cost me about $150 net with all the rebates going on in 2012.
The MK II has the same sensor and a faster lens, but is it sharper? Promised faster autofocus, but not the dual pixel AF. No tough screen either. It doesn't even have the tunnel viewfinder, you must pay $$$ for one.

It does have WI Fi, but you could use a Wi-Fi card on the old one.

I'll just keep on with the one I have.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, as always, nothing is so simple.



I've found that most times "experts" refuse to see the obvious solution because it is too simple according to them. I've also found that most times solutions really are very simple. But that's just me ... 



jrista said:


> First, when it comes to batteries ...



Yes, in a hyper-regulated society ... glad I don't live in one. 



jrista said:


> When it comes to EVFs ... Resolution in EVFs needs to be over 5000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1.25" eye relief for 20/20 vision. It needs to be over 12,000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1" eye relief for 20/10 vision. However, 12,000ppi is likely impossible, as the pixels would have to be so small, you would be filtering out red light ...



Actually, there's a very simple solution for this problem as stated by you ... only I don't work for Canon (or Nikon), so they can go figure it out for themselves ... 8)


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, as always, nothing is so simple.
> ...



LOL. Well, at least your blissful in our ignorance. ;P



Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > First, when it comes to batteries ...
> ...



Actually, that doesn't matter. You still face the problem, because Canon is a Japanese company, and most of their manufacturing occurs there. The Japanese regulate the economy within which the cameras you buy are built. You have to not only deal with their regulations, you have to pay for them too, if you buy cameras made in Japan. 



Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to EVFs ... Resolution in EVFs needs to be over 5000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1.25" eye relief for 20/20 vision. It needs to be over 12,000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1" eye relief for 20/10 vision. However, 12,000ppi is likely impossible, as the pixels would have to be so small, you would be filtering out red light ...
> ...



??


----------



## mkabi (Feb 15, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.



:
yeah, like the 30D is over the 60D, and how the 6D is the same in terms of APS-C of the 30D?


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> LOL. Well, at least your blissful in our ignorance. ;P



  ;D



jrista said:


> Actually, that doesn't matter. You still face the problem, because Canon is a Japanese company, and most of their manufacturing occurs there. The Japanese regulate the economy within which the cameras you buy are built. You have to not only deal with their regulations, you have to pay for them too, if you buy cameras made in Japan.



So Japanese legislation forbids us to place more than ... what? ... two batteries in our cameras? I don't really understand this part of your argument. Sure, I'm all for removing certain hazardous chemicals from batteries, but said removal also removes it from batteries for use in "traditional" DSLR camera. Obviously I'm seriously missing something here ... ???



jrista said:


> ??



No dice. It's my idea and Canon (or Nikon) ain't gettin' it for free. :-X


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 15, 2014)

mkabi said:


> yeah, like the 30D is over the 60D, and how the 6D is the same in terms of APS-C of the 30D?



Huh?

But seriously, photography is a very subjective subject and just because you don't like my style doesn't make me wrong. Unless, of course, you actually think that my style _is_ wrong and then you're the one who's wrong. 

On the other hand, *IF* you're one of those "photographers" who believes that you can only take decent pictures with the latest and most expensive gear, you've got a lot to learn about the art that is photography.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, that doesn't matter. You still face the problem, because Canon is a Japanese company, and most of their manufacturing occurs there. The Japanese regulate the economy within which the cameras you buy are built. You have to not only deal with their regulations, you have to pay for them too, if you buy cameras made in Japan.
> ...



Let me put it this way. While Canon might end up with more empty space inside of a 5D III camera body once they make it "mirrorless", they wouldn't necessarily be able to easily fill it with more battery. The likelihood that they keep using their current battery designs is very high, as redesigning the battery wouldn't only involve just the relatively small R&D cost to do so...but also the regulatory burden to make sure that whatever battery they designed conformed to Japanese regulatory specifications. It isn't just chemical makeup, those kinds of regulations usually rather inane and stupid, because it is a politician or his assistant drafting up the laws, neither of whom are ever engineers themselves, and they are basing their regulatory decisions based on not only insight they might glean from some short interviews with engineers, but also environmental lobbies and a whole host of other interests all tugging at each other. In the end you end up with ridiculous things like limitations on maximum amp-hour capacity, maximum physical size, etc. that really do nothing to solve any interested parties problems or concerns...instead it finds the least objectionable middle ground that results in the least amount of complaining from all interested parties...and totally gimps the consumer's options and capabilities. Even as it stands now, the 5D III batteries could be larger, as there are some decent space cavities inside the 5D III body...but they aren't, because of regulatory limitations.

Another example is the 30 minute limitation on video recording length. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to limit how long a video clip can be in a DSLR with video capability. It is most assuredly not a technological issue for DSLRs to stop recording at 29:59. The sole reason that limitation exists is because the EU and I think one other regulatory region require it, and as far as I gather, that regulation is based on lobbies from dedicated video recording device manufacturers for things like camcorders who wanted to squelch any _legitimate _competition from DSLRs (i.e. they were too weak to innovate and compete in an open market, so they went running to nanny government to lay on the spankings and send to their rooms on the only competition they have faced in a decade... ) 

Problem is, it's too difficult for manufacturers to build one model for the EU, one model for Japan, and another model without these inane limitations for the rest of the world. So they build one model that fits within the limitations of all the regulations of all the regulatory regions they sell their products in...and everyone regardless of their actual market ends up having to deal with regulations that don't even exist in their own country. 



Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ??
> ...



Er...whatever...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...



Now, without getting too technical about it, the battery for the EOS 1DX has more than twice the "power" (mAh) than the battery for the Sony A7, whilst the battery for the EOS 5D Mark III has about 800mAh more than the former. So if Sony made the space for the bigger battery in their camera, they would theoretically have doubled the number of "shots" per charge. Or am I again missing the more complicated picture?

_*NOTE:* I know amps per hour isn't true electrical "power", but calling it "power" makes the discussion easier. And obviously the voltages are different, but ... you get the idea ... I hope._


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> NEED what OVFs offer...unlimited dynamic range



http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm

Lets just put this one to rest. Your eyes do not have unlimited dynamic range, it's only about as good as your camera.
Modern cameras have much better night vision (ISO well above 1000).
Also, I have yet to hear a good argument for why looking at the environment with your eye through the lens helps you take a better picture.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2014)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > NEED what OVFs offer...unlimited dynamic range
> ...



Eyes can see better in the dark than a DSLR, but at a much lower resolution and in monochrome... it's comparing apples to oranges.... A fair comparison would be to compare eyes at night to a B+W low resolution sensor.... like the ones on security cameras.... the ones that work in almost complete darkness.... (Digital wins again)

but there is a very good reason why looking at the environment through the lens helps you to take a better picture.... That is the posture that the ergonomics of a DSLR is designed for. You will be more stable and you will not shake as much.

That is also why pro videocams are the shape that they are.... the ergonomics are designed to work best that way.... form follows function.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2014)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > NEED what OVFs offer...unlimited dynamic range
> ...



Sorry, you haven't put anything to rest. Well, ok, one thing - the eye doesn't have 'unlimited' DR. But it has much greater DR than a dSLR or EVF - as pointed out in the post you linked (the 'instantaneous DR' simulates a picture, but looking through an OVF is live and your eye accommodates).

As for an OVF resulting in a better picture, missing peak action due to the EVF lag makes for a bad picture.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > NEED what OVFs offer...unlimited dynamic range
> ...



Sorry, but I can see FAR more dynamic range with my eyes than my camera sees. Whether it is my brain blending "frames" to achieve it, or individual exposures...the mechanics of how don't matter. When people say 8-11 stops is similar to 10-14 stops, they are ignoring the fact that a stop is factor of two. It's a difference of 8 to 64 TIMES greater tonal range. My eyes see at a minimum 14 stops...from clouds to bark detail in the shadows, which is probably closer to 20 stops than 14 stops. It doesn't matter that my brain is "doing all the work" to blend the information the biological device that is my eye actually receives...I SEE it.

Now, I don't say my eye can see unlimited DR. However an optical viewfinder is not going to limit you further. The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...so my eyes can operate at maximum capability when looking through an OVF. When it comes to shooting in lower light, with my eye to the viewfinder, being able to utilize the full 24 stop dynamic range potential of my eye...i.e. allow it to adjust to the dimmer light so I can clearly see my subject without noise for the purposes of framing and composition, regardless of whether my camera could see the same thing when read out at 60fps, is a huge boon. Jack up the gain on an EVF or Live View...and what do you get when it comes to darker scenes? Dark...with a *lot *of noise. This problem is even exacerbated further when doing something like astrophotography...you can't see the night sky in an EVF or on Live View. You might be able to see some of the much brighter low magnitude stars, but overall you can't compose. However I can look through an optical viewfinder and see everything as if I was looking right up at the sky without a camera in front of me. The dynamic range of the human eye is VASTLY superior to the dynamic range of a camera (and an EVF.)


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Jack up the gain on an EVF or Live View...and what do you get when it comes to darker scenes? Dark...with a *lot *of noise. This problem is even exacerbated further when doing something like astrophotography...you can't see the night sky in an EVF or on Live View. You might be able to see some of the much brighter low magnitude stars, but overall you can't compose.


+1 
Know how I compose shots at night? .... Turn ISO up as high as it goes, set for several seconds exposure, take time exposure, look at it... and repeat several times until the framing is right. Then set ISO lower to get less noise and shutter speed longer for more light, and take picture..... That is far simpler than just taking a peek through the optical viewfinder 

BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....



;D ROFL!! ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....
> ...



It's easy to spot with my dslr..... I just need more focal length and less shake....


----------



## mkabi (Feb 15, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, like the 30D is over the 60D, and how the 6D is the same in terms of APS-C of the 30D?
> ...



You can say that you are right and I am wrong, all you want...
But just pointing out that after you said this....



Sella174 said:


> I looked at the 60D when it was a few months old (borrowed one for a week) and found the images from my 30D much better. The 6D equates to roughly 8MP equivalent in APS-C, which is the same as my 30D ... so, in my warped opinion, no big improvement there; as for the low-light capabilities of the 6D, well, over here the sun is so bright that I'm nearly always on ISO200 (because it's a good trade-off).



How can you say this....????




Sella174 said:


> Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.



Because technology is progressive... I agree.
But, you didn't think that 60D was better than the 30D, and the 6D was basically the same as the 30D.
Progressively speaking.... how do you know that EVF is going to get better? Each year that passes?
And, even if it does... on the spec sheet, how do you know that the current ones out there won't be better than the subsequent ones to be released from here on end? After all, it is "subjective."


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> but there is a very good reason why looking at the environment through the lens helps you to take a better picture.... That is the posture that the ergonomics of a DSLR is designed for. You will be more stable and you will not shake as much.



Posture doesn't change between an EVF and OVF, what you're thinking of is the main screen on the back of the camera, I don't think that qualifies as a "viewfinder" by most people's terminology. That's one of the things that needs clarification.
Also, you can buy eyepieces for the main screen as well.



neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, you haven't put anything to rest. Well, ok, one thing - the eye doesn't have 'unlimited' DR. But it has much greater DR than a dSLR or EVF - as pointed out in the post you linked (the 'instantaneous DR' simulates a picture, but looking through an OVF is live and your eye accommodates).
> 
> As for an OVF resulting in a better picture, missing peak action due to the EVF lag makes for a bad picture.



Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

Shutter lag is around 60 milliseconds on the best cameras and over 100 milliseconds on most, then human reaction time is usually measured in hundreds of milliseconds. A bad EVF can be a problem, but good ones seem to be around 30 milliseconds these days. Just factoring in the human component EVF lag becomes statistical noise.




jrista said:


> Sorry, but I can see FAR more dynamic range with my eyes than my camera sees. Whether it is my brain blending "frames" to achieve it, or individual exposures...the mechanics of how don't matter. When people say 8-11 stops is similar to 10-14 stops, they are ignoring the fact that a stop is factor of two. It's a difference of 8 to 64 TIMES greater tonal range. My eyes see at a minimum 14 stops...from clouds to bark detail in the shadows, which is probably closer to 20 stops than 14 stops. It doesn't matter that my brain is "doing all the work" to blend the information the biological device that is my eye actually receives...I SEE it.
> 
> Now, I don't say my eye can see unlimited DR. However an optical viewfinder is not going to limit you further. The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...so my eyes can operate at maximum capability when looking through an OVF. When it comes to shooting in lower light, with my eye to the viewfinder, being able to utilize the full 24 stop dynamic range potential of my eye...i.e. allow it to adjust to the dimmer light so I can clearly see my subject without noise for the purposes of framing and composition, regardless of whether my camera could see the same thing when read out at 60fps, is a huge boon. Jack up the gain on an EVF or Live View...and what do you get when it comes to darker scenes? Dark...with a *lot *of noise. This problem is even exacerbated further when doing something like astrophotography...you can't see the night sky in an EVF or on Live View. You might be able to see some of the much brighter low magnitude stars, but overall you can't compose. However I can look through an optical viewfinder and see everything as if I was looking right up at the sky without a camera in front of me. The dynamic range of the human eye is VASTLY superior to the dynamic range of a camera (and an EVF.)



If you're doing landscapes I really don't think the limitation actually hinders anything, since you're going to be looking at the scene quite a bit before you ever lift the camera to your face (or set up a tripod, which only furthers my point). At which point seeing what the camera sees is only a shortcut to making a proper exposure.

In action, are you actually adjusting the exposure moment by moment to match the changing conditions? I've never heard of anyone actually doing that (I usually hear about sports shooters using aperture priority, giving most of the control to the camera anyway), but if anyone does sit there with their finger constantly whirling the control wheel back and forth more power to you.

Low light, ok you got me. Playing around with the 5D2 in live view just now, it was pretty limiting. The pictures turn out a lot better than what I can see, but the live view implementation is lacking. I have to think that some tweaking would fix that though.
I should also note that my naked eyes were still much better than looking through the OVF.

I'm still grasping for a situation where the dynamic range of the OVF is a critical aspect of capturing a photo.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Modern cameras have much better night vision (ISO well above 1000).



What? You're eyes can go up to the equivalent of on the order of 1 million ISO. Oh, EVFs ruin your dark adaptation.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....


It's a challenging target, but I was able to hand-track it at f/21 wide open through my 20D at 4,250mm.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > BTW.... I decided to try to take a picture of the space station passing overhead with my SX-50 (EVF)... I could not spot it....
> ...


NICE!

I haven't been able to hit it yet through the telescope....


----------



## slclick (Feb 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



it's an Angel! Quick call The Digital Picture


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.



I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF? :


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I can see FAR more dynamic range with my eyes than my camera sees. Whether it is my brain blending "frames" to achieve it, or individual exposures...the mechanics of how don't matter. When people say 8-11 stops is similar to 10-14 stops, they are ignoring the fact that a stop is factor of two. It's a difference of 8 to 64 TIMES greater tonal range. My eyes see at a minimum 14 stops...from clouds to bark detail in the shadows, which is probably closer to 20 stops than 14 stops. It doesn't matter that my brain is "doing all the work" to blend the information the biological device that is my eye actually receives...I SEE it.
> ...



Sorry, I guess I wrote my prior response in a way as to be misinterpreted. It isn't so much the dynamic range of the OVF. Technically speaking, it doesn't have dynamic range, it's just an optical light path. The point is that it does not LIMIT dynamic range...where as EVFs most certainly do! There are two factors that limit DR in an EVF. The first is the dynamic range of the sensor...whatever the sensor is limited do, whatever you see on the EVF is limited to that as well. Furthermore, as EVF pixels have shrunk, it seems to be more difficult to extract much dynamic range out of them as well...it seems that shadow tones are particularly difficult to replicate when EVF pixels are even smaller than sensor pixels (under three microns for some of the higher resolution ones.) 

I won't discount the possibility that a better way of emitting light from micron-sized dots may come along. If and when a technological improvement does come along that is demonstrably better than current technologies, I'll reevaluate my opinion. To date, the kinds of screen technologies that allow for small pixels don't quite seem up to the task of developing micron-sized pixels. They do much better when pixels are several hundred microns, such as in high density smartphone screens.

Even assuming some new technology does come along, there is the whole resolution issue as well. I have 20/10 vision with my glasses or contacts. When I use my contacts, the 1" (or often less) eye relief of an EVF in a mirrorless camera is short enough that I can CLEARLY see the pixels. I HATE that. Aside from the quirky tonality/DR issues that I've seen in the kinds of EVFs that are currently being used in mainstream mirrorless cameras, the pixellation is the absolute worst. I did the calculations here before...for 20/10 vision at 1" eye relief, you need 12,000ppi in order for pixellation to become invisible. That is a pixel size of 700nm, and a light channel size even smaller than that. Your filtering out visible wavelengths of red light from around 680nm through 750nm and all IR. It would be impossible to reproduce accurate color that way. 

So even assuming EVF's reach a technological pinnacle where they are otherwise superior to EVFs...for anyone who has 20/10 vision (which is a LOT of us, given how many people use corrective lenses, and how eye docs strive to find the best fit for you...at least, my doc does and she sees several thousand patients a year for regular checkups, a regular checkup is every two years, she is one of six eye doctors in that facility who all see similar patient loads...do the math, LOT of people), anyone who has 20/10 vision will be stuck looking at pixellated EVFs. When I look through my 7D OVF with its Transmissive LCD...I can see the pixels of the LCD, but because of the optical design, all that stuff just kind of fades into the background. You don't look at the TLCD...you look at the real image projected through the pentaprism. The effect is only magnified when you look through a 5D III or 1D X viewfinder...larger, clearer, crisper...and the TLCD pixels are even smaller relative to the viewfinder frame size. The aesthetic appeal of what I see through an OVF is vastly superior to what I have seen through EVFs. There is no lag time, no flickering of any kind, everything is nice and bright and crisp and clear, everything is highly detailed, color is quite rich, and I STILL have an active and useful HUD (and I can only hope Canon's Hybrid EVF takes advantage of their TLCD, making it even more useful for general purpose OVF stuff.)

