# Canon Leads in Sensor Tech



## unfocused (Sep 3, 2013)

After following the 30 pages (currently) of obscure debate over DXO ratings, I have to say this:

I am getting a little sick of the conventional wisdom that somehow Canon is "behind" in sensor technology. The more accurate statement is that Canon has placed a different emphasis in its sensor development than some of its competitors. And, it would also be correct that Canon has placed a different emphasis on its sensor development than a vocal group of participants in this forum would like. 

Specifically, Canon has decided to push sensor technology that improves live view and video autofocus and has done so without compromising still image quality. Canon's competitors appear to be emphasizing marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills. 

One can say Canon is "behind" only if one totally discounts the significant technological advancement that its dual-pixel sensor represents.

All technology development comes at a price and any company – Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. – must do a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the benefit outweighs the cost. All companies have limited resources and must choose where to place those resources. 

I strongly suspect that Canon's management looked at the relative costs of various sensor improvements and determined that if they could develop reliable on-sensor autofocus, the potential return on investment would be greater than simply making marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills.

It doesn't take a genius to see they are probably right. As a stills photographer, it pains me to say this, but I know that the greatest growth potential for DSLRs is in video, not stills. With the 70D Canon elected to produce a potentially game-changing technology for live view autofocus and apparently did so while marginally improving stills sensor performance. No small feat.

This is analogous to the 5DIII vs. D800. In the 5DIII Canon focused on features and performance that were targeted to a specific market – wedding and event photographers. Nikon focused on sensor improvements without much consideration to any target market (except for pent-up demand from existing Nikon users).

From what can be gleaned from available resources, it looks like Canon made the better choice.

I would not be surprised if, after the 70D has been available for awhile, we see Canon's sales once again outperforming Nikon's. (Actually, the 70D is currently outperforming the D7100, but it's a little unfair to compare a newly-released body to one that has been out for quite some time, as the same pent-up demand that drove D800 sales is likely driving 70D sales right now).

My point is: declaring one company ahead or behind on sensor technology without considering all aspects of the various offerings is a selective, skewed assessment. 

As an interested observer, I think it is evident that Canon has placed its emphasis on developments that will expand sales, rather than on bragging rights for tech forum readers.


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2013)

I think you are missing the key underlying factor that fuels the arguments involving Canon's sensor technology: *Low ISO Image Quality*. From a purely technological standpoint, fabrication process and advancement are also underlying factors.

To be blunt, Canon's physical technology IS inferior. They use a fabrication process that is over a decade old, and there is no denying that at ISO 100, 200, and to some degree 400...their shadow noise is NASTY! Editing latitude suffers because of these factors, which means that photographers have less leeway to extract image quality from their cameras RAW files without additional cost (i.e. the purchase of Topaz DeNoise 5 or Nik DFine 2, both of which have effective debanding tools.) Those are the simple and basic facts. Older, inferior fabrication process, and the potential requirement to spend more money to extract the same amount of IQ as an alternative brand. 

Now, I will hand it to Canon for taking the 500nm process as far as they have. They have done some pretty amazing things with it, continue to do amazing things with it...things no one would have thought possible given how truly archaic that process is in the current modern age. There probably also is considerably growth potential in the DSLR video market, not just at the professional level but also at the consumer level. 

On the flip side, there are generally fixed budgets for R&D. So long as Canon spends R&D funds on video, their stills photographer customers can't really expect any technological improvements that will give them any serious incentive to upgrade to the next DSLR model. I am currently quite happy with the IQ my 7D provides for birds. If the 7D II doesn't bring anything significant to the table that would improve what the 7D does by a healthy margin, why should I spend $1800-$2200 to upgrade to a new camera that, ultimately, produces similar IQ, with the same old editing latitude? If Canon wants me to buy the 7D II, it better bring some modern technology to the table. We know Canon already has a high end AF system that could be dropped into the 7D II, or adapted for it. We know they can give us a high FPS...8fps is already excellent, 10fps should be a no brainer with the existing technology Canon has already brought to the table. Base IQ, assuming I nail focus and get the right frame (both possible with Canon's current AF and FPS technology), is now primarily affected by the sensor....so I expect them to improve the sensor. 

Here is another angle. I think the 5D III does a good job for landscapes, but it could do a lot better. Landscapes are the one thing I photograph that is usually explicitly stuck at ISO 100 or 200. I usually photograph landscapes at sunset, sometimes at sunrise. Dynamic range is probably one of the most critical aspects, right next to getting as many pixels packed into the sensor as possible. Why would buy a 5D IV if they do nothing to improve low ISO DR...instead bringing some kind of dual or quad pixel setup similar to the 70D to the table, and maybe an FPS improvement? FPS doesn't help me for landscapes. Neither does improved live view focus. I could just stick with the 5D III if there isn't any significant improvement in sensor IQ.

Canon needs to stop focusing on video, and refocus in stills photography, in their photographic DSLRs. They have the Cinema line now. They could easily expand that line to provide midrange cinema-dedicated DSLRs compatible with the EF mount, and probably attract even more semi-pro and entry level pro cinematographers who would prefer Canon focuses more on cleaner, higher quality video output. Canon has done amazing things with their technology, but I think it is high time for a split, and for some dedicated focus on stills photography technology. I don't think it is good for a company to have a one-track mindset, especially in the face of significant, and growing, competition. 

No one ever expected Kodak to go bankrupt, but they had a one-track mindset. As of this week, the terms of their bankruptcy effectively remove them from the consumer market entirely. I don't want Canon to eventually go bankrupt. I've invested too much money in Canon gear, switching isn't an option, and the lenses I've invested in require a very long term investment to be cost effective. I am not saying Canon could go bankrupt tomorrow, but if they don't put some effort into improving their technology for stills photographers, Canon could at the very least go the way Nikon did in the 80's and 90's, losing significant ground to the competition from Canon. Nikon had very slow, minimal growth for decades, their lenses have stagnated, they can't always maintain their supply chain and their customer service department is small and often ineffective. What happens in five years when Canon is STILL producing 500nm parts with the same 11-12 stops of DR, and a much more significant percentage of their customer base has woken up to the fact that they can get better IQ elsewhere? Another Nikon Event? Another Kodak Event?

I want Canon to compete, on all levels, not just one level at a time. Sure, their technology is good. It is quickly becoming "not good enough" for the current age.


----------



## Pi (Sep 3, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I strongly suspect that Canon's management looked at the relative costs of various sensor improvements and determined that if they could develop reliable on-sensor autofocus, the potential return on investment would be greater than simply making marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills.



I guess that this makes every other company wrong?

I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I strongly suspect that Canon's management looked at the relative costs of various sensor improvements and determined that if they could develop reliable on-sensor autofocus, the potential return on investment would be greater than simply making marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills.
> ...



Based on the relative financial performance of Canon and its competitors, that may well be the case. 



Pi said:


> I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.



Well, yes, but it is in a customer's best interests for any company to be profitable. I'm not saying that Nikon is on a path to bankruptcy, but profitability has a direct impact on a company's ability to innovate and provide long-term product support, service and development. When I look at Canon's market position and sales figures it gives me confidence that my Canon lens purchases are a secure investment and don't have the potential to become expensive doorstops.



jrista said:


> I think you are missing the key underlying factor that fuels the arguments involving Canon's sensor technology: *Low ISO Image Quality*. From a purely technological standpoint, fabrication process and advancement are also underlying factors.
> 
> To be blunt, Canon's physical technology IS inferior. They use a fabrication process that is over a decade old, and there is no denying that at ISO 100, 200, and to some degree 400...their shadow noise is NASTY!...



Whether the technology is old or not is only relevant if it has an impact on their ability to sell cameras, which doesn't seem to be the case. There is zero evidence that the market agrees with your assessment and until the market does, Canon has no incentive to change.



jrista said:


> Canon needs to stop focusing on video, and refocus in stills photography, in their photographic DSLRs.



Why would a company refocus on a shrinking market while ignoring a growth market? I'm a stills photographer, but let's face it...we are all along just for the ride. The growth market for both commercial and amateurs is video. It doesn't take a genius to look at the growth of YouTube, Netflix, OnDemand, Independent Networks, streaming over websites, etc. etc. to see where the growth and demand is. 

The next generation of filmmakers are already out there making videos using Rebels. Canon fully intends to move them up through the system. There is no "next generation" of stills photographers to speak of.



jrista said:


> I want Canon to compete, on all levels, not just one level at a time. Sure, their technology is good. It is quickly becoming "not good enough" for the current age.