When it comes to landscapes, I don't even care about an OVF or an EVF. I care about the LCD screen. The bigger the better, as I always use my DSLR in "field cam" mode with live view on. This is one of the reasons I appreciate the rumor that the 7D will be getting an even larger LCD screen...I think Canon's current ones are 3.2"? That means the 7D is going to be 3.4", maybe larger. THAT is what I care about for landscape photography. I can only hope that a huge LCD screen like that makes its way onto whatever their big megapixel camera is...would be superb as a landscape camera. 

As for changing settings while photographing action. I don't change settings WHILE PHOTOGRAPHING action, however I quite often change settings in between bursts as I see lighting change when tracking a bird. I'm not nearly as good at it as I wish I was, and I hope to get much better at it, but when your tracking a bird that is moving such that the angle of the sunlight on it changes, you have to react. You can't leave your settings be and hope for the best. I usually start out with the bird broadside to the sun, but as you track, especially when the bird is flying at an angle slightly towards you across your view, the distribution of light and shadow changes. You have to protect the highlights, and that means changing exposure while tracking with your eye pressed up against the viewfinder. 

Now, having tried out a few mirrorless cameras, I honestly do not believe I would have accurate enough information responsively enough to deal with such a changing DR scenario real-time, without moving my eye from the viewfinder. For one, no matter how good the DR on the EVF, the image you see there is processed to one degree or another, so the contrast does not represent reality. Even if you had an exceptionally high response rate, you would never know for sure whether what your seeing actually represents reality or not...you have to guess. When the birds highlights look blown on the EVF...are they really blown? I don't have any visual or digital cues to tell me this for a fact with an OVF...but I have developed an instinct for it, because I have REAL information to work with...I am seeing something that actually exists in reality, not a replica of what might exist in reality.

So...I'll grant, perhaps, maybe, someday, an EVF will come along where I don't have to even think about these issues, these facts. Maybe someday an EVF will come along that gives me information that is as good as the kind of real information I work with now. That day has not yet come, and I know enough about the technology ad the scale it's being designed at to honestly wonder if it could ever get as good. My suspicion is EVFs might start offering visual cues to indicate what you would simply sense, without necessarily even having to think about it, with an OVF. These visual cues would help you make the necessary decisions about changing exposure or whatnot...but I don't think they will ever be as good as having an optical window into the real world. With practice, you can operate largely on procedural memory and instinct without ever removing your eye from the viewfinder. Because you can 100% rely on the information reaching your brain through the viewfinder. That will simply NEVER be true with an EVF.

Call me a skeptic, but, I'm one of those people who will stick with my good ol' mirror slapper until they literally pry it from my cold dead hands (or, until the last OVF camera ever made that I manage to purchase dies some horrible electronic death, and I'm literally left with no other option but to move to an EVF...oh, what a sad day that will be...)


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.
> ...



You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



This is what your misunderstanding. It doesn't matter the mechanics of how we see 20 stops...we SEE 20 stops! We see what our brains tell us we see, not what our retinas sense. As a human being, I am not individually seeing 14 stop frames from my eyes...I am SEEING that nearly 20-stop HDR post-processed image that my brain produces. 

You can't break down human vision to mechanical steps, and claim that because our eyes, which take an exposure every 1/500th of a second, are only capable of discerning about 14 stops of dynamic range for each and every one of those 1/500th second frames, is limiting our VISION to 14 stops. Vision in the human brain isn't really even HDR. It is more like a rolling exposure stack...fresh full-detail frames flow in while stale, old frames fade. It's like an astrophotography calibration, stacking, and stretching process all rolled into a biological process that occurs hundreds of times per second. We see ~20 stops because we see what ends up in our visual cortex, and that is AFTER all the processing. Our total dynamic range is over 24 stops, because our retinal sensitivity adjusts over a period of time as we move from dim environments to bright environments. Our eyes can become dark adjusted, but become overly sensitive to brighter light...therefor "clipping" it. Our eyes can become bright adjusted, yet limit our ability to see the same kind of detail in the dark as we did when we were dark adjusted. When dark adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 10 stops (in large part because our cones don't deliver sensory impulses until they have accumulated enough photons in a given time slice, so we lose a good portion of our total sensitivity per retinal area). When bright adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 20 stops, as both our rods and our cones are working at full capacity.

But simple fact of the matter...we don't see each of the 500 "frames" per second our eyes deliver to our brains...we _*SEE *_the HDR image our brains generate in our visual cortex.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. *That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.*



LOL. Sorry, but have you heard the expression 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'? Undergrad and doctoral degrees in Neuroscience, close to a decade of teaching it, and over two decades of research in the field. 

While psychophysical experiments have demonstrated the capability to perceive disruptive images (e.g. a black frame in a video sequence) with dwell times as short as 12-14 ms, normal vision in effect 'sums' a rolling period of ~100 ms, i.e. when you 'see' an image, it's a 7-shot stack. So...human vision *IS*, among other things, "...post processed HDR image video combining multiple exposures." We really do see that 20-stop range, due to a combination of slower optical mechanisms (sphincter and dilator pupillae muscles of the iris) and much faster physiological mechanisms (ganglion cell tuning and attention processing in the visual cortex).


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. *That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.*
> ...


But Neuro..... you can't be right..... people on this forum can detect under a millisecond of delay...


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I read an article a while ago stating that our perception of motion is actually purely analogue, even if you have a display running at 1,000hz or higher, you're still going to see a choppy image as long as it's moving fast enough.
Display refresh rate seems to be another one of those things were you just have to pick a point of diminishing returns, in theory the number can never be high enough.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the article for a while, but all a person would have to do is wave around a light source pulsating at 1000hz to see first hand.




jrista said:


> When bright adjusted, our momentary dynamic range is closer to 20 stops, as both our rods and our cones are working at full capacity.


Do you have a source for that information?

After a few minutes on Wikipedia the best quote I can find is (again) one of these blog articles (the website makes it clear that it is not associated with Cambridge, but the author did get a PhD in chemical engineering there, which may or may not be as relevant as a PhD in psychology in this context).

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm


> because our eye's sensitivity and dynamic range actually change depending on brightness and contrast. Most estimate anywhere from 10-14 f-stops.




Back to the subject at hand.
If you sit there and stare at a lightbulb your eyes aren't going to pick up the detail in some dark space behind it unless you specifically stare into the dark space. The only difference is you use your eyes by instinct, where pointing the camera to a different spot is a more intentional action.
In a lower dynamic range scenario I have to agree that you will naturally do all that subconsciously. Which still doesn't tell me why all this is such a big deal for getting the right exposure or composition in a picture.

As far as I can tell this is one of the best examples of people rejecting new technology simply because of a lack of familiarity ( the "dynamic range" argument specifically).
I don't actually want to perpetuate the EVF as the be-all and end-all of viewfinders, but from a logical standpoint I cannot wrap my head around why so many people get so strung up about it.
You don't need pinpoint accuracy to tell if you're cutting the head off a bird, and while it would be nice to see an exact representation of the final image as far as avoiding over or under exposing I don't see where the EVF fails, or that you're doing any less guessing with an OVF. I'm not going to say that either one is better or worse all things considered.
If everyone would just say they prefer the "feel" of it that would be great, but I guess the defensiveness comes from seeing an equally large group needlessly adopting new technology when there is nothing wrong with the old.
Except with manual focus lenses. My 5D2 OVF really is useless with a manual focus 85f1.4. Yes, I know there is a different screen you can install, and I'm kicking myself now for forgetting to get one with my last B&H order, but oddly enough that isn't even an option on many bodies.




neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. *That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.*
> ...



Since we know your iris isn't closing and opening in fractions of a second like a camera iris, then all the dynamic range we care about in this context is the receptors.

Neuro, I don't doubt you, but It's only prudent to ask for a source other than your own words.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Neuro, I don't doubt you, but It's only prudent to ask for a source other than your own words.



Eric Kandel's (et al.) _Principles of Neural Science_ is a great place to start. Chapters 25-29 deal with vision, from retina through visual cortex (primary and extrastriate). 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071390111

If you want primary literature references, I can provide a few...


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, I don't doubt you, but It's only prudent to ask for a source other than your own words.
> ...



Excellent.
My copy will arrive next week.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

I'll defer to Neuro for references. Sounds like he has better ones than I do. Once I have the dough (I just bought an Orion Atlas EQ-G equatorial mount for my astronomy/astrophotography, so no cash at the moment), I'll buy that book. Sounds pretty awesome.

You can also just use a basic little experiment. Find a landscape with huge DR. One with backlit clouds and deeper shadows under the trees. Even a 14-stop D800 can't capture the full dynamic range. Look at the scene with your own eyes, and you'll see detail in those backlit clouds as well as detail in the shadows under the trees. I photographed a scene like this at the end of summer last year, over Long Lake up in the Indian Peaks region of the Colorado Front Range. My camera couldn't handle it, the clouds were way too bright. But I could see people moving about the opposite shore under the trees (which were buried in shadow noise in my photos, unrecoverable), and still see plenty of whispy detail in the bright clouds.

I measure each landscape scene I photograph with the cameras meter. I lock down ISO to 100, choose my aperture, and let the camera choose the shutter speed for me. I compute the dynamic range by calculating the difference in shutter speeds between the brightest (non-sun) area and the deepest shadows. There were about 18 stops of DR in that scene. Even with GND filters, I couldn't really get it all (and I stacked my 0.3, 0.9 and 1.2). That is the ONE reason where I fundamentally need as much DR as I can get in a camera...my landscapes. Even though I can use GND filters, when you stack that many, you end up with a rather noticeable gradient along the upper peaks of the mountains. You can mix and match hard and soft grads, but you can never really get that key horizon looking good.

Anyway...I know how much DR is in many of the landscape scenes I've photographed. My eyes can take in the whole thing quite frequently, even when it is many stops more than my camera can handle. So when you read things talking about how the dynamic range of human vision is somewhere between 20 and 24 stops, I really do believe it. 

As for the Cambridge in Color stuff. They are pretty careful about disclaiming their claims. Pretty much anyone who claims to know anything about the science off the human eye is pretty quick to post a disclaimer. It's a rather ephemeral science of a highly subjective thing. Dynamic range is hard to actually "measure" with the human eye, especially as human perception differs from person to person. Some people are simply not in tune with what they bodies are capable of. Me, on the other hand, I have had hypersensitivity issues since I was a kid. I can hear and see things that some people don't notice until I tell them HOW to notice it. Then, suddenly, they can see the same things I do, until their attention drifts to something else. (If it wasn't for that, I'd think I was unique.) Sound is one of my biggest problems. I hear everything, and I apparently have no filter. It isn't like autism...if I concentrate I can kind of block some sounds, others, if they bug me (like an unknown vibration or the rumble of an engine) I often HAVE to find the source of the sound, if at the very least just to know that I'm not hearing things, that the sound actually does exist, and, if I have the power to, control it (i.e. make it stop! As you can imagine...I have MASSIVE problems sleeping...I've been a raging insomniac for nearly eight years now, and I always had sleep problems since I was a kid...it's really a curse, but I'm still amazed at what my brain can sense and process.) Again, most people don't hear the things I hear, at first...but when I point it out, most people will eventually hear it, so I know it isn't just that I have better senses than other people. Somewhere along the line I became too attuned to the minutia of sensory input that you really shouldn't be attuned to. Our bodies sensory organs are pretty freakin amazing, they have incredible range, yet exceptionally fine discernment.

Anyway...subjective...but, if you find the time, tune in...your senses are far better than they are often given credit for. You can smell better, hear better, see better than you are normally aware of...sometimes all it takes is a little practice and concentration, and you can hone your senses, maximize their potential (just don't take it too far, or you might end up cursed like me... :-\)


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 16, 2014)

mkabi said:


> You can say that you are right and I am wrong, all you want...



I said we are both right, unless one of us says that the other is wrong, in which case the sayer of wrongness is in actual fact the one who is wrong. (I didn't make the "if" capitals, bold and red just for pure artistic effect.)



mkabi said:


> How can you say this....????
> 
> But, you didn't think that 60D was better than the 30D, and the 6D was basically the same as the 30D.



Regarding the 60D ... I found that I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) derive absolutely almost zero benefit from the increase in megapixels, for the simple fact that, as an example, my 24mm lens cannot handle that resolution. So, whether I take a picture with my 24mm on the 30D (8MP) or the 60D (18MP), the result is very much the same due to the "lack of resolving power" by the lens ... and sometimes it's worse. This means an "upgrade" in camera also means an immediate "upgrade" in lenses as well.

Regarding the 60D and the 6D ... I agree that both cameras offer spectacular improvements in high-ISO performance over my ancient 30D's and 5D. Only, I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) don't photograph in the dark woods on a moonless night and, as stated previous, basically live at ISO200 most of the time. So what benefit do I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) derive from "clean" ISO12800, huh? And only _if_ the camera has a shutterspeed to match, which I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) don't necessarily and artistically desire. But I've had this discussion before ... 

You know what's two features that would really make me buy a new camera model? AutoISO and AFMA. Well, I can go on and on about what these two features (or lack thereof) says about a company like Canon ... but, no ... :-X

In closing, *I* find this constant bashing of my gear whenever people have no real counter-argument rather juvenile, moronic, stupid, idiotic and juvenile. *I* also find this constant bashing of my gear because *I* do not conform to the perceptions, attitudes and behaviour of the group/herd/pack/flock rather juvenile, moronic, stupid, idiotic and juvenile. Oh, please do throw _THAT_ back in my face.



mkabi said:


> Progressively speaking.... how do you know that EVF is going to get better? Each year that passes?
> And, even if it does... on the spec sheet, how do you know that the current ones out there won't be better than the subsequent ones to be released from here on end? After all, it is "subjective."



I know, because each time a new model is released, I pickle down to the local retailer and have myself a gander ... that's how ...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...



I do not deny that we can see more dynamic range with our eyeballs, but ...

*FACT:* The sensor has less dynamic range than our eyeballs and therefore also captures less dynamic range in the resulting photograph. Correct? Let's assume so for the question below ...

*QUESTION:* If the EVF has the _same_ dynamic range of the sensor and thus produces an accurate depiction of what the sensor will capture as the final image, why is it deemed so important to see more dynamic range through the viewfinder even though the sensor won't be capturing all the excess dynamic range anyway?

*ASIDE:* How are we getting on regarding the discussion about the bigger batteries for mirrorless cameras?


----------



## slclick (Feb 16, 2014)

Unless of course you have Acute Multifocal Placoid Pigment Epitheliopy, then you lose quite a bit of DR.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The OVF itself is effectively unlimited when it comes to DR...
> ...



The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor. It's lower by around 6-8 stops. And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> It's lower by around 6-8 stops.



Proof?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor. It's lower by around 6-8 stops. And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.



For sake of illustration..... let's say the sensor has 12DB of dynamic range and the EVF has 8 stops of dynamic range... The 12DB range of the sensor is then mapped onto the 8DB range of the EVF.... and the viewer can then see it....

The limitation is the capture of data.... once you have it, you can adjust and shift all you want to map up against output devices such as monitors, printers, and EVFs


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > It's lower by around 6-8 stops.
> ...


 
I've tried it. The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The EVF doesn't come anywhere close to having the same DR as the sensor. It's lower by around 6-8 stops. And even if it did, I'd want to see more so I can choose which portion of the scene DR I'd like to capture.
> ...



If any of that were true, the EVF image would look lousy being flat and low contrast. And the limitation isn't just the capture. I can adjustexposure to capture the bright 12 stops, the dark 12 stops, or whatever I want.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


Eyes capture on a semi-logarithmic scale.... sensors capture on a linear scale... there is maping of intensity on every display device....


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I've tried it.



Please keep to the parameters of the scenario, i.e. DR of EVF == DR of sensor.



Lee Jay said:


> The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.



Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The out-of-camera JPEG would probably contain considerably more resolution than the EVF requires, or are you talking about something like the JPEG that gets embedded in the Raw? Could you provide more details about how you "tried" it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.



Wow, that would be like....recording video with picture- or cine-style applied, except at lower resolution and without the additional time required for writing it to a card. It would sure be amazing if a camera could do that. :


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Regarding the 60D ... I found that I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) derive absolutely almost zero benefit from the increase in megapixels, for the simple fact that, as an example, my 24mm lens cannot handle that resolution. So, whether I take a picture with my 24mm on the 30D (8MP) or the 60D (18MP), the result is very much the same due to the "lack of resolving power" by the lens ... and sometimes it's worse. This means an "upgrade" in camera also means an immediate "upgrade" in lenses as well.



I thought it was the case that the same lens will resolve more detail on a sensor with more megapixels, even if it isn't capable of resolving to the theoretical maximum of the better sensor? Isn't that in that hugely long equivalence article people link to occasionally? So the same lens cannot produce <i>worse</i> results on a better sensor (although a better lens may be required to get the best out of the higher resolution sensor)?



Sella174 said:


> Regarding the 60D and the 6D ... I agree that both cameras offer spectacular improvements in high-ISO performance over my ancient 30D's and 5D. Only, I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) don't photograph in the dark woods on a moonless night and, as stated previous, basically live at ISO200 most of the time. So what benefit do I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) derive from "clean" ISO12800, huh? And only _if_ the camera has a shutterspeed to match, which I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) don't necessarily and artistically desire. But I've had this discussion before ...



For what it's worth, you don't need to be in comically extreme circumstances to need such high ISOs. Not that it makes a difference - you can work at 200, and so high ISO performance isn't important to you, as you say. But in overcast conditions around sunset, a bird - especially under trees, but even in the open - can easily need ISO 6400-12800+ - shooting at, say, 1/250sec and f/10. My point being, it's a fairly regular real world situation for some of us. Nighttime forests would require a whole lot more sensitivity (and I appreciate it was probably hyperbole, but I think a lot of people really do find it odd anyone would want clean high ISO).