Well, I think that is exactly the point. Canon's technology is "good enough" and the history of technology is that "good enough" almost always beats "the best."

Not trying to be argumentative. John, I respect both the depth of you technical knowledge and your skills as a nature photographer. I'm just trying to play the devil's advocate here and force people to think outside their own wants and desires and see that there is a different way to interpret the current state of the market.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are missing the key underlying factor that fuels the arguments involving Canon's sensor technology: *Low ISO Image Quality*. From a purely technological standpoint, fabrication process and advancement are also underlying factors.
> ...



It is not the case yet, but on all of the relevant forums, including CR, the sentiment that Canon sensors do not provide enough low ISO DR definitely exists and is growing. Sure, people vote with their pocket books. I guess the sales numbers of Canon cameras over the next few years will really tell the story, and there will always be die-hard loyalists who will never switch brands. I would also be interested to see if Nikon's sales would increase if they could produce enough supply to meet demand in markets where it is really high, and expand their customer support team to be large enough to deal with the technical issues they have in a way that pleases their customers.

No, not any concrete market information yet...however I do believe there is some pretty strong sentiment in all the major forums on the internet regarding Canon sensor technology.



unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs to stop focusing on video, and refocus in stills photography, in their photographic DSLRs.
> ...



I think you may be mistaken about the DSLR market. DSLR sales, for photography, have been increasing at higher rates than mirrorless cameras, and in cases where DSLR sales dropped, they dropped less than mirrorless sales:

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/panasonics-mirrorless-claim.html
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/26/dslr-sales-surging-despite-onslaught-from-camera-phones/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Digital-Camera-Sales-Trend-Moving-Through-2013&id=7440714
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/08/nikon-cuts-2013-sales-forecast-citing-poor-mirrorless-camera-sales

There is a specific article that talked about changing trends that I cannot find at the moment (I've posted the link on this site before) that discussed the shift towards DSLR is being fueled by increased use of smartphone cameras, claiming that once users get a taste for photography, they inevitably want higher quality photos. The article seemed to jive with what I've heard from the people I know as well...a growing number of them are buying entry level DSLRs (rather than mirrorless or other compact cameras) as counterparts for their smartphone cameras. That jives with Nikon's missed targets and cuts in their sales forecasts for the 1-series, as well as the rumors that Nikon will be releasing some kind of entry-level DSLR to compete with Canon's new 100D.

Photography, including in the case of DSLRs, is still a growth market. Depending on the source of the numbers, DSLR sales will grow anywhere from 17-26% this year, which is significant. Video makes sense for entry level gear as well, for the very reasons you specify...but does it still make sense for professional grade DSLR cameras when Canon also has the Cinema line? If someone is professionally looking to do cinematography with a DSLR, the C-line is better suited, and could use some entry-level and mid-level parts. It also seems that if a _consumer _wants something for video, a mirrorless camera is the easier device to use...yet sales of mirrorless have been growing slower than sales of DSLR cameras and in some cases fallen considerably...which also makes me think it is photography people are interested in.



unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I want Canon to compete, on all levels, not just one level at a time. Sure, their technology is good. It is quickly becoming "not good enough" for the current age.
> ...



Sure. Sorry, I know I come off strong. I don't dispute the current state of the market. Based on the Market, Canon is king. They are a fiscally sound company as well, and I applaud them for that. I just read about Kodak's bankruptcy filing and the final status today, and I guess the conditions of their bankruptcy agreement, which restructures the company to completely remove them from the consumer market, has made me wonder about Canon's strategy. Sure, video is a growth market. It is a growth market both at the professional level as well as the consumer level. It seems logical to me that entry level DSLR's get some "fancy" video features, but it also seems more logical to me that professionals would demand truly professional video features. Things like RAW output, full HDMI output, better support for external audio equipment, so on and so forth. They ARE demanding those things (which is clear from the video-centric reviews of high end DSLR cameras like the 5D III.) 

My concern is that Canon is too focused, and is going to focus so hard on ONE thing that they miss the opportunities in other areas. My concern is that if they do that, they WILL start to lose customers in the stills market. The thing about the professional, semi-professional, and enthusiast amateur DSLR market is it is largely saturated...if those consumers start looking for better IQ (and it's clear more and more of them ARE), market share can only shift from one brand to another.

I understand there is a bigger picture. Canon is a very fiscally sound company, and they have taken a very old process very far. Does Canon see the bigger picture, though? I mean, I can only evaluate the potential future based on what I do. I understand that other people have their own demands...but maybe some market segmentation is in order. Video vs. Stills, rather than Video and Stills. Canon apparently has only so many R&D resources, and they seem to all be focused on video. Is my significant investment (over $25,000) in Canon equipment going to last for the duration it needs to (measured in decades) in order to be cost effective? Or will I wake up in five years and realize I have to switch brands, likely at a significant loss, because I haven't seen any reason to buy a new Canon camera because their IQ is still fundamentally the same as it is today, while their competitors are pushing 16 stops of DR, with more resolution, and better IQ overall?



unfocused said:


> *Canon Leads in Sensor Tech*



Also, last, while I did respond to some of the things inside the body of your post, I guess I was mostly responding to the title. From a technological (tech) standpoint, Canon really doesn't lead. I know they have done some good things with their tech, but it is definitely not leading...from a technology standpoint alone. Just about every other sensor manufacturer has superior technology...superior fabrication techniques, superior light gathering capability facilitated either by light pipes or BSI designs, superior quantum efficiency, greater dynamic range, often even at smaller (sometimes much smaller) pixel pitch, etc. 

From a marketing standpoint, I don't think there is any question Canon is the leader. Their market share and sales numbers clearly indicate that. But in terms of *Sensor Tech*...I just don't believe that is the case. They definitely have better FPPDAF technology, but that is one feature in a bucket of around a dozen or so fundamental technologies that determine the technological maturity, and superiority, of a sensor. 

It actually blows my mind that some companies are already pushing the 900nm (0.9µm) pixel pitch. That is small enough that it is intrinsically filtering out far IR. The next logical step would be around 750nm (0.75µm) pixel pitch...and that would basically be the limit! At that level, you would already be filtering out near-IR and a small amount of deep red light...you would no longer need an IR cutoff filter...its rather extreme. What some sensor manufacturing companies have done even at 1100nm (1.1µm), and the IQ and noise levels they have been able to maintain with such incredibly small pixels, is amazing. (Realize that a 1.1µm pixel on FF would be a 714 megapixel sensor!)


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 4, 2013)

Canon Leads in auto focus. They are also a leader in Lens design. Almost all of the other sensor manufactures beat them at APC, but Canon is good enough.

I have been primarily using my Nex with old manual primes so Auto focus is not really priority but really good focus peeking is. With Canon it is necessary to install Magic lantern to get this capability. The biggest difference is the Sony has way less noise. I almost never apply noise reduction with my Sony shots. It is also a very different style of photography. It is a really bad idea to ETTR with a Sony it handles under expos and push up to 3 stops much better. 

I shoot wildlife with my Canon 60D and it is a indispensable tool for this. I just wish it had better High ISO. In fact if it had ISO equal to my Nex 6. That is a tall order as the Nex 6 sensor is bigger and only has 16 megapixels. It looks like the 70D is close I will need to rent one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.



I don't own Canon stock, and I've never been to a shareholders' meeting or analyst call for a Japanese company. But I've been to such meetings for US companies, in multiple industries including tech. When profits are down, some of the questions that are almost always put on the table at such meetings are, "Why are we spending so much on R&D? What is the return on that investment? Can that money be more profiably spent in areas with a higher rate of return?" 

R&D in many industries is a long term investment. How long does it take to develop a new camera body, get it to market, and have it start to generate revenue? I know it takes 8-12 years for a drug to be developed and launched (assuming it succeeds, most don't). The problem is that many investors have a short term mindset, and cuts to R&D expenditures are very common these days.

Personally, I want Canon to continue to develop innovative products, and hope that some meet my needs/wants as a consumer. Whether or not they are able to continue to develop innovative products, and the pace at which they do so, depends in large part on R&D spend, and R&D spend is often tied directly to corporate business strategy. I could switch, but the grass isn't always greener, and in fact, if switching to a less profitable company with less market share, the grass is more likely browner than greener. 

That's why I care, at least.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 4, 2013)

To fill the vacuum left by He who loves DR, is this a time to mention it in large capital letters.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 4, 2013)

I think that we really need to realize that with the basic death of the point-and-shoot as a cash cow there are a number of players moving into the middle ground enthusiast cameras. This is mostly in the mirrorless camera sector. They are moving up market. They (the rangefinder esque cameras) are also increasing in quality. 