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried it.
> ...



They don't. That's the whole point.


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.
> ...



It's a low-res version (1024x768 is considered a very high res EVF).


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Yes, it's a low-res out-of-camera JPEG.

Shoot an EVF camera (or even most SLRs in Live View) in raw+JPEG. Watch the scene (high contrast) carefully through the EVF (or on the LCD, though LCDs tend to be better than EVFs) to see where the whites are clipped and the blacks are crushed. Now look at the JPEG and see the same things. Now look at the raw, use a lot of highlight compression and shadow expansion and look again at the same thing.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Even if this were to be true (which, in a way it is, the only reason I am saying it like this is because there is clean, natural HDR and then there is the what the hell happened HDR)....which is the better, faster processing engine...your brain or the camera? And, which one will produce a natural image, your brain or the camera?


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the 60D ... I found that I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) derive absolutely almost zero benefit from the increase in megapixels, for the simple fact that, as an example, my 24mm lens cannot handle that resolution. So, whether I take a picture with my 24mm on the 30D (8MP) or the 60D (18MP), the result is very much the same due to the "lack of resolving power" by the lens ... and sometimes it's worse. This means an "upgrade" in camera also means an immediate "upgrade" in lenses as well.
> ...



Output resolution is approximately the RMS of the input resolutions. That means that the lowest resolution component becomes the highest theoretically possible for output resolution. If you have a sensor capable of resolving 50lp/mm, then no matter how good the lens, your output resolution will never top 49.9999999...lp/mm. If your sensor is 100lp/mm, and your lens is really cheap and can only produce 80lp/mm, then upgrading to a newer lens would indeed help. Once you start approaching the limit of the lowest common denominator, it begins to take considerably more resolution in the other components to produce measurable increases in output resolution. 

So, if you have a 100lp/mm sensor, and a 100lp/mm lens, and you get a lens capable of 200lp/mm, you will see an improvement. Use a 300lp/mm lens, and you'll still see an improvement, however it won't be as significant as moving from a 100lp/mm to 200lp/mm lens. Use a 400lp/mm lens (only possible at really fast apertures, like f/1.7), and you'll see a small improvement, but not nearly as significant as the others...and no matter what you do, your maximum output resolution will be limited to the sensors 100lp/mm. 

You eventually get diminishing returns when using components with greater and greater resolving power unless you improve both. So, by the time you get up to wanting 200-300lp/mm (which can only be attained at faster apertures, like f/2.8 and wider), you should really pair it with a much better sensor. 

But you are correct, at the resolutions of todays sensors, you can pretty much always see an improvement by using a higher resolution lens. And, conversely, moving to a higher resolution sensor will allow that lens to perform even better. 



scyrene said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the 60D and the 6D ... I agree that both cameras offer spectacular improvements in high-ISO performance over my ancient 30D's and 5D. Only, I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) don't photograph in the dark woods on a moonless night and, as stated previous, basically live at ISO200 most of the time. So what benefit do I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) derive from "clean" ISO12800, huh? And only _if_ the camera has a shutterspeed to match, which I (me, personally; _not_ you, them and others) don't necessarily and artistically desire. But I've had this discussion before ...
> ...



Totally agree. It really doesn't take much to require high ISO settings. Especially when you need high shutter speeds like 1/1000s or 1/2500s, in order to freeze the motion of your subject (and flash isn't an option.)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 16, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This also causes a drastic loss of battery life ...
> ...



I keep saying similar things (IE use an slr body type, with an EF mount - so no one has to use silly lens adaptors or wait while each and every lens ever made gets resigned to fit the current mirrorless mold). But, this is where mirrorless has its downfall, it seems like the biggest proponents for mirrorless want their cake and want to eat it too. All the bells and whistles of an slr, in a package smaller than the A7, but smaller with smaller lenses and of course, a magical battery compartment that can fit 2 1dx batteries...

when it comes down to it...it really is about form factor. there was another post somewhere here showing the first digital camera's, goofy looking things, the first idea was that cause it's new it should look radically different...high tech...result, they looked like a joke and weren't taken seriously until digital camera's started to look like regular cameras. 

which is why i feel that mirrorless may just be a cool for now, trendy product.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Aye. Totally agree. I think once mirrorless cameras start coming in DSLR packages, then they will really take off.


----------



## Diko (Feb 16, 2014)

Woody said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable.
> ...


 +1

BTW Do you happened to have any other similar statistics for US EU and world wide?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> Output resolution is approximately the RMS of the input resolutions. That means that the lowest resolution component becomes the highest theoretically possible for output resolution. If you have a sensor capable of resolving 50lp/mm, then no matter how good the lens, your output resolution will never top 49.9999999...lp/mm. If your sensor is 100lp/mm, and your lens is really cheap and can only produce 80lp/mm, then upgrading to a newer lens would indeed help. Once you start approaching the limit of the lowest common denominator, it begins to take considerably more resolution in the other components to produce measurable increases in output resolution.
> 
> So, if you have a 100lp/mm sensor, and a 100lp/mm lens, and you get a lens capable of 200lp/mm, you will see an improvement. Use a 300lp/mm lens, and you'll still see an improvement, however it won't be as significant as moving from a 100lp/mm to 200lp/mm lens. Use a 400lp/mm lens (only possible at really fast apertures, like f/1.7), and you'll see a small improvement, but not nearly as significant as the others...and no matter what you do, your maximum output resolution will be limited to the sensors 100lp/mm.
> 
> ...



Out of interest, given a lens has a continuous surface (so analogue?) while a sensor is divided into pixels (digital), do lp measurements mean the same for each?


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'll defer to Neuro for references. Sounds like he has better ones than I do. Once I have the dough (I just bought an Orion Atlas EQ-G equatorial mount for my astronomy/astrophotography, so no cash at the moment), I'll buy that book. Sounds pretty awesome.
> 
> You can also just use a basic little experiment. Find a landscape with huge DR. One with backlit clouds and deeper shadows under the trees. Even a 14-stop D800 can't capture the full dynamic range. Look at the scene with your own eyes, and you'll see detail in those backlit clouds as well as detail in the shadows under the trees. I photographed a scene like this at the end of summer last year, over Long Lake up in the Indian Peaks region of the Colorado Front Range. My camera couldn't handle it, the clouds were way too bright. But I could see people moving about the opposite shore under the trees (which were buried in shadow noise in my photos, unrecoverable), and still see plenty of whispy detail in the bright clouds.
> 
> ...



I wholeheartedly agree that most people don't give half as much credit to their own senses as they should, my argument with the viewfinder is I just don't see the information collected through it as essential. People have, can and do process all the same information in many other ways, some better, no different or worse. It's all just tools in the box.

Continuing on the rabbit trail:
Sounds like you're a normal person who has learned to pay attention, a dying art. Maybe learning to relax is next on the agenda? (I'm guessing that may have something to do with your interest in photography).
From what I can see most of the difference between the "elite" and "normal" people in this world is attitude. Of course everyone is different, but many of those who are commonly known for greatness accomplished those extraordinary things despite their natural shortcomings.
My favourite quote from Einstein:

"I am not more gifted than the average human being. If you know anything about history, you would know that is so--what hard times I had in studying and the fact that I do not have a memory like some other people do… I am just more curious than the average person and I will not give up on a problem until I have found the proper solution."


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I keep saying similar things (IE use an slr body type, with an EF mount - so no one has to use silly lens adaptors or wait while each and every lens ever made gets resigned to fit the current mirrorless mold). But, this is where mirrorless has its downfall, it seems like the biggest proponents for mirrorless want their cake and want to eat it too. All the bells and whistles of an slr, in a package smaller than the A7, but smaller with smaller lenses and of course, a magical battery compartment that can fit 2 1dx batteries...
> 
> when it comes down to it...it really is about form factor. there was another post somewhere here showing the first digital camera's, goofy looking things, the first idea was that cause it's new it should look radically different...high tech...result, they looked like a joke and weren't taken seriously until digital camera's started to look like regular cameras.
> 
> which is why i feel that mirrorless may just be a cool for now, trendy product.


+1
You can't ignore ergonomics.... Why was 35mm so popular back in the days of film???? We had a lot of standard film sizes to choose between. Myself, I seem to have used from tiny scraps of film in instamatics to a friend's 8x10.... 

35mm was the sweet spot.... it was the combination of ergonomics that made it a good size to hold, yet allowed a range of lens sizes with reasonable image quality... yes, you could go bigger (I did hump around an 8x10  ) but by going bigger you needed insanely large lenses to get a decent field of view with animals, birds, and other distant objects.... There is a very good reason why Ansel Adams shot landscapes and not BIF  35 mm was a good general purpose balance point.

So now we have gone digital. People are still the same, so the ergonomics remain the same... the laws of optics are the same, so other than better materials and more precise manufacturing, lens are essentially the same.... The sweet spot for size remains the same...

Put a 50 year old SLR and a brand new DSLR on the table. It is obvious that they are both cameras, and with the exception of a preview screen on the back and the relocation of a few controls, they are not really that much different..... ergonomics strikes again!


----------



## philmoz (Feb 16, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end. And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.
> ...



Not even close, at least on Canon P&S cameras.

For live view (either on the LCD, or EVF), the sensor image is converted to an 8 bit, 4:1:1 YUV image.
This has a luminance (Y) resolution of 720 x 240 pixels on most Canon cameras; but only 180 x 240 resolution for each of the chrominance channels (U & V).

Some cameras, such as the G12 & G1X, double the vertical resolution to 480 lines.

My understanding is this is done using a special read-out mode on the sensor; but I may be wrong there.

The live view is normally done at 30 frames per second, except in low light when the camera will lower the refresh rate to capture more light per frame.

There is no JPEG processing being done.

Phil.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2014)

philmoz said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



As far as I know, Phil, you are correct. I believe that Canon cameras use sRAW readout (when available) or something very similar. The sRAW format is a YCbCr format, full resolution luminance, half resolution color channels (red-magenta and blue-yellow). Fundamentally, sRAW and it's variants are technically the same kind of format as JPEG, however JPEG is 8-bit, where as sRAW & variants are 12- or 14-bit. Since it is a sensor pulldown (basically a real-time stream off the sensor), things aren't really compressed much (outside of lowering the resolution of Cr and Cb channels.) The thing about this kind of pulldown is you are affected by rolling shutter...as that's basically what's going on. Again, not particularly ideal, however you are indeed limited initially by sensor DR (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).


----------



## philmoz (Feb 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> ... (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).



Straying a bit off topic here; but I thought the DR of a JPEG image was a function of the tone curve / colour space of the image file.
I thought the JPEG format was quite capable of recording 12 or more stops - the main problem with having 8 bits per channel is banding (and compression artefacts of course).

Phil.


----------



## Rocky (Feb 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I keep saying similar things (IE use an slr body type, with an EF mount - so no one has to use silly lens adaptors or wait while each and every lens ever made gets resigned to fit the current mirrorless mold). But, this is where mirrorless has its downfall, it seems like the biggest proponents for mirrorless want their cake and want to eat it too. All the bells and whistles of an slr, in a package smaller than the A7, but smaller with smaller lenses and of course, a magical battery compartment that can fit 2 1dx batteries...
> ...


Total agree. However, I would like to add "Form (size, weight)", "Function" and "Econonics (price)" also play a very important part. In the film days, 35mm full frame SLR is not the most propular camera. Small view finder 35 mm camera was the most popular camera. That is due to lower price and easier to carry ( small size and light weight) even with limited functioality. There is no doubt that the Leica M series is the best 35mm film camera. But for functionality, It cannot complete with SLR unless expensive and clumsy attachments are used. Therefore it became a limited production camera for certain user. Rolleiflex is an excellent camera. With waist level finder and shutter release at the front of the camera to give the photographer the perfect angle for full length body shot. Due to higher price and fixed lens it just cannot survive. Hasselblad is a 6X6 SLR. Again, high price and heavy weight limits it to become a specialty camera. The examples can keep on going. So I will stop here


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2014)

philmoz said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ... (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).
> ...



It is.



> I thought the JPEG format was quite capable of recording 12 or more stops - the main problem with having 8 bits per channel is banding (and compression artefacts of course).
> 
> Phil.



Correct, but most out-of-camera JPEGs are 8 stop or less because camera makers like them to "pop" which means high global contrast and thus lots of crushed blacks and clipped highlights.

You can put 30 stops into a JPEG, and I've seen it done. But camera makers don't do that.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2014)

philmoz said:


> The live view is normally done at 30 frames per second, except in low light when the camera will lower the refresh rate to capture more light per frame.



I was wondering about that.
As much as I love high refresh rates, if you can't see anything there's not much point. Hopefully future cameras let the framerate go really low, a half second exposure lets you see a lot in the dark.




Lee Jay said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I think most of the problem is that computer monitors don't have that much range. I'm assuming that professional printing services use RAW?

Now I'm wondering if there isn't some substance to all the hype about Fuji JPEGs.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 16, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


SD is passé... go for cFast or a real wireless link.


----------



## tron (Feb 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...


I don't think there is yet a brain interface controller for either card ... ;D


----------



## jrista (Feb 17, 2014)

philmoz said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ... (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).
> ...



I get what your saying, but technically speaking, reality would be a bit different. The raw data before being saved to JPEG can have a tone curve applied. That tone curve, if designed correctly, could compress the real dynamic range of the camera (say 12- to 14- stops) into the 8-stop dynamic range allowed by 8-bit data. But you don't still have 12 or 14 stops of DR. You compressed the original dynamic range into a smaller space, meaning you discarded some of that original information.

With an actual RAW, you can push the exposure around in a tool like lightroom and recover information that doesn't fit within the dynamic range of your computer screen (which is also likely 8 bits). When you first load up a raw, it might appear that the highlights are blown and the blacks are crushed...even if you apply say the Canon Neutral camera profile (the initial tone curve), that is still likely to be the case in a high DR photo. You can recover those highlights and shadows, though, because the underlying RAW has enough bit depth to preserve all that information.

With a JPEG, the tone curves applied by the camera are usually more likely to clip highlights and crush blacks. The most preservative "Picture Style" in Canon cameras is neutral or standard, however neither are actually capable of preserving the full original 14 stops of dynamic range. All those tone curves are doing is shifting a greater precision of information into a space capable of less precision. No matter how you slice it, your loosing some information. When the JPEG is saved, you have 8 stops of dynamic range. Clipped highlights are clipped, permamently, there is no recovery. Crushed blacks are black, there is no lifting them. Furthermore, because JPEG is a lossy compression format, you lose EVEN MORE information.

While the camera, if it's using a standard picture style rather than say landscape or faithful or something like that, can indeed preserve some of the original dynamic range, it's still doing so by discarding some of the information that already fit in that 8 bits of data anyway (i.e. the high shadows, midtones and lower highlights). You don't have 12 or 14 stops of editing latitude...you have at most 8 stops of editing latitude (however, because the 8 bit pixel information already fits within the confines of your 8 bit computer screen, there really isn't any NEED for that editing latitude.)

Bits and stops, in a digital image signal, are synonymous in many ways. Both are base 2/power of 2, in that for every additional bit, you double the digital number space for storing light level information. That corresponds directly with every additional stop. If you have one bit, you can store one stops of luminance information. If you have two bits, you can store two stops of luminance information. Since stops are power of two, moving up to two stops means you are sensitive to four times the range of light. That too, corresponds to having two bits...00, 01, 10, 11. Bit depth implicitly limits the dynamic range of the information stored in the file. Even if you are using a tone curve to compress a larger dynamic range into that smaller bit depth, the dynamic range of a JPEG once saved is 8 stops, your editing latitude is limited to 8 stops, and any information you discarded in order to pack the additional stops into that 8-stop range is lost forever, it is not recoverable.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 17, 2014)

tron said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


That's what they want you to think.... It's time to break out the aluminum foil and make hats


----------



## Woody (Feb 17, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



One of the lamest cop outs I have ever read on the internet. Wow. Just Wow. Sounds like something one expects to hear from a 5 year old kid.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Here you go!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 17, 2014)

tron said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


Problem solved. ??? We no longer need to spend fortunes cameras, lenses and accessories.  Just do a surgery to implant a card slot in the skull, and we have images with the same quality as the human eye. ;D And with 20 stops of dynamic range.


----------



## philmoz (Feb 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:



> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Puts a whole new spin on the concept of a 'pop up flash' 

Phil.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 17, 2014)

philmoz said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation. Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light. I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.


----------



## philmoz (Feb 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



An appropriate tone curve is applied to the raw sensor data based on your camera settings (contrast, saturation, etc). It also applies special effects such as the fish eye or 'miniature' mode some cameras have.

Without knowing more details of how you tested, it sounds like your measured 25ms lag was a result of the camera using a 1/40th second shutter speed during live view. 
The time required to capture each live view frame will vary based on available light; but AFAIK the LCD / EVF refresh rate stays at 30 fps until the shutter speed needs to drop below 1/30th sec.

I'm happy to be proven wrong here because, unless Canon have radically redesigned the video hardware, the EVF for the G1XII will have the same characteristics (making the $300 asking price a bit high IMO).

Phil.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation. Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light. I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.


Only 25ms? That's faster than I would have expected.... relatively minimal processing of the signal?

So you are seeing 6 frames delay at 240hz...... How do you know it's 6 frames? It could be anywhere from 5.1 to 6.9 frames delay, or a range from 21ms to 29ms....but yes, that's fast.

It does not rule out a 30hz refresh rate (33ms) as latency and refresh rate are different things. For example, say the refresh rate was 60hz.... you would get a new frame each 17ms....but if the latency was 25 ms, that means that every 17ms you get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before. if the refresh rate was 30hz, then every 33ms you would get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before.... the latency can be higher or lower than the refresh rate, the two are not inter-dependant.

If you film something changing quickly with the SX50 and shoot video of the back display of the SX50 at 240hz, how many frames of 240hz do you get per changed frame on the back of the SX50? If you got 8 frames the same on the 240hz recording, that would be a 30hz update rate, 4 frames would mean a 60hz update rate.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 17, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation. Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light. I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.
> ...



Me too.



> So you are seeing 6 frames delay at 240hz...... How do you know it's 6 frames? It could be anywhere from 5.1 to 6.9 frames delay, or a range from 21ms to 29ms....but yes, that's fast.



I counted frames for a whole bunch of transitions and averaged the result.



> It does not rule out a 30hz refresh rate (33ms) as latency and refresh rate are different things. For example, say the refresh rate was 60hz.... you would get a new frame each 17ms....but if the latency was 25 ms, that means that every 17ms you get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before. if the refresh rate was 30hz, then every 33ms you would get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before.... the latency can be higher or lower than the refresh rate, the two are not inter-dependant.



I think it does, the way I did it, though I can't find my original video right now so I'm not certain. Since I was averaging, the frame period would have been included.



> If you film something changing quickly with the SX50 and shoot video of the back display of the SX50 at 240hz, how many frames of 240hz do you get per changed frame on the back of the SX50? If you got 8 frames the same on the 240hz recording, that would be a 30hz update rate, 4 frames would mean a 60hz update rate.



I don't know as I didn't try it. I was using the SX50 in regular, still-frame mode and just using a separate camera at 240fps to video both the LCD on the SX50 and the thing it was looking at, which was a fast-running clock (ms).


----------



## Diko (Feb 18, 2014)

Hi....

1/ there is already lossless jpg ver9 something... could be implemented in any of the next canon bodies (DIGIC 7 or 8 perhaps)

2/ quantum image sensor (QIS) is on the way by the father of APS CMOS. The main obstacle for its research ending is IMO is the current lack of power that would be able to process raw data from the sensor in the terabytes

3/by the time QIS is reality most of us would have lost about half a kilo of brain matter ( so really no folio needed) and will either suffer some neuro related sickness like Parkinson's desease or will be stupid enough to feel overwhelmed with the QIS menu.

And yet here we are and I wonder why there is not even a single person to mention something about FF or MF, which IMO is also partially the topic.

SONY made its MF epic debut and it wasn't with Nikon. Hasselbad and Phase One...aditionally there are rumors about the ex-pentax with their 645 (mark 2)  I bet that 44x33 mm CMOS is BI.

BTW SONY's contract with Nikon is about to end this month. Any updates on that one?

So I wounder if the Canon MF beast will come out this year or next... What do you think?

Ps: I hate tablets )))))


----------



## jrista (Feb 18, 2014)

Diko said:


> Hi....
> 
> 1/ there is already lossless jpg ver9 something... could be implemented in any of the next canon bodies (DIGIC 7 or 8 perhaps)
> 
> ...



If by QIS you are referring to Eric Fossum's Digital Film Sensor (DFS), that is a very old concept. Almost a decade old now, given this original paper: http://ericfossum.com/Publications/Papers/Gigapixel%20Digital%20Film%20Sensor%20Proposal.pdf

I read that many, many years ago. Very intriguing concept...however it doesn't mean that you actually have a gigapixel sensor. The notion of a digital film is that the sensor works more like actual film which has silver halide grains, wherein the "jots" combine to make up large digital sensor "grains". Under lower illumination where there are fewer incident photons, one jot strike within the region of a grain would "illuminate" the entire grain as if each jot had received a photon. Grains remain large, resolution remains low, SNR is high, noise is low. Technically speaking, this isn't all that different from downsampling a high ISO image in post.

Under high illumination, where photon strikes are frequent, most jots would receive photon strikes. By employing a mechanism to "divide" digital grains, one could dynamically increase resolution, since smaller grains with fewer jots could still achieve a higher SNR. It's most definitely an intriguing concept, but it is also requires technological capabilities beyond what we are currently capable of (at least, as far as image sensor fabs go). Jots are considerably smaller than your average pixel...they would have to be close to deep red wavelength (somewhere between 750 and 800nm...current APS-C pixels are 4000-5000nm, current full frame pixels are 6000-9000nm). 

To make an ideal Digital Film Sensor, I'd combine the Jot concept with the Titanium Nitride superconducting material and microwave comb readout to produce a sensor with infinite dynamic range, exact color replication, and effectively the highest resolution possible for an image sensor. The TiN technology is still pretty new, and pixel size is much larger than a jot (the only existing sensor is 44x46 pixels in size), and it still requires cooling in a dewar jar. But it would probably be the best sensor on earth. 



Diko said:


> And yet here we are and I wonder why there is not even a single person to mention something about FF or MF, which IMO is also partially the topic.
> 
> SONY made its MF epic debut and it wasn't with Nikon. Hasselbad and Phase One...aditionally there are rumors about the ex-pentax with their 645 (mark 2)  I bet that 44x33 mm CMOS is BI.
> 
> ...



Canon is not in the image sensor market. Canon is in the photography market. Canon doesn't sell sensors, so they wouldn't be selling sensors to Hasselblad or Phase One. Canon would have to bring a compelling medium format camera SYSTEM to market in order to compete with Hasselblad or Phase One. Given how Canon's tentative foray into the low end mirrorless market with a single camera and less than a handful of lenses, they weren't exactly successful.

It takes considerably more upfront resources to develop a complete competitive ecosystem when you are trying to break into an existing market that already has it's dominant players. That's a HUGE risk for Canon to take in order to enter the medium format market. We have already been through the fact that Canon is a conservative company, and they won't take a risk unless they have enough means to reduce it. They also won't take a risk unless the long-term payoff is significant. I see no reason to indicate that Canon should risk an entry into the medium format market right now. Especially now that those big manufacturers are utilizing Sony's currently superior sensor technology...that's even more up-front effort to develop something that is even better than what Sony offers. The sensors, and the optics, would all have to be better enough than the competition (which are already producing solely high-end, top grade products that will be quite difficult to beat as it is) in order to steal sales away. 

Canon won't be doing any kind of medium format anything any time soon. 



Diko said:


> Ps: I hate tablets )))))



Hmm. Good for you. ???


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

Diko said:


> there is already lossless jpg ver9 something... could be implemented in any of the next canon bodies (DIGIC 7 or 8 perhaps)


There is also a rumour that Canon has lossless RAW file format.  The problem with any lossless compression is that you end up with large file sizes... If lossless jpg isn't much of a savings over RAW, why bother?


----------



## Diko (Feb 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > there is already lossless jpg ver9 something... could be implemented in any of the next canon bodies (DIGIC 7 or 8 perhaps)
> ...


 Good to know    I mentioned it only due to the chit chat about DR and JPG.




jrista said:


> If by QIS you are referring to Eric Fossum's Digital Film Sensor (DFS), that is a very old concept. Almost a decade old now, given this original paper: http://ericfossum.com/Publications/Papers/Gigapixel%20Digital%20Film%20Sensor%20Proposal.pdf
> 
> I read that many, many years ago. Very intriguing concept...however it doesn't mean that you actually have a gigapixel sensor. The notion of a digital film is that the sensor works more like actual film which has silver halide grains, wherein the "jots" combine to make up large digital sensor "grains". Under lower illumination where there are fewer incident photons, one jot strike within the region of a grain would "illuminate" the entire grain as if each jot had received a photon. Grains remain large, resolution remains low, SNR is high, noise is low. Technically speaking, this isn't all that different from downsampling a high ISO image in post.
> 
> ...


Yes I do mean the same concept. These days Fossum calls it QIS. As for the thin film added to APS CMOS innovation from Canada IMO you have the whole concept wrong... No matter how he calls his pixels he claims of gathering 90%of the incident light and what is more important his intend is NOT to put it through ADC descrete process ergo the gigabytes. But even I could be wrong since he and his fellows are researching it as we speak.



jrista said:


> Canon is not in the image sensor market. Canon is in the photography market.
> 
> ....
> 
> Canon won't be doing any kind of medium format anything any time soon.



Now , about the last statement are you sure? 

http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=medium+format

As for CANON selling sensors...? How on earth did you come up with this one?!? I've returned the topic here *What's Next from Canon? * by mentioning the competitors and reminding of some old Canon rumors that for number of reasons I believe or at least hope to be true. 

Canon is making its own in house developed sensors and having in mind the CR MF rumors... I would love to hear what you think about it


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2014)

Diko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon won't be doing any kind of medium format anything any time soon.
> ...


A CR1 that is based on NL site is hardly something to take seriously...


----------



## Diko (Feb 18, 2014)

tron said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


 I will agree with you about the site renomee, since I am not very into the tech rumor business. 

Have in mind that a third (_SONY developed MF CMOS_) player, the *Pentax *(now *RICOH IMAGING*) *645D*, is a *fact* now. 

IF you have the first APSH 120 MP *and *the biggest in-house developed CMOS sensor (_*202 х 205 mm or 7,95 х 8,07 inches*_) since 2007 it is quite a feasible option. 

To be the biggest DSLR vendor without MF body? IMO not an option. At least not after in-house developed BIG CMOS is already *existing*.

And btw I have a speculation why this is happening now. Aside from the years for everyone to improve CMOS logic there is one major factor. A transition among the big players has begun to 18 (450mm) wafers. Even on a 11,8 inch (300mm) wafer one could make about *30 *CMOS *44x33 *(_taken the SONY's size which is actually 1.5 crop MF_).

In times when even Fujifilm is in the FF market I believe a slow entering in MF market is an viable option for more profit. I even believe it to be a trend.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

Diko said:


> IF you have the first APSH 120 MP *and *the biggest in-house developed CMOS sensor (_*202 х 205 mm or 7,95 х 8,07 inches*_) since 2007 it is quite a feasible option.
> 
> To be the biggest DSLR vendor without MF body? IMO not an option.



Sure, it's a feasible option. The real question is, is it a _profitable_ option? The MF market size is miniscule compared to the dSLR market. How minuscule? Granted, exact figures aren't available for MF. But…in 2013, there were close to *14,000,000 dSLRs* sold worldwide. Stephen Shulz, head of Leica's photo division, estimated that the annual worldwide market, all brands, is just *6,000 MF cameras*. 14 million vs. 6 thousand. 

You're suggesting it's 'not an option' for Canon to skip involvement in a market that constitutes less than 0.05% of their dSLR market size? Sorry, I think it's a very reasonable option for them not to care about a market that moves less units worldwide than Canon probably sells per year at a single Costco retail outlet. :

That's not to say that they won't get involved. After all, they sell supertele lenses at rates that are a fraction of a percent of the unit sales of their popular EF-S kit lenses. But those big white lenses are walking advertisements for Canon, on the sidelines of every major sporting event televised in millions of homes. Whereas a few thousand large black cameras aren't going to have any significant spillover marketing impact.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... estimated that the annual worldwide market, all brands, is just *6,000 MF cameras*. 14 million vs. 6 thousand.



Gee, I wouldn't mind a market of _just_ 6000 sales per year for my own products. 

On the other hand, *14 million* sales per year ... well, I suppose _that's_ the upside of runaway over-population. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Gee, I wouldn't mind a market of _just_ 6000 sales per year for my own products.



Yeah, but I'm guessing you're not a Fortune 500 company with a $35B market cap, right?


----------



## J.R. (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, I wouldn't mind a market of _just_ 6000 sales per year for my own products.
> ...



I'd guess the proper words here should be - 

"you're not a Fortune 500 company with a $35B market cap with a forum where one can bitch about almost everything you do" ;D


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but I'm guessing you're not a Fortune 500 company with a *$35B* market cap, right?



What, with our lousy exchange rate against the US dollar?

But on the other hand, our billion is a 1000 times more than your billion. So, for a market cap of US$35B ... times ten for the exchange rate ... that makes it ZAR350 milliard ... mmmmmm ... doable ... definitely doable ... ;D


----------



## jrista (Feb 18, 2014)

Diko said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



The Q.E. is indeed high. I don't know about 90%, even with a BSI design unless he is supercooling, there is going to be a certain amount of loss due to dark current. 

Having a high Q.E., however, does not change the notion of digital grains. In the presence of low light, you have low incident photon counts. The whole entire DFS/QIS design is based not just on jots, but on the fact that jots are organized into dynamic grains. In low light, all it takes is ONE jot to receive a photon in a grain for the ENTIRE grain to be activated. Let's say grains start out containing 400 jots each (20x20, a 16µm pixels...HUGE). Lets say were shooting in very low light, starlight. The moment one jot in each 20x20 size grain receives a few photons (lets say 50% Q.E., so two photons), then all 400 of those jots are marked as active! So, under low light, it might seem as though you actually received 800 photons, rather than just two! Big difference...you are now simulating the reception of a lot of light, however it is at the cost of resolution. At 16µm a grain, your resolution is going to be pretty low by modern standards...roughly 3.375mp. 

Now, lets say a crescent or half moon comes out, and we take the same picture again. We have about two to three more stops of light. Instead of two incident photons, we now have ~8 incident photons per grain. Lets say a dynamic grain division is set at 8 photons. Once our jots receive and convert eight photons, our grains all split. We now have four times the resolution (10x10 grains, or 100 jots per grain, four times as many grains). We have a stronger signal overall, but roughly the same signal per grain as we did before. However we now have an image with four times as many megapixels, 13.5mp to be exact. 

Now a full moon is out, and we take the same picture. We have another two stops of light. We get about 32 incident photons. Our grain size is now 5x5, or 25 jots per grain. Our resolution has quadrupled again. Same overall SNR, but our image resolution is 54mp. 

This is what Eric Fossum has designed. A totally dynamic sensor that adjusts itself based on the amount of incident light, maintaining relative signal strength and SNR regardless of how much light is actually present. It does this by dynamically reconfiguring the actual resolution of the device...very low light, very low resolution, low light, low resolution, adequate light, good resolution, tons of light, tons of resolution. Technologically it is pretty advanced, conceptually it is relatively strait forward. 

I've greatly exagerrated the scenario above...you wouldn't be able to have 54mp under moonlight. You would probably have something closer to 0.8mp under starlight, maybe 3mp under full moonlight, 13.5mp under morning or evening light, and maybe finally be able to achieve 54mp under full midday sunlight. 



Diko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is not in the image sensor market. Canon is in the photography market.
> ...



Absolutely. I'm 100% sure. It makes no sense for Canon to try to break into a niche market that already has not only it's dominant players, but dominant players with a HELL of a LOT of loyalty among their customers. There have been Canon MF rumors for years. I remember reading MF rumors here back in the 2005 era. Nothing has ever come of them, despite how often Northlight tends to drag the subject back out.

The only way Canon could make a compelling entry into MF is if they launched an entire MFD system. Cameras with interchangable backs, image sensors that at least rival but preferably surpass the IQ of the Sony MF 50mp, a wide range of extremely high quality glass (they are certainly capable here, but it still is a MASSIVE R&D effort), and a whole range of necessary and essential accessories like flash. Canon has to do this all UP FRONT, on their own dime, to cover the massive R&D effort to build an entirely new system of cameras that can compete in an already well established market.

Now, they've done that once. They did it with Cinema EOS. But the cinema market is a lot broader with more players, and is a significant growth market with the potential for significant long-term gains, even for a new entrant like Canon. The medium format market is not a growth market. It's a relatively steady market, that has its very few players and it's loyal customers. Since there are so few players who already dominate the market, breaking in for a new player like Canon would be a drain on resources, and there is absolutely zero guarantee of any long-term payoff.

So, yes, I'm sure. Canon won't be offering a medium format camera any time soon.


----------



## Diko (Feb 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> The Q.E. is indeed high. I don't know about 90%, even with a BSI design unless he is supercooling, there is going to be a certain amount of loss due to dark current.


 Actually that is the idea: the Q.E. to be at almost 100%. Here is an extract of some more recent materials about QIS:

Fossum writes:
QIS "vision" is to count every photon that hits the sensor, recording its location and arrival time, and create pixels from bit-planes of data.

That sounds to me as 100% Quantum Efficiency ;-) No?



jrista said:


> Having a high Q.E., however, does not change the notion of digital grains. In the presence of low light, you have low incident photon counts. The whole entire DFS/QIS design is based not just on jots, but on the fact that jots are organized into dynamic grains. In low light, all it takes is ONE jot to receive a photon in a grain for the ENTIRE grain to be activated. Let's say grains start out containing 400 jots each (20x20, a 16µm pixels...HUGE). Lets say were shooting in very low light, starlight. The moment one jot in each 20x20 size grain receives a few photons (lets say 50% Q.E., so two photons), then all 400 of those jots are marked as active! So, under low light, it might seem as though you actually received 800 photons, rather than just two! Big difference...you are now simulating the reception of a lot of light, however it is at the cost of resolution. At 16µm a grain, your resolution is going to be pretty low by modern standards...roughly 3.375mp.
> 
> Now, lets say a crescent or half moon comes out, and we take the same picture again. We have about two to three more stops of light. Instead of two incident photons, we now have ~8 incident photons per grain. Lets say a dynamic grain division is set at 8 photons. Once our jots receive and convert eight photons, our grains all split. We now have four times the resolution (10x10 grains, or 100 jots per grain, four times as many grains). We have a stronger signal overall, but roughly the same signal per grain as we did before. However we now have an image with four times as many megapixels, 13.5mp to be exact.
> 
> ...



Actually he intends to put more than 4K jots in 1 pixel    However I believe:

1/ your info might be a little out-of-date.

2/ Fossum knows what he is doing if he is doing it for more than 10 years now. And he already has created something befre (the CMOS).