SLR used to have a huge advantage you could see the same view as the film. With today's sensors and EVF that advantages is disappearing for the vast majority of uses. 

There are currently too many camera makers in the current market. There will be casualties soon as the point dries up further. 

For this Canon is in relatively good health. But likely need new markets to replace there P&S sales. Sony does not have to worry about this because are selling smartphone sensors.

If worst comes to worst there is nothing but pride keeping Canon from using a Sony manufactured sensor. In truth most of us complain to much about the sensor. 

Some times I pop popcorn and head on over to Amazon to read the D600 reviews. There are just as many people who claim to be Nikon fans screaming this is the last straw I am buying a Canon. Then head over to SonyAlphaRumors and read all the Idiots screaming I going to go by X unless they make a 35 f1.4 E mount full frame pancake for $300.

Ignoring physics always put a smile on my face


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2013)

jrista said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > *Canon Leads in Sensor Tech*
> ...



Yes. I am totally guilty of baiting people with the title.

I do appreciate that you and others are discussing this intelligently. I was motivated in part by watching the back and forth on the DXO thread and seeing that most of it amounted to schoolyard taunts from both sides.

I certainly hope the next generation of 7D will have all the things you mentioned (better autofocus, better frame rate, etc. including sensor improvements over the 70D). I think Canon does have a challenge ahead of themselves – they need to produce a 7DII that is enough better than the current model to convince current owners to upgrade because I do believe that the bulk of their sales of the 7DII will come from 7D owners.

I do agree with some of what you've said about DSLR video. On a much earlier thread I suggested that video and stills, having converged for the past several years, may be at the point where they start to diverge again. I don't know enough about the technology, but I suspect it is unlikely that Canon can continue to improve their DSLRs in both video and stills without one starting to conflict with the other. 

Sometimes I dream that the next 7D will not have a dual pixel sensor and instead Canon will use what they learned in developing that technology to make a sensor that performs better for stills photographers. I can dream can't I?


----------



## Pi (Sep 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:
 

> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.
> ...



You actually agree with me. I replied to a post basically saying - they are making profits and growing, they must be doing it right? I do not care how profitable they are unless they are in the danger of failing. 

I will give you again an example from the audiophile world. Sony is a huge player in audio (among the rest). This does not make it a hot brand when it comes to higher end equipment. They tried hard to distance themselves from the image of a toy making company, created the Sony SE line, which is quite good. But their success with mass market, medium quality, whistles-and-bells equipment damages their image among the enthusiasts. I am afraid that with the emphasis on video, Canon might be going that way. To please the masses, at the expense of the true enthusiasts. 

Same thing with cars: Toyota sells the most cars in the US and is growing. Does it mean that I have to like their cars? They are bland, nothing to get excited about. Enthusiasts, even those on a budget, do not want what the public wants.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> To fill the vacuum left by He who loves DR





Pi said:


> You actually agree with me.



See how congenial it is around here, now? 

But seriously, I do agree. We can go around and around about the 5DIII vs. the D800 or the 1D X vs. the D4, but it's the Rebels/xxxD/xxxxD and D3xxx/D5xxx that put the yen in the coffers, and ultimately what funds the R&D that yields the products in which many CR members are interested. 

I think both companies (Canon/Nikon) are making decisions at the higher end that are influenced by factors that differ from what (some) enthusiasts want. Video AF was a novelty in the xxxD line (and IIRC, Nikon was the first to offer it, in a D3xxx body). Now it's trickled up, albeit in better form, to the xxD line. That's great for video shooters who want AF...but for me, well, I may have shot a grand total of 1.5 minutes of dSLR video footage in my life - and dual pixel AF in a 1-series body won't change that.

The car analogy is relevant, but perhaps not the best - when you buy a car, you aren't locked in to that brand's 'system' for add-ons (I've got a Thule bike rack, Britax car seats, etc.). Not sure about high-end audio equipment, but I'm pretty sure that a Sony amp will work with an Krell preamp and Klipsch speakers, with no worries about compatibility issues. With a Canon dSLR, for full functionality you will likely want Canon flashes, in many cases Canon lenses (although there, at least, 3rd party options are recently quite good), etc. 

In the case of a dSLR, looking at the 'system' (including compatible 3rd party options) becomes very important. That's really the main issue I have with all the endless discussions about DR, low ISO IQ, etc. - they focus on one aspect of a system. An important aspect, to be sure, but just one aspect. Such discussions often ignore the other factors of system performance . For some people, one particular factor truly is the most important, but for most people, there are many factors involved, and choices are made accordingly.

That's actually central to the point of this thread - Canon's sensors aren't 'antiquated' or 'not modern' they have just been developed with an emphasis on different factors.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 4, 2013)

unfocused said:


> The next generation of filmmakers are already out there making videos using Rebels. Canon fully intends to move them up through the system. There is no "next generation" of stills photographers to speak of.



Interesting thread, but that is the most compelling thing to me. I've been saying for a long time that video will eventually obliterate stills. However, I've never heard it put so vividly.

As someone who has spent a lifetime with and around stills photographers, it's pretty damning to think we're the last of the Mohicans. No next generation!!

I'm beginning to feel like an auto mechanic looking for a place to use his dwell meter and timing light.


----------



## Pi (Sep 4, 2013)

Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2013)

distant.star said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The next generation of filmmakers are already out there making videos using Rebels. Canon fully intends to move them up through the system. There is no "next generation" of stills photographers to speak of.
> ...



Makes you wonder...did Canon develop a 1D X, then turn it into a more expensive 1D C for the cinema crowd, or did they develop a 1D C, then turn it into a cheaper 1D X for the stills crowd? 



Pi said:


> Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.



That's a patent that I hope sees the light of day as a product. How many DO lens patents does Canon have now? Well over 10, I think.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.


I wish they would just remove the AA filter and be done with it. Solve the problem in software and down scale. But the movie crowd and some landscape photographers would scream bloody murder. And insist software is just not good enough.


----------



## Pi (Sep 4, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.
> ...



Maybe because it is not. Undersampling is a loss of information and no post-processing can restore what is lost. Downscale dos not help much when you have large scale aliasing.

An adjustable AA filter would be great even for stills.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 4, 2013)

Another debate on sensors, and now Nikon is / or is not crushing Canon's sales because of it. The sensor is just a small part of the big "picture", so to speak.

If you haven't figured it out by Canon's actions with DSLR's in the last few years they seem to think Video is the future.

I doubt the sales lost or gained from Nikon are significant compared to the sales Canon lost to the iPhone and other phone manufactures. Canon should have gotten a clue from these companies. Where are the Canon phones built in to their cameras? The dedicated P&S is dead, add a smart phone to the back of it and people will come back. I would think seriously about buying a T5i phone, it would be smaller than bag phone I had in 1988. How about a new M model 1/8" wider with an iPhone on the back. I might pre-order.

Sensors, who's is better? Unless Canon sensors crash I don't care. I have my good glass, in a year or two this debate will be about a completely different set of specs on sensors and I will still have my good glass.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

unfocused said:


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



Haha! You did indeed. 



unfocused said:


> I do appreciate that you and others are discussing this intelligently.



Well, it seems we'll be able to, finally. 



unfocused said:


> I was motivated in part by watching the back and forth on the DXO thread and seeing that most of it amounted to schoolyard taunts from both sides.



Yeah...DXO is a real pain point in the Canon community (and not just because of the DXO scores...DXO definitely seems to have some issues with brand weighting, which is even more visible with their lens reviews.) Their scalar "score" is an atrocity...and it would be so even if Canon cameras didn't score badly. Their measurement data is useful, but trying to linearly rank cameras is just a bad idea IMO. I prefer the DPR approach, bucketing cameras into gold, silver, bronze buckets. Little looser and general, but it fits the extremely diverse set of measurable data points better.



unfocused said:


> I certainly hope the next generation of 7D will have all the things you mentioned (better autofocus, better frame rate, etc. including sensor improvements over the 70D). I think Canon does have a challenge ahead of themselves – they need to produce a 7DII that is enough better than the current model to convince current owners to upgrade because I do believe that the bulk of their sales of the 7DII will come from 7D owners.