3/ I hope you will agree that we both are a little bit behind - no matter how much we know, with our understanding of this TO-EMERGE technology ;-)

Here is some more recent presentations:

2012
2013



jrista said:


> ...
> Absolutely. I'm 100% sure. It makes no sense for Canon to try to break into a niche market that already has not only it's dominant players, but dominant players with a HELL of a LOT of loyalty among their customers. There have been Canon MF rumors for years. I remember reading MF rumors here back in the 2005 era. Nothing has ever come of them, despite how often Northlight tends to drag the subject back out.
> 
> The only way Canon could make a compelling entry into MF is if they launched an entire MFD system. Cameras with interchangable backs, image sensors that at least rival but preferably surpass the IQ of the Sony MF 50mp, a wide range of extremely high quality glass (they are certainly capable here, but it still is a MASSIVE R&D effort), and a whole range of necessary and essential accessories like flash. Canon has to do this all UP FRONT, on their own dime, to cover the massive R&D effort to build an entirely new system of cameras that can compete in an already well established market.
> ...


OK. 
- Yes about SYSTEM, of course. I have never imagined CANON selling digital backs, or sensors to anyone )))
- Yes about glass
- No about light
- Perhaps CANON has been in the MF R&D since 2001 with the introducing of 12"' Si wafer
Let us not forget the BIG SENSOR or the BIG 120 MPs APS-H sensor - the 2007 success? 

*Silicon Wafer Sizes Trend* The picture I provide is more relevant to intel then to SONY or CANONn and yet it is a trend:






Let me make another comparison exactly with the small Cinema EOS *success*. It's like an early bird. FF sensor from DSLR equipment against ARRI, RED & SONY APS-C Cinema solutions..... Hmmm... Who knows... ;-) Extra dollar is always welcomed. Even if it is from 0.5 market share. If CANON succeeds to sell 2k MF bodies in 3 years, let's say 10K$ each.... 2 million extra dollars... I ask 

WHY NOT? ;-)



neuroanatomist said:


> ... But…in 2013, there were close to *14,000,000 dSLRs* sold worldwide. Stephen Shulz, head of Leica's photo division, estimated that the annual worldwide market, all brands, is just *6,000 MF cameras*. 14 million vs. 6 thousand.



*NEURO*, Could you be so kind to provide some links for those statistics about the 14 million DSLRs sold in 2013. I can put them in good use for personal doings 

Thank you in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

Diko said:


> *NEURO*, Could you be so kind to provide some links for those statistics about the 14 million DSLRs sold in 2013. I can put them in good use for personal doings
> 
> Thank you in advance.



CIPA aggregates the data, there are many years' worth here:

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

Enjoy!


----------



## Diko (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CIPA aggregates the data, there are many years' worth here:
> 
> http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html
> 
> Enjoy!


 You are the best... but I guess you know that! ))


----------



## jrista (Feb 18, 2014)

Diko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The Q.E. is indeed high. I don't know about 90%, even with a BSI design unless he is supercooling, there is going to be a certain amount of loss due to dark current.
> ...



There is a very significant difference between "vision" and "reality". The vision may indeed be to count every photon. The reality is, in order to achieve that, the sensor would have to be superconducting. That's the only way you can count every photo. The Titanium Nitride video sensor I linked is a photon counting, position recording, exact wavelength detecting sensor. It is about as close to Fossum's vision as modern technology gets. The only difference is it doesn't use jots and dynamic grains. The reality is, that TiN sensor is cooled to superconducting supercool temperatures.

If your thinking that someday Fossum's QIS is going to pan out to a hand-holdable photon-counting DSLR (or for that matter even a DSLR with 90% Q.E.), your gravely mistaken. It isn't possible to cool electronics to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero in a hand-holdable package, and room-temperature superconductive materials, as much as they are the holy grail of the electronics industry, simply haven't been discovered, and the more time passes, the liklihood of finding a room-temperature superconductor diminishes (research has been ongoing for decades, and every time someone "discovers" a room temp superconductor, it always pans out to be false.) This is all assuming that actual photon-counting is possible with any superconducting material above absolute zero...dark current is the photon counting killer.



Diko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Having a high Q.E., however, does not change the notion of digital grains. In the presence of low light, you have low incident photon counts. The whole entire DFS/QIS design is based not just on jots, but on the fact that jots are organized into dynamic grains. In low light, all it takes is ONE jot to receive a photon in a grain for the ENTIRE grain to be activated. Let's say grains start out containing 400 jots each (20x20, a 16µm pixels...HUGE). Lets say were shooting in very low light, starlight. The moment one jot in each 20x20 size grain receives a few photons (lets say 50% Q.E., so two photons), then all 400 of those jots are marked as active! So, under low light, it might seem as though you actually received 800 photons, rather than just two! Big difference...you are now simulating the reception of a lot of light, however it is at the cost of resolution. At 16µm a grain, your resolution is going to be pretty low by modern standards...roughly 3.375mp.
> ...



At 4k jots per "pixel" (pixels don't really exist in the DFS concept, not sure about any more recent QIS papers), if we assume he is using an 800nm jot pitch, that would mean you have 45,000 jots across and 30,000 jots down in a 36x24mm sensor. That makes a grain/pixel with 4000 jots (63x63 jots per grain) over 50µm in size. I mean, there are physical limitations here. We can't break the laws of physics, not even if we are Eric Fossum. Make jot size much smaller than 800nm, and you'll start filtering out red light. You can't have a color accurate sensor if you do that...not at room temperature anyway. 

(Based on one of the papers you linked, it isn't actually 4096 jots per pixel. It is 16x16 jots read 16 times to produce one frame, 16 times 16 (physical dimensions) times 16 (time) is 4096. Based on other information in the article, it sounds like his jots are about 1µm in size, or 1011nm to be exact.)

Now, if we move back into the realm of superconductive TiN sensors at absolute zero, you could probably make jots 100nm, maybe even 10nm in size, have near-perfect positional measurement accuracy by measuring broken cooper pairs. Since your measuring the exact energy in each incident photon, your jots are recording the exact wavelength of the disturbance in the superconductor. The TiN sensor I linked here uses the same general concept Fossum put forward on 2005...taking minuscule time-slices of an exposure by reading the sensor hundreds or thousands of times per second, and integrating the result. That gives it essentially infinite dynamic range if you expose for long enough (although you would still be limited if you needed shorter exposures, however that limit would still be considerably higher than modern day sensors...18-20 stops maybe.)

There are other physical problems that have to be solved before this technology would even be viable. According to another one of Fossum's more recent papers, were talking about excessive data throughput rates. The fastest data throughput rates we have today for storage are on the order of gigabits per second. A high end PCI-E type SSD can move around a gigabyte and a half per second or so, which is about 12 gigabits per second. Fossum's QIS concept requires 100 TERRABIT per second throughput. That is 12.5 terrabytes per second!!! That is unprecedented transfer speed. I mean, MASSIVELY UNPRECEDENTED. I don't even know that I've heard 1/100th of those kinds of throughput rates for single supercomputer throughput channels. You would have to bundle hundreds if not thousands of the high speed fiberchannel connections usually used with supercomputing in order to achieve a terrabit of throughput. Fiberchannel, one of the fastest transfer channels , tops out at around 25-gigabit per second, or about 0.00025x as fast as would be necessary for a QIS sensor to operate effectively. To be really clear about this, the fastest data channel on earth can currently only achieve 0.00025x what is necessary to support Fossum's QIS concept. It is still 0.025x the necessary throughput rate to achieve even 1 terrabit/second throughput. Even the on-chip data cache of a modern CPU is still only pushing a couple hundred gigabits/second throughput to the CPU registers, and that is thanks to exceptionally short physical data paths. In a digital camera, the image information has to be shipped off-sensor to a processor powerful enough to integrate hundreds of individual jot frames per second. Even if were talking about an integrated stacked sensor and DSP package, the distance those frames have to travel would make achieving 1-100tbit/s throughput difficult without some radical new breakthrough in bit transfer technology. 

There are significant challenges in order to make Fossum's DFS/QIS concept a reality. Which is why, even after at least nine years, it is still just a concept. 



Diko said:


> 1/ your info might be a little out-of-date.
> 
> 2/ Fossum knows what he is doing if he is doing it for more than 10 years now. And he already has created something befre (the CMOS).
> 
> 3/ I hope you will agree that we both are a little bit behind - no matter how much we know, with our understanding of this TO-EMERGE technology ;-)



MAY-EMERGE technology. As I said above, there are some pretty massive physical and technological issues to overcome. I've never heard of a photon-counting sensor that used sensing elements as small as a jot that wasn't supercooled. A data throughput rate of 1-100tbit/s is not only unprecedented, but could very possibly be impossible without integrating the entire concept onto a single die, and even then, at a tbit/s throughput, that little sensor+dsp die is going to get exceptionally hot (even supercooled, your producing a hell of a lot of energy in an extremely concentrated space, meaning you run a high risk of heating the sensor above the point where it can behave as a superconducting device...either that, or you need orders of magnitude more power to keep it all cool).

You don't need to know what technological advances may come down the road in the future to know that the QIS concept is running up really close to the laws of physics. It's very likely it is bending them as far as they can go, and it may not be enough.



Diko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



If Canon had been developing an MF system for 13 years, then they have already failed. They've failed multiple times over. Sorry, but I find that idea exceptionally unlikely. 

The "BIG SENSOR" was designed for an entirely different division of Canon for use in scientific grade imaging. It will never be used in a DSLR type camera. The 120mp APS-H was an APS-H sensor...that is smaller than FF, and significantly smaller than MF (MF sensors start around 44x33, and get as large as 60x70...anything smaller, and were not talking medium format.)




Diko said:


> *Silicon Wafer Sizes Trend* The picture I provide is more relevant to intel then to SONY or CANONn and yet it is a trend:



I know all about wafer size trends. Canon still uses 200mm wafers for their APS-C and FF sensors as far as I know. Another indication that they haven't and are not moving into MF any time soon. On a 200mm wafer, you can fit 24 44x33mm sensors. On a 300mm wafer, you can fit 54 sensors, with less waste. Assuming Canon somehow skipped 300mm and went strait to 450mm (highly unlikely, the 450mm wafer size still seems to be somewhat fragile), you could fit 130 sensors, with even less waste. I don't see Canon manufacturing MF sensors on 200mm wafers. 



Diko said:


> Let me make another comparison exactly with the small Cinema EOS *success*. It's like an early bird. FF sensor from DSLR equipment against ARRI, RED & SONY APS-C Cinema solutions..... Hmmm... Who knows... ;-) Extra dollar is always welcomed. Even if it is from 0.5 market share. If CANON succeeds to sell 2k MF bodies in 3 years, let's say 10K$ each.... 2 million extra dollars... I ask



You don't seem to understand the market dynamics involved here. Cinema is a big, huge growth market into the future. There is massive potential for Canon, who already has an exceptional reputation in photography, to make big inroads into the Cinema market space as it grows, grabbing up new customers, many of whom are already familiar with Canon video from using their video-capable DSLRs. Canon already has a name in that industry thanks to the 5D II, which has been used in a number of relatively big name productions for TV and even a few big name movies. 

Canon's break into the cinema market is easy. It cost them little to integrate video into the 5D II, which gave them their initial foothold, paving the way for them to expand that foothold into a legitimate presence. Since the market is a growth market, the risk is relatively low compared to an entry into MF, because you can grab new customers who are just moving to digital cinema cameras and have yet to buy into a system. 

This is in contrast with the medium format market. It's growth opportunities, such as they are, are small. That means the primary source of market share gain has to come from existing dominant players. The market is relatively closed, with relatively few needs and a small base of customers to start with.

You could compare Cinema EOS as sprinting up a gentle slope, the wind of the 5D II success at their backs, with Canon MFD as climbing up an ice cliff with the wind buffeting them around their precarious perch. Medium format is a loss/loss for Canon. Excessive up-front cost, uphill climb once they finally enter the market full of very few customers and low growth. 

Sorry...still don't believe it's going to happen. Not with Canon, anyway, not right now, not with global economies still in the pits relative to their 2007 peaks. 



Diko said:


> WHY NOT? ;-)



See above.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> If your thinking that someday Fossum's QIS is going to pan out to a hand-holdable photon-counting DSLR (or for that matter even a DSLR with 90% Q.E.), your gravely mistaken. It isn't possible to cool electronics to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero in a hand-holdable package



Not even for winters in Canada....


----------



## Diko (Feb 19, 2014)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You remind me of this:







Your knowledge is adorable... And yet quite interesting that you DO continue to fight with the idea that he may have did it.

If you stop just for a second using your knowledge from *here * whereby this is an improvement of the CMOS:





And the regular physics knowledge... Yeah I had that moment with the jots and the wavelength just as you did. But I do know that he is quite longer in this business than you and me together ;-)

DO you believe that he will reveal every detail of his study to the world so someone could steal it from him? ;-) And do you believe that he would continue for 10 years to research in that field within a reputable university and some sponsor (it could be even Samsung)?

IF scientist were so sure like you and so negative... we would be in the medieval age, no offence.

There is a pdf (if in those presentations not included back dated from 2010, if I recall correctly where Fossum represents that they are to try to implement that technology (of course quite away from Q.E. of 100%) in 3 stages....
The first one on a regular CMOS. The last one on a new superconducting material... so there you go...

As for: 



> There are significant challenges in order to make Fossum's DFS/QIS concept a reality. Which is why, even after at least nine years, it is still just a concept.



Please go back where I first mentioned the QIS. I said that at the moment the current technology is not ready yet for QIS or something along those lines.

Additionally I said that our brains would be half a kilo smaller on average. Let me elaborate - that means about 20 -30 years from now... Unless you are younger than me ;-) CHEAT: live a healthy life!   

As for the CANON.. Officially 200mm is what I have head as well about CANON... but you have to admit that if you were CANON you wouldn't reveal of you are already on a 300 or 450mm wafer, now would you? 

A proof that is this very topic here - we even are not sure what the new 1Dx m2 and 7D m2 would be look like... we are pretty confident they will include dual pix though.... 

Which reminds me that we even didn't know about the DUAL PIX just before the release of 70D - a few months before that we had some rumor about new focus tech... And you, as well as the others are quite aware that Dual PIX AF didn't emerge like that in the last 6 months before the 70D, now did it? ;-) 

*UPDATE*: Since Jrista is as curious as I am and I respect that and like these people - here is the *latest *on QIS


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > *NEURO*, Could you be so kind to provide some links for those statistics about the 14 million DSLRs sold in 2013. I can put them in good use for personal doings
> ...


Interesting stats ... thanks for sharing Neuro. Looking at those numbers, I see there were over 3.3 million non-reflex/mirrorless camers sold in 2013, now that's over 20% of the DSLR market share and growing ... but it is baffling that Canon does not seem to be interested in the Lion's share of that market :-\ ... surely, with their experience as a successful camera manufacturer, Canon CAN make a great mirrorless camera ... but for some reason they seem to have deliberately crippled the EOS-M. I see a company like Sony come up with a compelling camera like an a6000 (granted that Sony is desperate to try new ideas for their survival, nevertheless, they have produced some AWESOME mirrorless cameras), so why is Canon not interested. With the shrinking P&S camera market and a growing mirrorless camera market, there is clearly money out there to be made ... yet Canon ain't interested? ... are they deliberately sabotaging the market to give mirrorless a bad name? :-\ :-\


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... but it is baffling that Canon does not seem to be interested in the Lion's share of that market :-\ ... surely, with their experience as a successful camera manufacturer, Canon CAN make a great mirrorless camera ... but for some reason they seem to have deliberately crippled the EOS-M. ... yet Canon ain't interested? ... are they deliberately sabotaging the market to give mirrorless a bad name? :-\ :-\



Maybe Canon doesn't own certain key patents regarding mirrorless cameras and thus don't want to be walloped into bankruptcy by a no-account company like Olympus. ;D


----------



## tron (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ... but it is baffling that Canon does not seem to be interested in the Lion's share of that market :-\ ... surely, with their experience as a successful camera manufacturer, Canon CAN make a great mirrorless camera ... but for some reason they seem to have deliberately crippled the EOS-M. ... yet Canon ain't interested? ... *are they deliberately sabotaging the market to give mirrorless a bad name?* :-\ :-\
> ...


I wonder why you mention sabotaging. As if it isn't their right not to put resources to mirrorless...


----------



## jrista (Feb 19, 2014)

Diko said:


> ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
> 
> You remind me of this:



That's not what I'm saying at all. The 640k deal was a choice, not due to physical limitations. Building a system that can scan incoming light at subwavelength and transfer information at 1000 to 100000 times faster than the fastest we've ever been able to achieve boils down to physics. MAYBE we can do it. MAYBE, if we produce the necessary technology by 2015 (which is when Fossum, based on that latest paper you linked, which I've already read BTW). Sorry, but I truly do not believe that even by 2017 or 2020, we will have the technology to transfer data at 100tbit/s. We won't even be close. 



Diko said:


> Your knowledge is adorable... And yet quite interesting that you DO continue to fight with the idea that he may have did it.



He hasn't done it. It's a theory. It's a concept. It* isn't *an actual prototype. If it was, I GUARANTEE YOU it would make waves. It would be on every sensor-related news site and probably every technology site everywhere. Fossum wouldn't keep it under wraps. Not a chance. (You clearly don't read ImageSensorsWorld...this kind of technology, if it reaches prototype stage, will be HUGE.) 



Diko said:


> http://m.eet.com/media/1081272/SARGENT1433_PG_46.gif
> If you stop just for a second using your knowledge from *here * whereby this is an improvement of the CMOS:



I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. It is simply an alternative approach to making photosensitive electronics. Your readout logic is still built with standard silicon at standard sizes, transferring information at standard speeds. And the sensitivity improvement, from what I know about it, doesn't allow photon counting. There have been other improvements that increase the light gathering capacity of silicon without resorting to wet tech, such as black silicon. Even black silicon isn't going to solve the data transfer rate issue, or allow photon counting, though.



Diko said:


> http://m.eet.com/media/1081272/SARGENT1433_PG_46.gif
> And the regular physics knowledge... Yeah I had that moment with the jots and the wavelength just as you did. But I do know that he is quite longer in this business than you and me together ;-)
> 
> DO you believe that he will reveal every detail of his study to the world so someone could steal it from him? ;-) And do you believe that he would continue for 10 years to research in that field within a reputable university and some sponsor (it could be even Samsung)?



Fossum is a researcher. He produces patents. It's what he does. So absolutely. I do believe he will reveal every detail of his research. I believe he has already revealed everything he knows. Besides, due to things like prior art, no one can really steal it from him. It's his work. He has the prior art. Even if someone tried to patent it, he could prevent it in court. He has about a decade of research and documentation to clearly prove the concept is his, and therefor not the unique invention of someone else. So yes, he absolutely would reveal all the details. He reveals details all the time, and again, if you read ImageSensorsWorld, you would know this. 

Fossum doesn't HAVE the specific details for things like high speed tbit/s data transfer. NO ONE DOES. There are undoubtedly people researching it. People have been researching 500gbit and tbit data transfer rates since the 80s. I remember a Byte Magazine article from the late 80s that talked about organic memory and hundreds of gigabits per second data transfer rates. Well, were some 25 years on, and it still hasn't happened. The organic memory concept died, it just wasn't viable, and SSD offered realistic, tangible gains in performance without being unrealistically hopeful.



Diko said:


> http://m.eet.com/media/1081272/SARGENT1433_PG_46.gif
> IF scientist were so sure like you and so negative... we would be in the medieval age, no offence.



I'm not negative. I'm realistic. You can be as hopeful as you want, but it doesn't mean your hopefulness means success. Your hopefulness is simply unrealistic given how far technology has come, and how close the walls of physics are. This isn't the 90's. Back then we couldn't even see those walls. It's now the 2010's. Two decades on, at the relentless rate we've been pushing technological advancement, those walls are right in front of us now. And not just in the case of QIS...technological advancement via traditional means (i.e. primarily via reduction in size) is going to come to a crushing halt relatively soon. Certain problems have already forced some radical changes to how we manufacture CPUs, for example, and all that's done is stave off the inevitable for a little while longer.

You also cant' forget, Fossum has been trying for a decade to design this type of sensor. A DECADE. That is a very long time to even prove a concept can work. A LOT of CIS patents files in the 80's were viable, and we knew we could eventually shrink die sizes and increase data transfer speeds to levels where we could eventually achieve them. Many of the new technologies being implemented today were actually discovered decades ago. However back then, transistor sizes were hundreds of microns in size, and data transfer rates were so low we had absolutely no question we could improve them. 

Today, we've been riding the limits of Moores Law on a continuous basis. The effort involved in developing new advances costs and order of magnitude more money each time we develop a new fabrication process (i.e. it used to cost a few hundred million to build a CMOS fab, today it costs tens of billions.) Transistor sizes are approaching physical limits...the next die shrink is 14nm, and the one after that is 7nm. Gate sizes, even with 3D/finFET, are now only a couple ATOMS across. Even with stretching, that poses a real problem for current flow, hence finFET, and that is only a stopgap measure (and it imposes it's own limitations as well.) The hard, impassable physical WALL is looming very close. There are a couple generations left before there is no such thing as a die shrink anymore. We have a decade, two at most (assuming two to four years between die shrinks) before efforts begin in earnest to develop full multi-layered CPUs and the like, because that will be the only remaining option.

You call me negative. I'm just a realist. There are significant physical limitations that computer technology is already riding close to. If Fossum said he would need 100gbit/s transfer rate, I'd say "When does the technology hit?!?" Why? Because 100gbit/s is only 10x (or less) faster than the fastest transfer speeds we already have today. It's realistic, it's doable, there is already research that indicates it's possible, and it could be ready by late 2015/early 2016. Fossum said he needs 100tbit/s transfer rate, and his timetable showed 2015-2016 as his target date for QIS. Sorry, but you don't suddenly go from 10gbit/s (the fastest ethernet, and also the transfer speed of Thunderbolt) to 100tbit (100000gbit/s) overnight. It just aint gonna happen. Maybe a decade or so from now. But not by 2016. It simply isn't realistic. 



Diko said:


> There is a pdf (if in those presentations not included back dated from 2010, if I recall correctly where Fossum represents that they are to try to implement that technology (of course quite away from Q.E. of 100%) in 3 stages....
> The first one on a regular CMOS. The last one on a new superconducting material... so there you go...



I believe he said the same thing in 2005. In 2010, the new superconducting material was actually just announced as something called a superinsulator. Superinsulators had been hypothesized for years, and we knew they had to exist if superconductors existed. We just didn't know how they worked. Ironically, they really don't work all that differently than superconductive material...just in the opposite (instead of encouraging cooper pairs to attract, superinsulators cause them to repel). The other sensor I've been talking about, the Titanium Nitride sensor, uses both superinsulating and superconducting properties. TiN IS the new superconducting/superinsulating material. However for those properties to exhibit, the sensor has to be cooled to absolute zero.

Again, not being negative. Being realistic. We won't have DSLR-sized cameras with supercooled sensors by 2016. Not a chance. The power and material requirements necessary to cool anything to absolute zero are immense, not to mention rather unique.



Diko said:


> As for the CANON.. Officially 200mm is what I have head as well about CANON... but you have to admit that if you were CANON you wouldn't reveal of you are already on a 300 or 450mm wafer, now would you?



Of course they would! You really don't understand either the technologies involved here, nor the economics. Canon moving to 300mm wafers for their FF and APS-C fabrication would be a huge boon to their stock price. OF COURSE THEY WOULD OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCE IT! It's ludicrous to think otherwise, and exceptionally naive. 



Diko said:


> A proof that is this very topic here - we even are not sure what the new 1Dx m2 and 7D m2 would be look like... we are pretty confident they will include dual pix though....



Canon already has 300mm fabs for their small form factor sensors, which are built on a 180nm process rather than a 500nm process. Canon has had those fabs for years. There has been speculation that the 70D DPAF pixels would need a smaller process in order to be produced. The pixel size shrink on the 70D, however, is not actually that great. At first I thought the shrink was more significant, however the size of the 70D sensor also grew. Prior sensors were around 22.2x14.8mm in size. The 70D is 22.5x15.1mm. The increase in size means instead of a 3.9µm pixel, they actually have 4.1µm pixels. The pixels are only 0.2µm smaller than the 7D. There isn't any need for Canon to reduce their process size to split those pixel in two...they are still more than large enough. Even at 3.9µm, they would still be large enough. 

As much as I personally hoped Canon would move the 70D to a smaller process, there just isn't any evidence to support that theory. Physically, Canon still has space to use a 500nm process, even with dual photodiodes. When you think about it, doping the photodiodes really is not that big of a deal, as the photodiodes themselves are a couple thousand nanometers in size, which is about four times larger than the smallest 500nm etching possible with a 500nm process. 

If Canon had moved FF and APS-C manufacturing to a 300mm wafer fab, they would have announced it. It would be a massive move, and a move for the better, for Canon as a company, for their shareholders, for their customers. A move to 300mm means more FF sensors manufactured faster with less waste, reducing cost, allowing more electronics on-die at a smaller transistor size, etc. It would be big news, for everyone. No way in hell would Canon hide that fact.



Diko said:


> Which reminds me that we even didn't know about the DUAL PIX just before the release of 70D - a few months before that we had some rumor about new focus tech... And you, as well as the others are quite aware that Dual PIX AF didn't emerge like that in the last 6 months before the 70D, now did it? ;-)



The technology had to be in development for more than 6 months before the 70D hit the streets. Canon has patents on the technology. If someone was digging, they would have found them (quite possibly LONG before the 70D hit the streets, as patents have to be requested and then filed quite some time before they are granted. You don't know about the request, but once they are filed, it's all public knowledge...you can find it if you want to. I used to go digging through CIS patents...I don't have enough time to do that any more, but I don't doubt that the patents were out there before the 70D hit the streets.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> The technology had to be in development for more than 6 months before the 70D hit the streets. Canon has patents on the technology. If someone was digging, they would have found them (quite possibly LONG before the 70D hit the streets, as patents have to be requested and then filed quite some time before they are granted. You don't know about the request, but once they are filed, it's all public knowledge...you can find it if you want to. I used to go digging through CIS patents...I don't have enough time to do that any more, but I don't doubt that the patents were out there before the 70D hit the streets.)



In the US, it's 18 months between filing a patent and the publication of that patent. So, 18 months before the patent issued, it was filed. Most of the research had to be completed before the patent was filed, so that goves you an idea of the lead time (there are provisional patents, too, which give you an extra year to fully develop the invention, but I don't know that Canon uses that mechanism all that much).


----------



## jrista (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The technology had to be in development for more than 6 months before the 70D hit the streets. Canon has patents on the technology. If someone was digging, they would have found them (quite possibly LONG before the 70D hit the streets, as patents have to be requested and then filed quite some time before they are granted. You don't know about the request, but once they are filed, it's all public knowledge...you can find it if you want to. I used to go digging through CIS patents...I don't have enough time to do that any more, but I don't doubt that the patents were out there before the 70D hit the streets.)
> ...



The average time for a patent to move the entire way through the process is ~24 months. The 18 month period is from the time they actually start the process to when it's published. There can be some "queue time" as well, and on average, that time seems to be 6 months (although, a highly innovative company like Canon may get more special treatment, honestly can't say there). Canon had to have DPAF technology years ago. People just don't understand the effort and time it takes to bring research to a consumer product. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes years, many years, and a lot of effort.

People also don't seem to understand that technologies like QIS are heavily dependent upon other technological innovations occurring elsewhere in the industry to support some of their needs. I've never gathered from his papers that Fossum is a genius in data transfer concepts. He knows sensor design like the back of his hand, and he is one of the most innovative forces in the image sensor world, but a lot of his technology builds or relies on other technology. Before QIS can happen, we need to know how to transfer data at 100 terrabits per second, and do that in such a way as to not melt the sensor or the data channel or the DSP. That is a LOT of information to move around per second. You need massive processing, orders of magnitude more processing power than current DSLRs have. You need significant cooling as well, even if were not talking about a superconductive device.

To think that a QIS sensor is "in the bag", as Diko's hopes indicate, is simply naive of the realities of some of the assumptions Fossum is making.


----------



## Diko (Feb 19, 2014)

I might have been wrong about the wafer size change  Although according to one guy README  the cost reduction is more a of a fuzz.
When I mentioned about the DPAF patent I was quite clear with patenting filling time... I mentioned it because for example now we can't be sure that the next 1dx won't be with foveon quatro remember that Canon has a patent? Fossum and his team would need 20 years perhaps.....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 20, 2014)

tron said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


I do not understand what you mean by: "As if it isn't their right not to put resources to mirrorless" ... but let me explain why I used the word "sabotaging":
Over the years I've used several third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Rokinon/Samyang) on Canon cameras (400D, 450D, 500D, 60D, 7D & 5D MKII) and Nikon cameras (D70, D3100, D5100, D7000, D7100 & D6100), when I first got the third party lenses, everything would work well on my Canon/Nikon cameras ... but mysteriously whenever I updated to a new firmware(s), the third party lenses would suddenly not AF as well as they used to before, or the OS/VC would become noisy or the camera batteries would drain faster (when using third party lenses) ... so it is my assumption that Canon/Nikon do some "tinkering" (sabotaging) to "encourage" Canon/Nikon camera users to buy only their lenses (I suppose I'd do the same thing if I was in their shoes ... and why not). If you notice, both Canon/Nikon got into the mirrorless business with disappointing mirrorless camera models ... since Canon/Nikon account for a major portion of camera sales across the globe, they are in a unique position to give a product a good/bad name with subtle tactics. The EOS-M camera was released in June 2012 (that is nearly 21 months ago), yet there are only 2 native lenses available in most parts of the world ... the 11-22mm UWA lens is only available in just a handful of countries ... does one honestly believe that people will not want to buy that awesome small lens, which has received very positive reviews? ... something does not add up here when the ONLY 2 major players (Canon/Nikon) produce halfhearted cameras ... I cannot believe that Canon/Nikon, with their massive resources and R&D, are not capable of producing compelling mirrorless cameras ... for me the only logical conclusion is that they are not interested in the mirrorless business (as they've got far too much invested in their highly profitable DSLR business) and they want it to stay that way ... and the best way of giving mirrorless cameras a bad name is produce halfhearted ones that do not inspire confidence in the general public ... thus "encouraging" people to buy DSLRs ... therefore, the word "sabotaging". Everything is fair in love and war ... and business is war.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...


I wonder if they are looking further down the road than we give them credit for, and are positioning themselves for the day the DSLRs go mirrorless and that they plan to use the same EF mount and the same EF lenses.....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Quite possible ... obviously, it isn't an accident that Canon holds the numero uno position, they seem to be very clever about their business decisions. Personally, I prefer Canon cameras (with the exception of mirrorless) over any other brand ... and it'd be awesome if we can use EF lenses on Canon mirrorless cameras.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I wonder if they are looking further down the road than we give them credit for, and are positioning themselves for the day the DSLRs go mirrorless and that they plan to use the same EF mount and the same EF lenses.....



This makes being on the receiving end of all the name-calling, put-downs and personal attacks worth it, when others start to say what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 21, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if they are looking further down the road than we give them credit for, and are positioning themselves for the day the DSLRs go mirrorless and that they plan to use the same EF mount and the same EF lenses.....
> ...


I have believed for several years that the future is mirror less, but I have not believed for a second that the form factor would be substantially different than the current DSLRs. The big reasons for my belief are:
1st. Ergonomics....the 35mm size is the best balance.
2nd.. Lenses. They exist and continue to be improved.
3rd.. Things like dual pixel autofocus.
4th.. Improvements in electronics

Mirrorless is a highly emotional subject to some people, almost as bad as the great film/digital debate. Right now, most cameras are mirrorless, and the trend is shifting more that way. The last two big obstacles are focus systems and viewfinders. Both are getting close, and both have the potential to offer new features and improve on the old.

Imagine, no more AFMA, no more moving parts to wear out...

The EOS-M is not the future of mirrorless, it will be the 1D?, the 5D?, the 7D?, and a host of rebels.

It is possible that the delays on the 7D2 are problems getting this right.....we might be in for a real surprise when it gets released.

Just ask yourself, where are all those people who said digital will never replace film? This is the same debate, just a different component. It will happen, it's just a matter of time...


----------



## Max ☢ (Feb 21, 2014)

+1 Don ! I wouldn't have said it better.
Mirrorless as an image acquisition technology, not as a form factor, is definitely the future evolution of our current DSLR. The major roadblocks at the moment are the EVF quality and the AF, but I am confident that improvements of the dual pixel, the OLED and the overall video technologies will clear the way.

Another reason why the evolution towards mirrorless is bound to happen is the associated decrease in manufacturing and quality control costs that will result from the simpler overall camera structure (i.e. less components). This will definitely improve the profit margins for the manufacturers, an argument which is always music to the hears of big corporate managements! 
In this end, it is this factor which may drive the transition from DSLR to "DSLM" rather than customer experience or any other marketting argument (although phasing out AFMA will be a very nice evolution step for the users).


----------



## J.R. (Feb 21, 2014)

Max ☢ said:


> +1 Don ! I wouldn't have said it better.
> Mirrorless as an image acquisition technology, not as a form factor, is definitely the future evolution of our current DSLR. The major roadblocks at the moment are the EVF quality and the AF, but I am confident that improvements of the dual pixel, the OLED and the overall video technologies will clear the way.
> 
> Another reason why the evolution towards mirrorless is bound to happen is the associated decrease in manufacturing and quality control costs that will result from the simpler overall camera structure (i.e. less components). This will definitely improve the profit margins for the manufacturers, an argument which is always music to the hears of big corporate managements!
> In this end, it is this factor which may drive the transition from DSLR to "DSLM" rather than customer experience or any other marketting argument (although phasing out AFMA will be a very nice evolution step for the users).



+1 ... mirrorless still has some way to go before it replaces the current DSLRs. 

Canon has the highest market share and has the most to lose if a product goes wrong, so I'm guessing that Canon is simply playing the waiting game (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) till the mirrorless market matures and it will come out with its own mirrorless which will blow the pretenders out of the water. I also expect that it will be perfectly usable with the EF lenses, so yes, mirrorless for the technological improvements, smaller form factor be damned. 

It's a pity that people end up whinging on internet forums wanting their perfect (mirrorless) camera from Canon, NOW! The amount of entitlement shown in these forums is staggering.


----------



## Max ☢ (Feb 21, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Canon has the highest market share and has the most to lose if a product goes wrong, so I'm guessing that Canon is simply playing the waiting game (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) till the mirrorless market matures and it will come out with its own mirrorless which will blow the pretenders out of the water. I also expect that it will be perfectly usable with the EF lenses, so yes, mirrorless for the technological improvements, smaller form factor be damned.



Indeed - Canon is particularly known on the market to "play it safe" and target just the "good enough" point (i.e. no fancy bells and whistles, which apparently annoys quite some users here) in order to secure a leading market position with the minimum of risk taking. At the same time, I think the company also knows that its primary interest is to secure their revenue streams and maintain or increase their profit margins. If milking some sensor platforms to death is one way to achieve this goal, preparing the future with new camera platforms is also the other strategy, which is confirmed by their significant patent output.

Their habit of not releasing cameras untill the technology within is made bullet-proof explains why Sony and others have "apparently" beaten Canon to the Mirrorless game - Apparently, because I don't think those competitors will eventually win the game by pushing half-finished products to the market (see the list of complaints about de A7/A7r), and prime market innovators are not always those who remain market leaders in the long run (if customer trust is not won overnight, it can be lost very quickly).
I think Canon's strategy in the mirrorless segment is twofold: first, quietly develop the technology in the lab with the goal of reaching a good enough point for the targetted market, and secondly, observe how the competition fares with their attempts on the market. So, the day the mirrorless tech is ready to be implemented in DSLRs, Canon will know exactly how to introduce it in order to extract maximum profit, and the competition will have paid for some of the market insights!