Totally agree. I guess around this time next year, we'll learn what Canon meant when they said they would be doing something interesting with the 7D II sensor. I'm very curious to know if that interesting thing has a video or stills bent...



unfocused said:


> I do agree with some of what you've said about DSLR video. On a much earlier thread I suggested that video and stills, having converged for the past several years, may be at the point where they start to diverge again. I don't know enough about the technology, but I suspect it is unlikely that Canon can continue to improve their DSLRs in both video and stills without one starting to conflict with the other.
> 
> Sometimes I dream that the next 7D will not have a dual pixel sensor and instead Canon will use what they learned in developing that technology to make a sensor that performs better for stills photographers. I can dream can't I?



I _don't_ think it is impossible for Canon to achieve that. I do, however, think they need to spread the R&D spending around a bit more. I can't really remember the last time there was a significant still photography innovation. The 61pt AF system might be the last thing I've heard that seriously improved still photography IQ in the Canon world...and that was quite a while ago now, couple years at least.

I've tried to use the video capabilities of my 7D a few times to record some of the interesting things I see out in nature, the stories that a few still photographs just can't tell. I've come to the conclusion that outside of your basic shaky-camera gig with quirky focus, you can't really use a DSLR for good quality video without investing in some of the tools that actually make it practical. A focus puller, a fluid-filled tripod head, a proper screen magnifier and shroud, etc. Once you get those things, and really want to start producing some higher quality cinematography, you start to realize you can't really do it all on your own, and you realize you need even more gear...maybe a dolly for smoother panning, and at least one other person to pull focus while you focus on everything else. Then you start thinking abut audio, the need for some external microphone jacks, cleaner video output, RAW video output, so on and so forth. Its just another rabbit hole. 

You can do some basic things with DSLR video, and software like Adobe Premier helps (especially with its post-process image stabilization features...however then you really wish you had the full 4k 4096x3112 resolution so you have some extra pixels to support the cropping that comes along with that stabilization)...but anything more, and a simple DSLR just doesn't cut it, and it is an R&D funding black hole...

I find the viability of DSLR video in professional DSLR cameras to be limited without a lot of extra gear, and a growing number of additional features that would need to be added to stills cameras to make it really viable. Even for something as simple as filming the local fowl and fauna to make a short, but quality, video. So I totally agree...I think it is time the technologies diverge...at least at the professional level. I honestly couldn't really care what Canon does with their consumer grade products. ;P


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.



Ditto!! :\ 

...I would LOVE an AA filter I could disable for my landscapes, and enable for my birds.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> Another debate on sensors, and now Nikon is / or is not crushing Canon's sales because of it. The sensor is just a small part of the big "picture", so to speak.
> 
> If you haven't figured it out by Canon's actions with DSLR's in the last few years they seem to think Video is the future.
> 
> ...



It's a good point about good glass. That's the reason I spent over ten grand on the EF 600mm lens. But there is a cost do buying good glass...the *system* has to last. If the onslaught of racing technological improvements in the CMOS Image Sensor sector continues, Canon's sensors will become irrelevant in a few years. Image quality took a jump with the D800...what happens when even your smartphone camera can achieve dynamic range like that, and every DSLR except Canon's does even better?

All anyone is saying is that Canon needs to step up their game, broaden their focus, and compete more effectively on multiple fronts. Dynamic range also doesn't just apply to stills photography, either. Canon is a new entrant to a fairly well established digital cinematography market. Again, sensors for the cinema segment are also improving. Red demonstrated a cine-sensor with over 20 stops of dynamic range! Sony has produced numerous smaller video sensors with incredible dynamic range (although nothing yet that quite compares with 20 stops). The sensor IQ debate doesn't actually end with stills, it is a video factor as well (and in many ways, DR is FAR more important for cinematography than it is for stills.)

Will Canon actually succeed in the video market? What'll happen when their cinema line remains stuck at 12 stops of DR while all of their competition continues accelerating to 20 stops and beyond? If the future is video, then Canon still needs to compete, and DR is still a factor. I hope they figure that out and do something about it before their (rather diverse) competition crushes them. I've invested too much.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 4, 2013)

jrista said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree with some of what you've said about DSLR video. On a much earlier thread I suggested that video and stills, having converged for the past several years, may be at the point where they start to diverge again. I don't know enough about the technology, but I suspect it is unlikely that Canon can continue to improve their DSLRs in both video and stills without one starting to conflict with the other.
> ...



If memory serves, when Canon released the 1D C they had released video of photographers doing frame grabs for stills.
This very well may be the way Canon see's still photography in the future. Instead of 12 fps you shoot a few seconds of video and cut what you need out. The problem I saw when watching the video, the IQ wasn't quit there yet.

I think diverge is a pipe dream, Canon's actions the last few years seem to always be pushing toward video and combining the two.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 4, 2013)

jrista said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Another debate on sensors, and now Nikon is / or is not crushing Canon's sales because of it. The sensor is just a small part of the big "picture", so to speak.
> ...



What will happen when my smartphone is as good as my 1D? I will be buying a smartphone adapter for my 500mm, and carrying a few less pounds on the airplane.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 4, 2013)

I hear ya, Unfocused. My opinion (as expressed in another thread) is that Canon chose to concentrate on Live View AF for this generation of sensor. From all the YouTube videos I've seen of the 70D thus far, they pulled it off superbly.

I understand that, to many, Dual Pixel AF appears to be aimed at videographers, and while in practicality, it pretty much is right now, think of what this technology will do for the next mirrorless body!!! That's the first thing I thought of when they announced DPAF. Add a high quality EVF (for those who really want/need it), and you've got a mirrorless body that spanks the competition for auto-focus. I expect a DPAF EOS M will fly off the shelves.

One other thought: we know companies tend to release technology on a scheduled road map. While many are moaning that the DR/noise performance hasn't improved that much in the 70D compared to previous generations, how do we know that they didn't just hold it back in the release pipeline to release it with the 7D?

I know that's optimistic, and I'm perfectly content if they really did focus on just Live View AF, but maybe we should wait to see what the 7DII actually delivers. Just a thought...

Anyway, Canon demonstrated that when it sets out to solve something (like Live View AF), it can succeed. When Canon decides to "solve" the dynamic range and noise "problem", I have no doubt it will be equally successful. I'm excited for Canon. 8)

Of course, not everyone in this forum shares my optimism, particularly after having high DR/noise hopes for the last couple of years and having them dashed. They're like Buttercup, and I'm Wesley as we're fleeing to the Fire Swamp for safety:

Buttercup: We'll never survive!
Wesley: Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has...

;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2013)

Famateur said:


> Of course, not everyone in this forum shares my optimism, particularly after having high DR/noise hopes for the last couple of years and having them dashed. They're like Buttercup, and I'm Wesley as we're fleeing to the Fire Swamp for safety:
> 
> Buttercup: We'll never survive!
> Wesley: Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has...



What are the dangers of the Fire Swamp? The High DR spurt, but there's a popping sound from the ADC before that, so those are easily avoided. Lightening pattern noise, but Aglet was clever enough to figure out what that looks like, so we can avoid that, too. What about the ROUS? Resolution of Unusual Suckiness? I don't think that exists.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, not everyone in this forum shares my optimism, particularly after having high DR/noise hopes for the last couple of years and having them dashed. They're like Buttercup, and I'm Wesley as we're fleeing to the Fire Swamp for safety:
> ...



LOL! Once again, your wit was faster than my reply to my own post (as evidenced by my other post being after this one). Resolution of Unusual Suckiness! Love it!


----------



## Famateur (Sep 4, 2013)

Famateur said:


> How do we know that they didn't just hold it back in the release pipeline to release it with the 7D?



Just to expand on this a little more, it sounds like the 7DII will be released several months (or even a year) after the 70D. Am I the only one that thinks Canon has more up its sleeve than putting the 70D sensor in a bigger heavier body with more whistles and bells?

I know, I know -- that's essentially what they did with the 60D and 7D (only in reverse?). Maybe I'm getting back to Fire Swamp optimism... ;D

It just seems like that's a lot of time to wait for an already long-overdue successor to the 7D, and perhaps that time would make more sense to us if we knew that a new sensor tech (or ADC, or whatever) was being tested in conjunction with DPAF. We've all been thinking about the 70D sensor as it is and wondering what Canon might _add _to it for the 7DII. What if it was the other way around? What if they created the 7DII sensor and then opted to use a lesser "consumer" version with DPAF for the mid-level 70D?

"Rodents of Unusual Size? Personally, I don't think they exist." 8)


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, not everyone in this forum shares my optimism, particularly after having high DR/noise hopes for the last couple of years and having them dashed. They're like Buttercup, and I'm Wesley as we're fleeing to the Fire Swamp for safety:
> ...



Hah!! +10000


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2013)

I was too unfocused tonight to take the bait!

(plus everyone already hit most, enough, of the relevant points already)


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 4, 2013)

I would still be happy if they would just re-release the 1D4 at half the price.

I remember an interview where some Canon executive said that part of their long term strategy is to introduce larger sensors into lower price ranges.
Lowering the cost of large sensors actually seems like the most beneficial improvement they could make. Most people already use FF glass, now they just need the body to unlock its potential. Stick APS-H in the next Rebel and full frame in the 80D, now that's an improvement.
That also fits with introducing medium format for a new top tier.


----------



## jhanken (Sep 4, 2013)

9VIII said:


> I remember an interview where some Canon executive said that part of their long term strategy is to introduce larger sensors into lower price ranges. Lowering the cost of large sensors actually seems like the most beneficial improvement they could make.



Thank you. The business reality is this:
- The collapse of the point-and-shoot market is an existential threat to Canon, Nikon, and Olympus, and perhaps Fuji and some others I am forgetting. The significance of this fact cannot be overstated when trying to understand each company's moves in the DSLR market. Other companies might survive a nuclear scenario in point-and-shoots, but with significant hits to their photo arms (e.g. Sony, Samsung, Panasonic),

- Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Samsung have all had strong technical responses in terms of new offerings in the MILC category or othe new categories Nikon's 1 system approach has been a bit iconoclastic, and Canon's M system was a least initially bungled, despite some promising hardware

- The vanilla middle seems to be a terrible place to be alone, i.e. APS-C sensor or smaller sensor, not interesting body, nothing crucially differentiating (e.g. the leaf shutter Fuji x100 family), based on critical reception. While the photo technology may be fantastic in this space, it is very difficult to differentiate. Cash cows are mooing but perhaps endangered.

- Canon, for sure, has a bit of an albatross with its current investment in sensor tech production capacity. That, and its confidence that it can wrestle competitive tech advances from current technologies, goes a log way to explaining the be split-receptor technology pioneered in the 70D. Probably no coincidence that this new tech also is biased toward video users in terms of attractiveness, that makes sense for any company trusting to shore up defenses against the IOS/Android phone camera onslaught.

- Given the need for companies to differentiate in some meaningful way, Canon and Nikon's relative position with respect to high-end DSLRs makes sense, given Nikon's reliance on more up-to-date chip fans, and canon's growing popularity in the increasingly competitive video hardware market.

- And finally this: Canon's most durable competitive advantage is in the development, production and sale of high-end lenses. Not that Tay aren't great at camera bodies, it's just that so are others, depending on what you prefer. A focus on full-frame users, even if at reduced ultimate margins, serves to further increase the size of a customer base with extremely high switching costs and generally high loyalty.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 4, 2013)

1. I clearly see Canon behind Sony/Nikon in sensor tech. And not just by a small margin. 
Both Low ISO IQ [read noise] and even more so in DR which on average is 1.5 to 2 stops worse than comparable Nikon cameras, which in addition are priced roughly 1/3 lower [especially 5D 3 vs D800]. 

2. I do not believe, video to have a huge growth potential compared to stills. If this was the case, we would see a constant flow of excellent, dedicated video cameras with large sensors/shallow DOF without flipping mirrors in the light path and at prices comparable to DSLRs. But we are not. 
The true reason is evident: post-processing of video material is more difficult and time-consuming by a magnitude of 100 to 1000 times compared to posting OOC jpgs to facebook. For every pro or enthusiast willing to edit video there are 1 million stills snapshooters not willing to spend the time and effort.

3. The new 70D dual-pixel sensor with on-sensor PD/CF-AF WOULD make a lot of sense - in a mirrorless camera! Definitely not in DSLRs. But up to now Canon has been dragging its feet over putting this technology to good use by building market-leading ultra-capable and ultra-compact mirrorless cameras [and lenses]. The were beat by Olympus, Fuji and others and they will soon be beat big time by Sony [upcoming FF-mirrorless]. 

4. Canon set the wrong priorities in supplying video-capable DSLRs which only a small, but very vocal minority of its customer base really needs. I do understand, why this small group of video-oriented customers is so happy: all of a sudden they could get video-DSLRs with high-quality, shallow-DOF for only USD 2500 [5D 2] instead of being forced to rent professional video-cameras costing USD 20.000+ Of course they were and are enthusiastic. But it is a very small minority. 

5. Canon will suffer the consequences of this desicion. Due to "inertia" [large installed base + good brand recognition] it may still take a while, but it will come. For sure.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 4, 2013)

Over the next few days we may see a what the competition's gonna be offering to tempt our wallets.
Oly's new EM1 looks like a deliciously compact little MFT that could be even sweeter than the EM-5.
Sony may be courting phone-camera users with real optics add-ons.
Pentax is rumored to have some new toys for us too.
Fuji's likely up to something interesting again.

All these are very innovative but likely still to remain niche players compared to the Canon Juggernaut.. who may be finally intro'ing improved M models. Almost seems like an anti-climactic finish if Canon doesn't have something meatier for a press release.

2013 is SUCH an interesting year for photo-tech.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 4, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Over the next few days we may see a what the competition's gonna be offering to tempt our wallets.
> Oly's new EM1 looks like a deliciously compact little MFT that could be even sweeter than the EM-5.
> Sony may be courting phone-camera users with real optics add-ons.
> Pentax is rumored to have some new toys for us too.
> ...



Be careful with "Oly", they are in big trouble - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23955003


----------



## docsmith (Sep 4, 2013)

There are so many different directions to go with this thread....First, I think the dual pixel was a great advancement for the consumer/prosumer level 70D. But, I am not sure the 70D was the target for developing the dual pixel system, but rather the EOS-M series cameras. Canon will likely drop the dual pixel system into the next generation of M to improve AF and have a potentially very nice second offering into the mirrorless market.

I don't see video as the growth market that others seem to think. Consumer and professional level video camcorders have been around for decades. Affordable video cameras at least 20 years. That was a defined, mature market. The "growth" that Canon experienced was stealing away users from that market, both professional and consumer, so that they could have stills and HD video from one unit....and also use Canon's lens system. 

As for stills...this isn't scientific, but everyone I know that is into image capture (video or stills) is primarily into stills. This goes from age 10 to age 70. Not only are they into stills, but almost no one cares for video. I am not really sure why, but it just seems people (that I know) prefer stills. For someone like Canon to ignore stills would be like (to stick to the car analogy from earlier) an automobile maker ignoring the family sedan. Sure, it may not be the "growth" but it is still a very significant market.

Finally, regarding Canon moving onto new sensor tech because their current sensor tech is 10 years old....I hope they do. I would love more DR (as long as they still have good contrast). I would love the best sensor tech possible. But often, companies stay with what works until they find themselves in a competitive disadvantage or a new technology comes along. I hope Nikon/Sony has put Canon at enough of a competitive disadvantage so that Canon improves their tech, but given the sales numbers, I am not sure that is the case. Going back to the automotive industry comparisons....anyone ever look under the hood of their car? At the core engine? Sure there are add-ons and turbochargers/etc..but most car makers core engine has been the same for decades...that is...until something new came along...like hybrids.

So, I am not holding my breath for new sensor tech from Canon. They do have to figure out how to get people to upgrade from the 5DIII to 5DIV and 1DX to 1DXII. But that is 2-3 years down the road. Sure the 7DII may (or may not) come out sometime in the next year...but Canon could easily drop a slightly improved sensor into it, give it the 1DX/5DIII AF and 10-12 fps and call it good. Granted, I am hoping for new sensor tech


----------



## Eldar (Sep 4, 2013)

I may be one of the last Mohicans, since I have no interest in video, just stills. I have not once used the video funcionality of either the 5DIII or the 1DX. I firmly believe that photography represents an art form and a form of documenting our lives and history, that will survive, no matter how much video we get. I encourage you to check out Nick Brandt's photos from Africa (saw the exhibition last week). Video can never ever replace that.

An observation I have made over the last couple of years is that, after reading all the acclaim of the newer SLRs video functionality, those around me who buys cameras often talk a lot about video to begin with. But when I ask them to show what they have produced, they (almost) always show me their photographs. 

One improvement I am looking forward to is the new live view AF. I use live view more and more, but up until now I have always used manual focus. I suppose that is a positive development for us still photographers, coming from Canon's focus on video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2013)

Eldar said:


> One improvement I am looking forward to is the new live view AF. I use live view more and more, but up until now I have always used manual focus. I suppose that is a positive development for us still photographers, coming from Canon's focus on video.