Of course, all this process takes some time to devellop, which make some people quite unhappy, but in the mean time I'm perfectly fine with my 6D which gets the job done


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2014)

Max ☢ said:


> Indeed - Canon is particularly known on the market to "play it safe" and target just the "good enough" point (i.e. no fancy bells and whistles, which apparently annoys quite some users here) in order to secure a leading market position with the minimum of risk taking.



Historically, that's not how Canon became king of the hill.
They abandoned their entire library of lenses to implement the EOS system. They pioneered Image Stabilization. They were one of the first manufacturers to push heavily for full frame. More recently their supertelephoto lenses are some of the best examples of optics on the market, and as controversial as it may be here, lets not forget the video features on the 5D2.

Canon built their empire on cutting edge technology, plus their products are generally solid. I really don't think they would be where they are right now just matching the competition spec for spec.
Ever since the 90's they have been doing new and exciting things on a regular basis, that hasn't changed. What I do think has changed significantly is the way people view the industry, our definition of "regular basis" has changed. People want yearly updates now, if not monthly, whereas before waiting a few years between big announcements was "normal".
Basically people here have psyched themselves into a vortex of expectations, and everyone inside Canon is probably just doing what they have always done.
Come 2020, I'm sure a review of this decade won't be much different from the last.

Except that the last two decades have seen two of the biggest transitions in the entire history of photograhpy (AF and then digital), which may also skew our expectations a little bit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 21, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Except that the last two decades have seen two of the biggest transitions in the entire history of photograhpy (AF and then digital)



...and two more stops of DR, don't forget about that!! Oh wait, that wasn't Canon. Never mind.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Seems to me that the lion share of the market is that other 80%! 

Mirrorless Mirrorless Mirrorless...Said it before, will say it again - mirrorless needs to find it's identity. I think canon is putting very little effort into mirrorless because they don't want to take the chance in defining the market. I think canon is just waiting to see what happens, where will the market go. Let sony, oly, fugi do the R&D.

As has been talked over, the whole digital market is in flux due to the sheer # of cell phone camera users out there. mirrorless currently is trying to push this smaller lighter formula, but, will this be a winning formula or will this be the trendy thing that's the talk of the town until the next cool thing arrives? Unfortunately, for the smaller lighter concept we already have capable devises for that - cell phones. these are the folks that were buying P&S camera's. Small light and portable, yeah mirrorless systems are smaller than slr systems but but it's bigger than a cell phone, and unless you buy 1 lens and stick with it, then you've got lenses. If your a woman I guess you have a purse to put all that in, but if your a guy, and it's summer - 1 device in the pocket or damn, i have to bring that stupid hipsack....and for the biggest segment in that group, you can't send txt's with your mirrorless...so cell phones tend to win.

So, let the other's break the ground here. Canon can silently wait for mirrorless to figure out that there is a small niche of folks who just want this in it's current form. As all that is going down, canon can push R&D to get EVF and or Hybrid EVF/OVF into a standard slr form factor with stand slr mount.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Max ☢ said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed - Canon is particularly known on the market to "play it safe" and target just the "good enough" point (i.e. no fancy bells and whistles, which apparently annoys quite some users here) in order to secure a leading market position with the minimum of risk taking.
> ...


+1 ... well said.


----------



## tron (Feb 21, 2014)

Question: What's Next from Canon? 

Answer: 5DMkV and 7DMkIII (I did not want to become boring with the usual next models ;D )


----------



## Chiuonthat (Feb 21, 2014)

I like to see 6D Mark II. Improvement over the GPS/battery issue.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 21, 2014)

Chiuonthat said:


> I like to see 6D Mark II. Improvement over the GPS/battery issue.





tron said:


> Question: What's Next from Canon?
> 
> Answer: 5DMkV and 7DMkIII (I did not want to become boring with the usual next models ;D )



Merge but delete - the 7d2 is like around the corner. 5d4 is proably still a bit away. But, given the nature of the 6d, a refresh of that may be a late 20144 or early 2015 thing ---- 

which I might say is quite interesting ---- how would the 6d2 look? Given the timing, would we get a peak at the features and capabilities of the 5d4 with the 6d2? Kind of like, here's something to wet your lips, now don't you want a full drink?

LOL, it would make sense for wedding shooters using either or both systems - if a 6d2 arrived on the scene in the fall of 2015, that's around when I'd probably be considering replacing my 6d, and the fall of 2016 may be when i need to replace my 5d3. 

Either way, my guess is we'll see 1/2-1 year between the 6d2 and the 5d4. And given how well the 5d3 is doing, I don't think canon is in a rush to refresh that. 

Another thing to consider.... the sooner the 6d refreshes the more lackluster the refresh will be (same sensor, same processor, just a few added things - nothing major - a rebel refresh as it were). if a 6d2 arrived in the summer it would be pretty much like that I'd say. But, timed with the launch of a 5d4, they could showcase either a new sensor or new processor - something that gives a preview of what to expect in both the 5d4 and the next 1d series ----if that's how things go then we're waiting cause i highly doubt we'll see a refresh of the 5 or the 1 series till at the earliest late fall of 2015 (and that will most likely be announcement of the bodies, not the launch! ----plus, summer olympics is in 2016....sounds like a perfect time for a 5d4 and a 1dx2!


----------



## Tugela (Feb 21, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> which I might say is quite interesting ---- how would the 6d2 look? Given the timing, would we get a peak at the features and capabilities of the 5d4 with the 6d2? Kind of like, here's something to wet your lips, now don't you want a full drink?



Both the 7D2 and/or a 6D2 would probably compete in the space currently occupied by the inbound GH4, so similar specs and capabilities would be in place with the main difference between the two being their sensor sizes for stills. I imagine that for something like a 5D4 they would want an improvement over that, so that it was the go to DSLR option for the serious user. That means it's video capability would have to be better, and I am not sure that current tech would allow for that. So a 5D4 might come later, after a 6D2 in the full frame segment.


----------



## emko (Mar 3, 2014)

never used a EVF is it like the live view on the back? is it going to show blown out areas? i don't know doesn't sound so great maybe i am wrong maybe it can make some things easier to see the exposure before you take the shot just not sure how it is. How is it in low light?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 4, 2014)

Gfk in December released details about the photography market that sum up a few issues. At the height of analogue (film) the companies were selling annually to a global market around 60M camereras at their peak. At the peak of digital that was 120M cameras last year overall that figure was down to around 80M. The cell phone has killed the lower end where to biggest drops occurred but in 2013 both DSLR and CSC sales declined. In Japan, some parts of Asia and in Germany & the UK CSCs do well but in North America they dont do well or much of the rest of the world. However CSCs have made great strides since 2008 and no one can say the likes of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 or the Fuji X-T1 are not great cameras they are AND they have very good lenses in somes cases as good as or better than L lenses. Then there is the Sony A7R / A7 full frame in a CSC package. 
This puts Canon in a difficult position does it reinvent DSLR like Sony or does it go whole hog into CSCs which requires much greater R&D into new lenses as frankly the current offerings against Olympus are weak. 
Me thinks they will focus on DSLRs first and try to bring innovation that gives them the same attention Sony is getting from the A7R which currently has a weak lens line-up compared to Canon or Nikon. 

Canon are in trouble currently if they still apply tiny steps like the EOS1200 / Rebel T5 then they will lose creditability they need the next big jump.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> Me thinks they will focus on DSLRs first and try to bring innovation that gives them the same attention Sony is getting from the A7R which currently has a weak lens line-up compared to Canon or Nikon.



Sony may be getting attention…but they don't seem to be getting *sales*. Canon continues to get sales. 



jeffa4444 said:


> Canon are in trouble currently if they still apply tiny steps like the EOS1200 / Rebel T5 then they will lose creditability they need the next big jump.



Ahhh, yes…YAPCD (yet another prediction of Canon's doom). Thanks for that.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 4, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> Gfk in December released details about the photography market that sum up a few issues. At the height of analogue (film) the companies were selling annually to a global market around 60M camereras at their peak. At the peak of digital that was 120M cameras last year overall that figure was down to around 80M. The cell phone has killed the lower end where to biggest drops occurred but in 2013 both DSLR and CSC sales declined. In Japan, some parts of Asia and in Germany & the UK CSCs do well but in North America they dont do well or much of the rest of the world. However CSCs have made great strides since 2008 and no one can say the likes of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 or the Fuji X-T1 are not great cameras they are AND they have very good lenses in somes cases as good as or better than L lenses. Then there is the Sony A7R / A7 full frame in a CSC package.
> This puts Canon in a difficult position does it reinvent DSLR like Sony or does it go whole hog into CSCs which requires much greater R&D into new lenses as frankly the current offerings against Olympus are weak.
> Me thinks they will focus on DSLRs first and try to bring innovation that gives them the same attention Sony is getting from the A7R which currently has a weak lens line-up compared to Canon or Nikon.
> 
> Canon are in trouble currently if they still apply tiny steps like the EOS1200 / Rebel T5 then they will lose creditability they need the next big jump.


It does not look like you have used or own the Sony a7/R ... as nice as it is, it is no match for Canon DSLRs ... the only advantage of Sony a7/R (over full frame DSLRs) is its compact/light size ... for everything else the Canon DSLRs are superior in every way.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Gfk in December released details about the photography market that sum up a few issues. At the height of analogue (film) the companies were selling annually to a global market around 60M camereras at their peak. At the peak of digital that was 120M cameras last year overall that figure was down to around 80M. The cell phone has killed the lower end where to biggest drops occurred but in 2013 both DSLR and CSC sales declined. In Japan, some parts of Asia and in Germany & the UK CSCs do well but in North America they dont do well or much of the rest of the world. However CSCs have made great strides since 2008 and no one can say the likes of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 or the Fuji X-T1 are not great cameras they are AND they have very good lenses in somes cases as good as or better than L lenses. Then there is the Sony A7R / A7 full frame in a CSC package.
> ...



dagnabit you forgots abouts the dynamic range!!!!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 5, 2014)

t does not look like you have used or own the Sony a7/R ... as nice as it is, it is no match for Canon DSLRs ... the only advantage of Sony a7/R (over full frame DSLRs) is its compact/light size ... for everything else the Canon DSLRs are superior in every way.

The sensors Sony is using is the same sensor Nikon is using in the D800 / D610 which Sony designed & made, the Olympus OM-D series uses Sony sensors, the new Hasselblad and Phaseone backs use a Sony 50MP CMOS sensor and Sony command over 60% of the high end CMOS sensor market according to Image Sensor World. 

Canon DO make great sensors & I like their colorimagery the 6d and 5d MKIII are great examples of that but the fact is their sensors are still of an older design sooner or later they know they will need to move to a new wafer like Sony. No I have not used the A7/R but I know pros that have and they say the results are stunning with better resolution than Canon. The Canon 7d in technology terms is long overdue replacement its IQ is now no match for the competition dont believe me look at the DXO scores.


----------



## jrista (Mar 5, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> t does not look like you have used or own the Sony a7/R ... as nice as it is, it is no match for Canon DSLRs ... the only advantage of Sony a7/R (over full frame DSLRs) is its compact/light size ... for everything else the Canon DSLRs are superior in every way.
> 
> The sensors Sony is using is the same sensor Nikon is using in the D800 / D610 which Sony designed & made, the Olympus OM-D series uses Sony sensors, the new Hasselblad and Phaseone backs use a Sony 50MP CMOS sensor and Sony command over 60% of the high end CMOS sensor market according to Image Sensor World.
> 
> Canon DO make great sensors & I like their colorimagery the 6d and 5d MKIII are great examples of that but the fact is their sensors are still of an older design sooner or later they know they will need to move to a new wafer like Sony. No I have not used the A7/R but I know pros that have and they say the results are stunning with better resolution than Canon. The Canon 7d in technology terms is long overdue replacement its IQ is now no match for the competition dont believe me look at the DXO scores.



Ready your squirrels, everyone! DXO's been mentioned!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 5, 2014)

Oh and for the record Im not predicting Canon doom Im simply stating a technology company lives & dies by innovation and by pushing the envelope not by playing safe by way of example look how the stock markets reacts when they dont like Apple incremental changes.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 5, 2014)

Why is it that all new comers, always bring up DXO scores?

Is there no other source?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 5, 2014)

OK JRISTA what measure do you want to use if DXO is "bad" give an alternative.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 5, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> Oh and for the record Im not predicting Canon doom Im simply stating a technology company lives & dies by innovation and by pushing the envelope not by playing safe by way of example look how the stock markets reacts when they dont like Apple incremental changes.



Right, because thousands of patents awarded per year, and things like dual pixel AF, are not innovative. :



jrista said:


> Ready your squirrels, everyone! DXO's been mentioned!



Biased Scores = BS = Ballsy Squirrels.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> It does not look like you have used or own the Sony a7/R ... as nice as it is, it is no match for Canon DSLRs ... the only advantage of Sony a7/R (over full frame DSLRs) is its compact/light size ... for everything else the Canon DSLRs are superior in every way.



BTW, listen to this guy... 
I don't think he is particularly brand loyal, cause look at his gear list... he has a Nikon and a Sony...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 5, 2014)

Apple have thousands of patents awarded each year (the system in the US is different to Europe where it is harder to get a unique patent) but that still didnt stop the stock market marking Apple down recently. Sony also have thousands of patents every year likely as many as Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 5, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> Apple have thousands of patents awarded each year (the system in the US is different to Europe where it is harder to get a unique patent) but that still didnt stop the stock market marking Apple down recently. Sony also have thousands of patents every year likely as many as Canon.



Apple had less than 2,000 US patents issued in 2013, around 1,200 in 2012, and just over 800 in 2011. Apple has ~7700 patents total. Canon has averaged over 2,000 patents per year for the past 15 years (meaning they've had more patents granted in the past 4 years than Apple has had since the Steves founded the company). Canon has been in the top 5 worldwide for issued US patents each year for >20 years. In other words, they have a long history of innovation. 

Apple is trading recently much closer to its 52-week high than to its 52-week low. 

Regardless, the point is that you seem to be implying that Canon is not innovating, and that's simply not the case.


----------



## emko (Mar 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Apple have thousands of patents awarded each year (the system in the US is different to Europe where it is harder to get a unique patent) but that still didnt stop the stock market marking Apple down recently. Sony also have thousands of patents every year likely as many as Canon.
> ...



It seems like they are innovating in AF and some other stuff but what everyone means is they want Canon with a better sensor then Sony's. I am sure Canon has something its just how long does it take to make and are they still working on it? even the high MP canon is still not out to compete with Nikon so i am sure they have something and waiting for the right time to release it. I am perfectly happy with my 5d iii but if i had the chance to get something better then Sonys sensor or even close to the same i would want it but that's eventually going to be on Canons system.

Could Canon just be milking out the profits on the current sensor tech? and just waiting until the last moment to release there new sensors?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 5, 2014)

emko said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...


for clarity, I will ignore Rebels, EOS-M, and SL-1 and concentrate on the higher end cameras.


So the last DSLR to come out (the 70D) comes with DPAF... a new sensor using new technology.... so to speak, a game changer for sensors..... It has done nothing to stop the forum members from crying about milking old sensor technology... The 1DX, the 5D3, the 6D, and the 7D have not been updated since the release of the 70D, but is there a single person here on the forum who does not think that DPAF is going to find it's way into these models in the next update cycle?

New technology is not retroactive. You can't go back in time and have it appear on past products... it rolls out in future releases.

WiFi came out on the 6D. Every camera after it (70D) has WiFi and you can bet that the 7D2, 5D4, and 1DX2 will have it built in.

Touchscreens came out on the 70D and you can bet that the 6D2, 7D2, 5D4, and 1DX2 will have it.

Watch what happens on the 7D2.... there is real potential that the 63 focus points we now think is so wonderful will become 10 million focus points and we will be able to track focus on a face in the crowd or a bird flying through the trees..... That is innovation. Adding a few more points is incremental improvement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 5, 2014)

emko said:


> ... what everyone means is they want Canon with a better sensor then Sony's.



Who is 'everyone'? The same 'everyone' who are buying more Canon dSLRs than Nikon dSLRs (and far more than Sony dSLRs and MILCs)? 

Canon cares about the 'everyone' that actually buys cameras, not the 'everyone' who complains on the Internet about slightly lower metrics in one specific aspect of camera performance.


----------



## Woody (Mar 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Touchscreens came out on the 70D and you can bet that the 6D2, 7D2, 5D4, and 1DX2 will have it.



Minor correction. The 650D/T4i was Canon's first DSLR with touchscreen. Whether the 5D4 and 1DX2 will be equipped with touchscreens depends on performance of those screens under weather testing.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 5, 2014)

Woody said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Touchscreens came out on the 70D and you can bet that the 6D2, 7D2, 5D4, and 1DX2 will have it.
> ...



My opening line was "for clarity, I will ignore Rebels, EOS-M, and SL-1 and concentrate on the higher end cameras" 

Weatherproofing of a touchscreen is the same as for a "normal" screen. Even articulated screens can be easily weathersealed.

The convenience of touch controls will be hard to resist. Tap the screen to select an object to focus on... double tap to select an area to meter on.... longer tap to select white balance, etc etc.. this coupled with the existing buttons and dials makes for a killer interface.


----------



## Woody (Mar 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> My opening line was "for clarity, I will ignore Rebels, EOS-M, and SL-1 and concentrate on the higher end cameras"


Sorry I missed that. 



Don Haines said:


> Weatherproofing of a touchscreen is the same as for a "normal" screen. Even articulated screens can be easily weathersealed.



It's understandable that entry level cameras do not have articulate screens for pricing reasons. However, none of Canon or Nikon's high end, weather sealed cameras has articulate screens. Only the enthusiast cameras get them: 650D/700D/60D/70D/5100/5200/5300.