As I understand it, the advantage Dual Pixel AF brings to live view focusing is speed. It's not more accurate than contrast detect AF. In most circumstances where I used to live view, after carefully composing the shot, adjusting tilt and/or shift on the lens or positioning the flash heads for a macro shot, getting the polarization just right, etc., shaving a tiny bit of time off the focusing step is not really a significant benefit.

OTOH, for a camera like EOS M where live view focusing is the only option, PDAF would be a huge advantage.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 4, 2013)

Video is a must have feature in a DSLR for a lot of people. It is very hard to sell a camera without 1920x1080 video and people are starting to look for 4K video in cameras. For a company to compete, they have to offer video.

That said, how many of those people who MUST! have video use it? Myself, I tend to only use it for astrophotography and image stacking... My bet is that this is a must-have feature that is seldom used....


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 4, 2013)

Sony makes better sensors, but Canon makes better cameras.


----------



## gbchriste (Sep 4, 2013)

I had a professor - a techie type - who coined an axiom that went something like this:

"All other factors being roughly equal, the most important technical factor in any system is cost."

Of course, we don't think of "cost" as a technical factor. But the point he was making as that the vast majority of rationale actors will not pay for an elevated level of technical performance if they don't need it.

One of his favorite cases in point was the Betamax vs. VHS video format. By any technical measure associated with image and audio quality, the Betamax was a far superior format, although it cost more. But for the average user, the ability to record 6 hours - or as many as 6 1-hour TV shows or 3 movies - on one cassette was more compelling that the difference in image and audio quality, and that extended record time could be had for less money.

Without getting in to a PC-vs-Mac flame war, I think there would be a very large number of people that consider the Mac a superior computing platform but won't switch because the cost difference between it and the PC overtakes any perceived benefit gained by adopting the Mac platform.

It's the same reason the vast majority of us drive a Chevy instead of a Mercedes. Our immediate need is for reliable transporation to get us back and forth from home to work. The Chevy meets that need, even though the Mercedes is clearly a far superior vehicle.

The bottom line is that "good enough" at a competitive cost will always win out over "far superior" at a higher price in a rational market.

In the present case, 5D3 is a more expensive consumer choice than the Nikon D800, but you have to look at it not from the consumer's vantage point, but from Canon's. For the present, the sensor technology they are using is "good enough" for them to continue to sell a lot of cameras and remain competitive.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I understand it, the advantage Dual Pixel AF brings to live view focusing is speed.


It is the speed I´m looking for. An AI Servo mode in live view, with a sufficiently fast AF, can give you much better working conditions than using the view finder, for example when hunting insects. But the performance on their current (1DX/5DIII) live view AF is not good enough. It might be that I am overly ambitious for the new solution, but I am looking forward to try it out.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 4, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Video is a must have feature in a DSLR for a lot of people. It is very hard to sell a camera without 1920x1080 video and people are starting to look for 4K video in cameras. For a company to compete, they have to offer video.



I really really doubt this. We are just not being given a choice, video-enabled cameras are just stuffed down our throats. 

A stills-only, stills-optimized camera with no video-output and sensor only video enabled to the extent required for live-view purposes would be puirchased by 90% of DSLR-buyers, if they spend any thought on their purchase and if it was offered at a 100 USD/Euro discount compared to the fully video enabled model. To most, video is a mere gadget. Everybody tries it once or twice and then ends up never editing the video footage and will not touch it ever again. 4k is a total lunacy anyways, as long as there are no affordable 4k output devices [monitors, TV-sets]. For youtube and facebook smartphone-video is more than sufficient. 

Video enthusiasts and pros on the other hand would be way better served by a real [mirrorless!] video cam that can also capture stills rather than working their way around an unwieldy mirror-flipping DSLR stuck into some freaky rig. Video folks are just buying HD-DSLRs, because these are sold so dirt cheap compared to similarly large-sensored, dedicated videocams.


----------



## Zv (Sep 4, 2013)

I wonder how long Canon spent on the R&D for this dual pixel thing? Prob a while. It's not really a feature anyone really demanded but they gave it to us anyway. One thing to take away from that is at least they are (as mentioned before) still innovating and not just making existing tech "a little better". 

Personally I have no use for DPAF except in the M line where it would have been awesome. It's a shame they didn't have this in the M. That woulda blown people away I reckon. But then we woulda had no mirrorless until now?! Do we need a mirrorless camera? Probably not. 

I totally agree about the use of video or lack there of. I have shot a little video but not enough to really care for it. It is nice to have though. I would love to see a "pure stills" body. Some kinda DSLR monster that is designed for one purpose only - taking f'in awesome pictures! Cost be dammed. We would be all over that! Even if they make two versions - one with video and one without, a bit like the D800E / D800 situation. 

However, that said I'm fairly happy with my gear. It gets the job done and I enjoy using it. 

Really looking fwd to see what comes next. 7D2? Bring it on!


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 4, 2013)

This has probably been mentioned before, but is the dual pixel technology that has initially been launched for contrast AF actually the platform for a whole raft of sensor improvements ? In what other ways could it be used for practical advantage in a future, more advanced form ?

Any thought ? Also I presume this is a Canon patent ?


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> This has probably been mentioned before, but is the dual pixel technology that has initially been launched for contrast AF actually the platform for a whole raft of sensor improvements ? In what other ways could it be used for practical advantage in a future, more advanced form ?
> 
> Any thought ? Also I presume this is a Canon patent ?



Dual Pixel is not for Contrast AF, it is for sensor-based Phase Detection AF. I don't think there is enough knowledge about DPAF yet, to really know how Canon uses it. Theoretically, Canon can identify target zones within the 80% sensor area, and accurately PDAF any and all of them simultaneously. If you are using some kind of auto-DOF mode (not sure if they still have this, but it may exist on their lower end cameras and in EOS-M), then the camera could also determine the necessary aperture to get all of the selected subjects in focus. Most of the functionality at this point would be firmware based, and who knows what they will do with it.

The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

docsmith said:


> I don't see video as the growth market that others seem to think. Consumer and professional level video camcorders have been around for decades. Affordable video cameras at least 20 years. That was a defined, mature market. The "growth" that Canon experienced was stealing away users from that market, both professional and consumer, so that they could have stills and HD video from one unit....and also use Canon's lens system.



I heard that a good deal of sales success of the 5D2 was because of so many video guys gobbling them up. It was quite a revelation (I'm still shocked that Canon was actually caught dumfounded that people wanted manual controls for 5D2 video, how insanely short-sighted could they be). They added AF and speed to the 5D3 to try to get the stills people gobbling a ton. Of course as soon as they saw some cash then went into protection mode and came up with the C100 scheme instead of continuing the DSLR video take over and kind of lost their huge momentum and let others jump in etc (they somewhat punted on with the 5D3, at least until ML RAW came out for it, it is interesting that the 5D3 price suddenly jumped up to near release price again just a few weeks after ML RAW came out, I don't know what it went up, but the timing at least makes you wonder).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2013)

jrista said:


> The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.



Could be done as orthogonal dual pixel AF, where the half of the pixels are split vertically and half are split horizontally.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.
> ...



Sure. Exactly how they achieve it is not really the point...just that adding some way to detect phase in both directions is probably the next significant enhancement. After that, maybe diagonal phase.


----------



## weixing (Sep 5, 2013)

Hi,
When dual Pixel AF mature, may be we'll see the first mirrorless sport/wildlife camera... taking full resolution images at high speed in silence... but I'll miss the "machine gun" sound... ha ha ha

Have a nice day.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 5, 2013)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> When dual Pixel AF mature, may be we'll see the first mirrorless sport/wildlife camera... taking full resolution images at high speed in silence... but I'll miss the "machine gun" sound... ha ha ha
> 
> Have a nice day.



That would be AWESOME!  But I think a corresponding better EVF is also needed to make that possible.


----------



## Pi (Sep 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.
> ...



That may create pattern noise - pixels with different orientations may have slightly different sensitivities depending on their position in the frame or different vignetting. If they are arranged in rows or columns, that will create banding (no, not that again!).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> That may create pattern noise - pixels with different orientations may have slightly different sensitivities depending on their position in the frame or different vignetting. If they are arranged in rows or columns, that will create banding (no, not that again!).



Would that apply to subpixels? Regardless of the orientation, the DPAF subpixels have their signals summed and reported out as a single pixel for the captured image, which is why the 70D's sensor is 20 MP and not 40 MP.