----------



## jrista (Mar 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



The problem with weatehrsealing an articulating screen isn't whether it can or cannot BE weathersealed. The problems is that you have to seal a joint, which means wear on the seal, which means it had the potential to break down and break at some point. Worse, you generally wouldn't know that the seal was broken, which actually greatly increases the chance that you might ruin your camera by using it in the kind of extreme conditions that you would never use a non-weathersealed camera. 

There is a very specific reason why the 1D X, which has the best weathersealing of any Canon DSLR, does not use a main rotatable dial and opts for buttons instead. The wear on a seal with a rotatable dial is greater than wear on a seal with depressable buttons.


----------



## spturtle (Mar 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is a very specific reason why the 1D X, which has the best weathersealing of any Canon DSLR, does not use a main rotatable dial and opts for buttons instead. The wear on a seal with a rotatable dial is greater than wear on a seal with depressable buttons.



FYI the thing you're talking about is called a mode dial. The dial on top close to the shutter button is called the main dial and that one is not missing on the 1D X.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



You don't seal the joints.... you seal after the joints so the seal is somewhere that does not move and wear out...

Also, nobody ever said that if the 1DX got a touchscreen that it would be a tilt-swivel screen. My bet is that it gets a touchscreen and it is fixed in place like the current one.


----------



## jrista (Mar 6, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



You can't do that, though. The joint is what contains the electronic ribbons that transfer data from the main board to the LCD screen. You have to seal the ENTIRE thing...you can't slip the ribbon through some unsealed slot, that would effectively nullify all of the sealing. 

There is no articulating screen with the same level of weather sealing as the 5D III and 1D X currently have. It just isn't going to happen. Not to mention the overall fragility of an articulating screen in the kinds of extreme situations that those cameras can be used in. I've hauled my 7D through thick brush and brambles, dropped it in the mud, had it even topple over onto hard ice on my ultra light weight Gitzo tripod because of 60mph high winds up in the mountains during winter a couple years ago. If I'd had an articulating screen, my 7D would have gone bust a LOOONG time ago. I just walked in the door about 10 minutes ago...at the moment, my 7D is once again covered in mud.  It's just the name of the game...if you want to get anything remotely resembling a true professional bird or wildlife shot (and I'm not saying I've ever achieved that goal yet), you just plain and simply have to crawl through the thickets and mid and get really dirty. 

"Articulating screens" and "rugged" or "weather sealed" can't be placed in the same sentence when it isn't pure irony. I understand all the arguments for them in high end models, but I think anyone who actually buys one of Canon's xD models where part of their decision is based on the ruggedness and weather sealing of the body, if they had a choice, they would NEVER choose the option to have an articulating screen.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is no articulating screen with the same level of weather sealing as the 5D III and 1D X currently have. It just isn't going to happen.



http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/1/29/olympus-launches-stylus-tough-tg-850-underwater-camera

Not a true articulating screen, but the real question is durability.

Many "isn't going to happen" assertions have been disproven; the jury is still out on this one.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Three different issues are getting mixed up here.

First: Sealing
The ribbon passes through a seal before it gets to the joint. At that place, nothing is moving and the seal will not wear out. Likewise, where the ribbon enters the display, the seal is after the joint and it does not move or wear out the seal.

Ruggedized laptops have been doing this for 20 years. 

Second: Does a tilt/swivel screen belong.
This is a matter of opinion and there is no right or wrong answer. My personal belief is that a tilt/swivel screen belongs on the lower end models and that it does not belong on a 1DX. As you have said, the 1DX is about ruggedness. It is a camera that is designed to take a beating and movable screens are not going to survive that beating.

Also, the introduction of wireless and (hopefully) decent apps move your tilt/swivel screen to your phone...

Third: touch screens.
Touch screens can be sealed every bit as easily as a non-touch screen. Just because it is a touch screen does not mean it is a tilt/swivel touch screen.


----------



## jrista (Mar 6, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



For the ribbon to pass through the seal, the seal has to be cut. That makes the seal useless. You don't seal the camera and seal the LCD separately, with an unsealed electronic ribbon cable passing through the joint. For one, the ribbon would then be succeptible to shorting out if you use the camera in the rain. Worse, you've had to slice into the seal to allow the ribbon through...the ribbon can then be threaded through that...but, moisture, dust, and god only knows what else is ALSO going to get through. You could try gluing the ribbon around the seal slit, but then you have glue around an unstable ribbon that is going to slide back and forth through the slit...and glue wears out even faster. The only way to fully seal it is to have the seal reach through the joint from the camera body into the LCD screen, fully encasing the ribbon.

There is no weather sealing the way you've described with an articulating screen. Just not gonna happen. Even if you did fully seal the entire joint, such a camera still couldn't be graded with the same level of sealing as a 5D III...because now you have a seal around a wear point in the camera. 

And there is still the whole ruggedness issue (the fact that Olympus launched some tiny little waterproof camera with an articulating screen only says that someone put an articulating screen on an underwater camera...it says NOTHING of the screens durability or the seal's reliability over the life of the camera.) 

As for the touch screen, I'm all for it...so long as it is NOT articulating. ;P If a *reliable *wifi remote viewing app comes along, I'm all for that, too. It would be awesome to use my 10.6" Surface Pro tablet screen for focusing macro shots. But it would have to come along, and *be reliable*, for me to believe it's possible. To date, it seems the 6D's wifi is pretty sketchy, and Canon regularly kills it to save power.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2014)

@jrista, did you note the product linked above?







LCD on a hinge joint, waterproof to 10m/33' - that's a little deeper than I'd take my 1D X...


----------



## jrista (Mar 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @jrista, did you note the product linked above?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did, and I quote myself:



> And there is still the whole ruggedness issue (the fact that Olympus launched some tiny little waterproof camera with an articulating screen only says that someone put an articulating screen on an underwater camera...it says NOTHING of the screens durability or the seal's reliability over the life of the camera.)



Just because someone stuck an articulating screen on an underwater camera doesn't mean it will last. That's the whole point. You buy a weather sealed camera so it will LAST, so it will handle the kind of insane crap professionals throw at their gear every time they take them out. Weathersealing isn't about convenience. It's about durability and reliability. I GUARANTEE you, if my 7D had an articulating screen, it would have broken off entirely a long time ago. I just can't think about that kind of crap when I'm out in the field trying to get a shot.

And I know I'm FAR more protective of my gear than many professional bird and wildlife photographers. If I get mud on it, I tend to try and wipe it off in the field...most pros who get mud on their 1D X's would just laugh at me if they saw me doing that.

Just because it CAN be done...doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. It compromises the durability and reliability of the product. On something like the little Olympus, that's a consumer-grade product (a fact that is further enhanced by the remote ocean island paradise pictured in it's little articulating screen)...it doesn't matter how durable it is. The thing is as likely to be replaced in a year anyway as it is to be broken. On a 1D X? 5D III? 7D II? Nah. Articulating screens have NO place on a product that is built to be robust. 

The day Canon adds articulating screens to their xD line of products is the day I jump ship.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 6, 2014)

The conductors inside the ribbon is sealed by the material of the ribbon already. Therefore the sealing at the joint for the ribbon will not be needed.


----------



## jrista (Mar 6, 2014)

Rocky said:


> The conductors inside the ribbon is sealed by the material of the ribbon already. Therefore the sealing at the joint for the ribbon will not be needed.



The point isn't to seal the ribbon itself. The point is to avoid having to break the camera seal to allow the ribbon to pass through it. Why doesn't anyone get this? It's really simple and strait forward. You cannot seal a camera if you slice open the seal to pass a ribbon cable through it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> The point isn't to seal the ribbon itself. The point is to avoid having to break the camera seal to allow the ribbon to pass through it. Why doesn't anyone get this? It's really simple and strait forward. You cannot seal a camera if you slice open the seal to pass a ribbon cable through it.



You seem to be thinking of "weather sealing" as some sort of complete, impervious barrier through which nothing passes. That is simply not the case. The sealing comprises a set of O-rings, gaskets, and in some cases foam or tape, that are applied around holes in the camera or lens shell. External switches have wires which pass through the sealing without compromising its integrity. O-rings are called that because they have a hole in the middle…they aren't a membrane over an opening, they allow something to pass through that hole and into the camera interior. The same type of sealing could be done with a ribbon cable.

In fact, it has been done with a ribbon cable in a fully articulating joint – the Olympus E-3 and E-5 are weather-sealed dSLRs with fully articulated screens...and those cameras are durable and robustly built.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Why doesn't anyone get this? It's really simple and strait forward. You cannot seal a camera if you slice open the seal to pass a ribbon cable through it.



I simply don't think that's true. No sealing is perfect: even submarines have to break the seal of the tin can to connect wires to an external radio antenna. The question is how much sealing is good enough for the intended purpose. Or, phrased in business terms, how much sealing makes the product a profitable, worthwhile member of the catalog. (good profits and reasonable failure rate)


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > The conductors inside the ribbon is sealed by the material of the ribbon already. Therefore the sealing at the joint for the ribbon will not be needed.
> ...



Unlike breaking the seal to mount a lens


----------



## NancyP (Mar 6, 2014)

My articulating screen on the 60D is still fine, almost 4 years out. I think that it will last long enough for me to wait for the mythical 7D2.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 6, 2014)

NancyP said:


> My articulating screen on the 60D is still fine, almost 4 years out. I think that it will last long enough for me to wait for the mythical 7D2.



The articulating screen on my 60D is in perfect condition after 4 years of heavy use. I tend to fold it over to protect the screen when not in use. I would like to add that my friend's 5D2, which is well treated and has only seen a fraction of the use, has scratches on the screen....


----------



## Famateur (Mar 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> The day Canon adds articulating screens to their xD line of products is the day I jump ship.



I think I understand where you're coming from: when ultimate durability is a top priority, adding another point of potential weakness could be a big step back. I'd be willing to bet, though, that the day Canon adds articulating screens to the 1D line, it's because they're robust enough to handle professional use in the field. Whether Canon ever goes that route is anybody's guess, but for now, the articulating screen doesn't look like it will make its way into a pro body anytime soon -- perhaps for the durability reasons you state. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it makes it into the 6D. Technically, it's an xD body, but I don't think it's what Canon considers a pro body.

Just as a data point (or two, or three), I've had an articulating screen on three Canon (consumer) cameras: A80, G12 and 70D. The first two have seen plenty of abuse (each has an inverted corner from hard falls onto concrete). The screens both feel and perform as they did when new (this surprised me, actually). My kids have inherited the now archaic A80, and I use the still very relevant G12 for rugged outdoor stuff when weight/space is a concern.

The 70D is still like a new pair of shoes, wiping off every little smudge. The screen feels just as strong as the G12 (maybe a little stiffer). I'm confident that it will prove just as durable, but I can't help but knock on wood when I say that! Hence, I understand the concern a professional might have.

One other quick note: I managed to get my G12 covered in snow and very wet while snowboarding with my kiddos last week. There was water in and around the screen, buttons, lens assembly, et cetera. It was wet. I wiped it off, blew in some crevices, and all was fine. Obviously, snapshots of the family aren't critical to a professional shoot, but I was impressed with what that little camera can withstand...


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 6, 2014)

I'm still on the fence as to whether I would want an articulating screen on a 1D.
Yes, a remote shooting program on a tablet is much better in the studio (for macro and product photography), but in the field getting macro shots of bugs and stuff on the ground, I can't help but think I would still like a screen that tilts.
Maybe they could use a single hinge design with a screen on both sides of the flap, so it just swings down from the top and then you could look at it from above and below, in front or behind (always ready for a selfie [that's a joke, by the way]).


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The point isn't to seal the ribbon itself. The point is to avoid having to break the camera seal to allow the ribbon to pass through it. Why doesn't anyone get this? It's really simple and strait forward. You cannot seal a camera if you slice open the seal to pass a ribbon cable through it.
> ...



The difference with o-rings & gaskets and the like is they are not at wearable joints. They are put in place, and they stay in place, and there is no wear on them. The most worn seals in a DSLR are the seals around the buttons, underneath which is a full seal that separates the button itself from the electronics inside. 

My point is that an articulating screen is something that will constantly be pulled out and put back, on a continual basis, over the life of the camera. The joint there is going to take a lot of wear (especially if it's one of those swivel joints.) 




neuroanatomist said:


> In fact, it has been done with a ribbon cable in a fully articulating joint – the Olympus E-3 and E-5 are weather-sealed dSLRs with fully articulated screens...and those cameras are durable and robustly built.



I am aware that it's been done. I would also be willing to bet that Olympus has encased the ribbon itself in the seal, rather than breaking the seal to allow the ribbon through.


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2014)

Famateur said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The day Canon adds articulating screens to their xD line of products is the day I jump ship.
> ...



Thanks for understanding. 

Out of curiosity, what kind of situations do you use your cameras with articulating screens in? Do you tromp through swamps and wetlands, haul it through thickets of clingy brambles, take it into sub-zero temperatures or drench it in rain, sleet, snow, and hail?

I've done all of these things with my 7D. And from some of the things I've read on some of the professional photographer blogs and sites I follow, I'm rather "mild" with my equipment in comparison to some of the things many 1D series cameras go through. 

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand the VALUE of an articulating screen. I think they certainly have their place, and the xxxD and xxD lines are a great place to include that value. But when you need a rugged tank designed to handle the rigors of hunting down elusive birds or wildlife, you want a package that is well contained, solidly built, with the fewest failure points possible. 

To put it in other words, there is always a cost to convenience, a give and take, and sometimes the cost of convenience requires too much give in other areas.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> I am aware that it's been done. I would also be willing to bet that Olympus has encased the ribbon itself in the seal, rather than breaking the seal to allow the ribbon through.



Ok, so there's a way to do it, and therefore Canon could do something similar. I'm not convinced the demand is there from the 1-series user base, but I'm pretty certain it if were, Canon would find an appropriately robust engineering solution.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 7, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Why doesn't anyone get this? It's really simple and strait forward. You cannot seal a camera if you slice open the seal to pass a ribbon cable through it.
> ...



A submarine isn't a good example.....they are full of leaks... the trick is to be able to pump out the water faster than it comes in


----------



## Famateur (Mar 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> Thanks for understanding.



You're welcome! 



jrista said:


> Out of curiosity, what kind of situations do you use your cameras with articulating screens in? Do you tromp through swamps and wetlands, haul it through thickets of clingy brambles, take it into sub-zero temperatures or drench it in rain, sleet, snow, and hail?



I'll preface this by saying that I fully acknowledge I'm not a professional photographer (obviously) where my equipment is subjected to extreme conditions on a regular basis. That being said, my answer is yes to all of the above except swamps (don't really have any proper swamps in Utah) and perhaps hail (I don't recall taking any photos while hail is falling). I'd also add blood and sand to the list. 

The elk hunt every year is one example. Rather than using a long-range rifle, I prefer to use a slug gun and stalk quietly through the woods (more of a challenge, and I feel much closer to nature -- it's a success that way, whether I harvest or not). Covering an average of 6-10 miles each day on foot, conditions range from single-digit temps to 50+ sunny afternoons. There's snow, rain, sleet, wind, dense thickets, sweat, grime and of course the occasional loss of footing where I land on my camera on one side or my rifle on the other.  For years when I'm successful, the ol' camera tends to collect some blood and hair, too (sorry if that's a little gory for any readers). Most of the time, I'm above 10,000 feet, and conditions can change rapidly.

I also happen to serve as a scout master in my area. As probably happens to many others on this forum, I've become the de facto "photojournalist" for our excursions. That brings its own level of abuse getting tossed around with my pack or taking photos in whatever conditions we're in (often pouring rain). It took a few weeks for all the sand to work its way out of the lens assembly after our last trip to the dunes (that produced some fun shots), but it keeps on ticking.

Anyway, I wouldn't delude myself into thinking it's anywhere close to what a pro wildlife photographer would subject his/her equipment to, but at the same time, I certainly don't baby the cameras or hesitate to bring them out in extreme conditions. On one hand, it's not the same thing if only a few hundred dollars of point-n-shoot are on the line compared to a pro DSLR+lenses setup, but if the consumer stuff is as tough as it is, I would bet the pro stuff is many times better.

By the way, the articulating screen is marvelous for nature's beauty that happens to be on the ground (a la the "Denizens of the Forest Floor" thread on this forum).  

Here's hoping that Canon finds a way to make a tank-strength articulating screen so you can have the value without the concession of lessened durability.

Take care...


----------



## Famateur (Mar 7, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> A submarine isn't a good example.....they are full of leaks... the trick is to be able to pump out the water faster than it comes in



LOL...I can just see it now: a tiny little bilge pump for your next pro body. 







Or just a drain valve, but where's the fun in that? I want a pump! ;D


----------



## jonjt (Mar 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> The difference with o-rings & gaskets and the like is they are not at wearable joints. They are put in place, and they stay in place, and there is no wear on them. The most worn seals in a DSLR are the seals around the buttons, underneath which is a full seal that separates the button itself from the electronics inside.
> 
> My point is that an articulating screen is something that will constantly be pulled out and put back, on a continual basis, over the life of the camera. The joint there is going to take a lot of wear (especially if it's one of those swivel joints.)
> 
> ...



I'm not familiar with the ways that Canon or Nikon weather seal their cameras. However, O-rings (but not gaskets) have and continue to be used to seal joints that move. You can find them on rotating and reciprocating machinery such as pistons, shafts, etc. The O-ring design itself isn't innaproporiate for such joints per se, it's that you have to pick appropriate surface roughness and O-ring hardness for the taks at hand and for the surfaces that form the mate. It's certainly mechanically possible to design a joint with a ribbon cable that is weather sealed, to whatever specification Canon builds it's camera bodies to.

Whether such a solution is appropriate and/or cost effective for a DSLR designed for a specific price point and performance level is another matter. I think we are generally in agreement that a moving screen probably won't be included in a weather sealed, sports-focused body, for obvious reasons.


----------