----------



## Pi (Sep 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > That may create pattern noise - pixels with different orientations may have slightly different sensitivities depending on their position in the frame or different vignetting. If they are arranged in rows or columns, that will create banding (no, not that again!).
> ...



Who knows, I am just speculating. I can imagine that pixels with different oriented subpxels would look differently physically and may have different sensitivities depending on the angle of the falling light. 

I am not sure how it is done now - all horizontal? If so, it would be interesting to compare the vignetting diagrams of the 70D and the 60D with the same lens; TDP may do it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> I am not sure how it is done now - all horizontal? If so, it would be interesting to compare the vignetting diagrams of the 70D and the 60D with the same lens; TDP may do it.



They're all split vertically (into left and right subpixels), so the DPAF system is a giant horizontal line sensor, responsive only to vertically-oriented details.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Even if there was some noise as a result of slightly different response, I can't imagine it would be any more significant than existing quantization noise. For all intents and purposes, quantization noise is largely meaningless in the grand scheme of read noise factors. If banding did occur, and it was not overpowered by banding caused by high frequency components or photon shot noise, I suspect a very significant exposure push or shadow lift would be necessary to cause it to show up.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 5, 2013)

After browsing many of the responses, i think a lot of you guys are simply missing the point. What camera has better reviews on this site or that site or what camera has more DR or less video or whatever is irrelevant. Over the last year, I've been doing a lot of business training getting my photography business to keep plugging along and help it grow, and one thing rings true... Not all customers are meant for each business. There's are probably a hundred photographers in my city, some better than others, but that means A) each client that chooses YOU over all the competition makes that customer even more special and B) customer billy bob may not like your shooting style but susie q down the street may. Because of that, trying to appeal to billy bob is a worthless endeavor because they wouldn't choose you anyways. 

Same with Canon and Nikon. Some may say that canon shouldn't focus on video and focus more on stills. Well, anyone paying attention to what happened with the chicago newspaper? They FIRED all their photography staff in favor for videos from freelancers and every day citizens submitting their videos looking for their 2 seconds of fame. Ever look at the classifieds and notice how when you see at any news station when they have an opening for a PHOTOGRAPHER, they say send in a reel of your work, IE VIDEO. Even my photography school where I got my batchelors in Professional Photography, now, according to my last alumni newsletter, are requiring all future graduates to have video classes under their belt to graduate. Video is the wave of the future, embrace it or not, it is what it is. 

Canon has ALWAYS been on the front lines of new technology within the last decade and a half or so... Canon was one of the first to go all in with digital and smoked nikon out the door with their digital cameras... Then they beat nikon to the punch with video, now mirrorless, etc. To be fair, nikon has really focused more of the photography aspect and perfected it if you will, however, even most pro's will say that video, on nikon, is uncomfortable and not as innovative, which is helping canon to continue grabbing that marketshare all the way of Professional VJ's (visual journalists), to wedding photographers who want to add video to their packages, to professionals who may want that extra video grab as a throw-in product for a client, to a mom and pop wanting to get video of their kids first steps. Plus, this topic is a lot like the story of nokia... they poll all their customers asking if they want touchscreens... their customers said no. The iphone comes out and crushes nokia because all of a sudden, customers decided touchscreens are kinda cool. Now everyone has one. What Canon should do or shouldn't do is irrelevant. I hate to say this, even customers really dont know what they want as a consensus. But, Canon is appealing to THEIR customers and nikon is appealing to theirs. Now should Canon's sales start dropping and nikon starts taking their marketshare, then it's time for them to rethink things, but until then, all this bickering is pointless. Jump to nikon, stick to canon, sink and float adrift to sony, who cares, just make a decision and go take some freaking pictures.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 5, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Canon has ALWAYS been on the front lines of new technology within the last decade and a half or so...



That is plain wrong as far as Canon Sensor Tech is concerned, which is the subject title of this thread. 
Yes, 10 years ago Canon was clearly in the lead with their CMOS sensors vs. competition's CCDs and by offering full-frame sensors compared to all others with only APS-C sized sensors.

But over the last 5 years, Canon was has fallen behind the competition in terms of both sensor tech [500nm process] and was surpassed in imaging capability [visible in low ISO IQ and DR]. So far, Canon has managed to largely ignore this, because IQ from their products is basically "good enough for most uses" and because of brand recognition and inertia of market forces. That does not mean however that the party will last forever or even very much longer. 



awinphoto said:


> I hate to say this, even customers really dont know what they want as a consensus.



That's why every sensible company offers their customer base a choice of product variations. Even Canon does. 

However, Canon is NOT offering its customers the choice of one or more "perfect for stills" cameras. All we get to choose from is either 100% video optimized [camcorders, "C/Cine" products] or DSLRs and the EOS-M which include a lot of video features and attract a minority of video-oriented customers who demand even more video-oriented stuff in them. And Nikon, Sony do the same. 

It's as if all of a sudden all home improvement/do-it-yourself stores globally were to offer only screwdrivers and combination screwdrivers that can also be used as sort of a poor man's hammer to drive nails into walls, rather than screwdrivers and hammers.  



awinphoto said:


> But, Canon is appealing to THEIR customers and nikon is appealing to theirs.



Not quite. Many customers would be willing to move from one companies' products to the others, but are effectively hindered by (sizeable) investments into brand-specific lenses/flashes/accessories and the effort required to adopt to a different, unfamiliar user interface [especially as Canon is offering a UI that is more intuitive to most people than Nikon's]. 



awinphoto said:


> Now should Canon's sales start dropping and nikon starts taking their marketshare, then it's time for them to rethink things, but until then, all this bickering is pointless. Jump to nikon, stick to canon, sink and float adrift to sony, who cares, just make a decision and go take some freaking pictures.



just keep watching market shares and see what happens. 

And don't worry, we are taking pictures. 8)


----------



## Jim O (Sep 5, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> *I hate to say this, even customers really dont know what they want as a consensus.*



Very often true. In fact it's true most of the time.




awinphoto said:


> But, Canon is appealing to THEIR customers and nikon is appealing to theirs. Now should Canon's sales start dropping and nikon starts taking their marketshare, then it's time for them to rethink things, but until then...



Actually, the time to do it is *long before* sales numbers change. That's one reason why Apple went from virtually bankrupt when Steve Jobs heroically rode back in on his white horse and rose to have the largest market capitalization of any publicly traded company in the world, surpassing Exxon Mobil. On the other hand, Microsoft got it wrong with Vista, and likely (definitely?) with Windows 8, and with a host of other decisions, and they went from number one in market cap in 2003 to number seven now. In fact Microsoft is worth *less* than it was ten years ago.

All of what Canon is doing behind the scenes now is purely speculative. Big companies with large bureaucracies can't turn on a dime, but they can change directions when pushed. I suspect Canon is aware of its sensors' issues, but is trying to get the most out of its investment.

The challenge for any company, as you say, is to identify their customers and figure out what they want now and in the future. However, growth comes by by finding *new* customers and by increasing market share, not losing it due to others getting ahead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> However, Canon is NOT offering its customers the choice of one or more "perfect for stills" cameras.



Sure they are - this one.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has ALWAYS been on the front lines of new technology within the last decade and a half or so...
> ...



As far as sensor tech, you missed my point completely...They are the frontrunner when it comes to adaptation and innovations... when it came to digital, canon went full in and smoked nikon. When it came to evolving and bringing in video, they went all in and really took nikon (video wise) behind the woodshed. Mirrorless, etc.. I even said nikon has perfected the stills camera, but is lagging everywhere else. 

As far as the perfect stills camera, other than the DR that people love to tout, tell me in any capacity the D800 is a better camera than the 5d3? what about the D3/D4 vs 1dx? Yes the d800 has a 36 MP sensor, but in mid to high ISO, canon STILL gets better results. Better AF, better ergonomics, even digital rev, who has historically been nikon fanboys chose the 5d3 over the d800. As far as typical stills camera, Canon offers excellent cameras and you can CHOOSE if you want to use video or not. As far as market share, i've known very few professionals that have made the jump from Canon to Nikon, BUT i've known more jump from Nikon to Canon. And frankly, other than this site, I've seen even less consumers jump from canon to nikon. I have though seen quite a few jump from Canon to Medium Format as Medium format prices are dropping, but that's another story alltogether.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > However, Canon is NOT offering its customers the choice of one or more "perfect for stills" cameras.
> ...



Darn it all! I shouldn't have sold mine. ;D


----------



## Etienne (Sep 5, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.
> ...



Software is not good enough


----------



## photonius (Sep 5, 2013)

*Re: Canon Leads in Sensor Tech - Dual Pixel more to it?*



unfocused said:


> After following the 30 pages (currently) of obscure debate over DXO ratings, I have to say this:
> 
> I am getting a little sick of the conventional wisdom that somehow Canon is "behind" in sensor technology. The more accurate statement is that Canon has placed a different emphasis in its sensor development than some of its competitors. And, it would also be correct that Canon has placed a different emphasis on its sensor development than a vocal group of participants in this forum would like.
> 
> ...



I think there are two points you may overlook and nobody has commented yet on it.

A), the Dual pixel technology means that underneath there is a 40 MP sensor. While
I have not seen any chip analysis yet, it seems rather likely that this was not, or couldn't have
been accomplished with the same old 500 nm technology. So, what is the actual status of Canon's production
line?

B) Dual pixel technology DOES NOT ONLY have to be about PDAF on the sensor. We have the recent
example of Magic Lantern achieving much higher dynamic range by reading alternating pixels with different
ISOs. With the new 70D dual pixel sensor, Canon would have the opportunity to implement the same trick
right there. All they need to do is provide the same capability that the 7D and the 5DIII have, i.e. the possibility to read each half site with a different ISO applied. While the intensity data from the two sites has to be combined, no further new complicated demosaicing algorithm would have to be applied, since the two half-sites sit under the same microlens (unlike the ML solution, which has to redo everything).
So, it should be easy to get a DR of 14 stops or more. 
The RED camera mentioned with 20 DR is using the very same trick, two different exposures, it's not a better sensor.

So, don't discount the dual pixel as only PDAF. It's technology provides the ground for much higher DR. The question is, when and where will Canon implement it. In the 7DII?? Is that how they will top the 70D?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2013)

Jim O said:


> The challenge for any company, as you say, is to identify their customers and figure out what they want now and in the future. However, growth comes by by finding *new* customers and by increasing market share, not losing it due to others getting ahead.



True. But, I don't believe for a single second that the small differences in sensor performance that currently exist have the slightest effect on market share.

The entire industry is facing significant challenges in two key areas: Economic problems in both mature and developing markets and the seismic collapse of the point and shoot market. Both of these are causing third party companies to try to get a larger piece of the Nikon-Canon DSLR market, which has traditionally been a more lucrative market. At the same time, both the DSLR market and the technology are maturing, slowing the growth in existing markets. 

Add to this the fact that the "best" technology is almost never a path to success. Betamax being the most-often cited example, but there are many others. 

Someone mentioned Kodak earlier. But the fact is, Kodak did not fail because it had inferior technology, in fact, Kodak was *built* on inferior technology. The Box Brownie was inferior to other cameras available at the time. Kodak cameras, film and chemicals were always inferior to other brands that were available. Yet, Kodak was a success for more than a century because it followed the "good enough" path. 

When Kodak finally failed, it wasn't because Agfa produced better products, it was because their market disappeared.

I am quite certain that is what Canon and Nikon are most worried about. The point and shoot market has disappeared. And, while it's still profitable and strong, they aren't seeing the growth that they previously had in the enthusiast market. 

You are correct that companies need to find new markets to succeed and stay in business. But, while Canon may lose a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of customers to sensor tech. But, that's not where the real threat is coming from.


----------



## Pi (Sep 5, 2013)

jrista said:


> f banding did occur, and it was not overpowered by banding caused by high frequency components or photon shot noise, I suspect a very significant exposure push or shadow lift would be necessary to cause it to show up.



All this is a speculation anyway but the noise would be multiplicative, not additive. The noise coming from uneven channels is of this sort and can be seen in the midtones with normal developing parameters.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > The challenge for any company, as you say, is to identify their customers and figure out what they want now and in the future. However, growth comes by by finding *new* customers and by increasing market share, not losing it due to others getting ahead.
> ...



I didn't say that they did. But they probably do have a "slight" effect.




unfocused said:


> The entire industry is facing significant challenges in two key areas: Economic problems in both mature and developing markets and the seismic collapse of the point and shoot market. Both of these are causing third party companies to try to get a larger piece of the Nikon-Canon DSLR market, which has traditionally been a more lucrative market. At the same time, both the DSLR market and the technology are maturing, slowing the growth in existing markets.



Very true.




unfocused said:


> Add to this the fact that the "best" technology is almost never a path to success. Betamax being the most-often cited example, but there are many others.



Depends how one defines "the best". Look at Apple and my earlier comments. Windows was "good enough" but MacOSX is "better" in almost every way [ducks].




unfocused said:


> Someone mentioned Kodak earlier. But the fact is, Kodak did not fail because it had inferior technology, in fact, Kodak was *built* on inferior technology. The Box Brownie was inferior to other cameras available at the time. Kodak cameras, film and chemicals were always inferior to other brands that were available. Yet, Kodak was a success for more than a century because it followed the "good enough" path.
> 
> When Kodak finally failed, it wasn't because Agfa produced better products, it was because their market disappeared.



I guess it's in how one defines "good enough". Kodak made photography available to the masses and commoditized film and consumer grade cameras. That was exactly my point. They found new markets. People wanted to take snapshots and Kodak made it possible. It was innovative! They also sold paper that was a better value for the typical consumer and they made huge margins on it. BTW, I have black and white photos from the 1920's-1950's of my father, and many the 1930's-1950's of my mother, including many of my father and his brothers from World War II, and they have held up quite well. Most if not all are on Kodak paper. So I guess it was "good enough".

Kodak didn't fail solely because their market disappeared. They failed because they failed to anticipate it in time. They were complacent. They had *huge* market share and thought it would never go away. Companies that are ahead of the curve survive. Companies that fall behind fail.

BTW, Agfa survived. So did Ilford. So could have Kodak but for extremely poor management.




unfocused said:


> You are correct that companies need to find new markets to succeed and stay in business. But, while Canon may lose a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of customers to sensor tech. But, that's not where the real threat is coming from.



True today. And if I am a "typical" customer you are correct. Let the differences expand and that could change. I wouldn't buy a Model T today, unless I was a collector.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Beyond that I have yet to see an example pair where the AA version couldn't be sharpened to look the same as the non-AA version. Perhaps someone could post such an example, I admit I haven't extensively tested this. But the couple times sample pairs were available a quick USM brought them even.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 6, 2013)

hilduras said:


> yes you are right, if I want a video camera, but for now I love to take stills



IMHO there is an improvement at high ISO with the 6D / 5D3 over the 5D2, and an edge over competitors like the D600. DxO may disagree, but when I look at DPReview and Imaging Resource test shots, that's what I see.

Likewise my EOS M is better at high ISO then my 7D. Not by leaps and bounds, but there was some improvement.

Critiques portray Canon as standing still with antiquated sensor tech. They will point at the 18 MP APS-C line and say "look how old that is!" ignoring that each iteration brings some improvement. They're looking for a radical improvement in shadow noise (see the Sony patent) or MP, and ignoring small improvements over time.

Critiques also rely on DxO measurements which I find questionable. For example, DxO will tell you there was no DR improvement from the 10D/20D to the 7D. I owned all 3 and I noticed a significant DR improvement with the 7D.

Canon's moving forward in still photography sensor tech, just not at the pace some people want.


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> hilduras said:
> 
> 
> > yes you are right, if I want a video camera, but for now I love to take stills
> ...



Agreed, for the most part. I think the lack of any kind of significant revolutionary leap in favor of very small evolutionary improvements will hurt Canon in the long run, when more revolutionary leaps are what the competition has been doing. 

As for DXO, I wouldn't call ALL of their measurements questionable. Of all their measurements, the only one I truly find questionable is Print DR. I understand the need to normalize image size for cross-camera comparisons, but I find the notion that you can gain photographic DR (and stops of it, at that!) simply by downsampling to be extremely suspect. I believe the very vast majority of photographers who care about DR are editing in RAW...and the simple fact of the matter is...you don't scale raw. You ALWAYS edit RAW at full size, so any additional DR would come from the Screen DR measurement. 

The worst thing from DXO is their linear, scalar "score". I find scores for such complex devices to be useless, misleading, and in many cases with DXO (i.e. lens reviews), just flat out wrong.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 6, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > tcmatthews said:
> ...



First let me state that the AA exacts a cost beyond sharpness and with decreasing size of pixels its need is being reduced. If the optical AA filter layer is removed from the sensor it will improve edge performance on mirror-less cameras by reducing the thickness of the filter in front of the sensor. The AA filter is basically blur filter similar to a gaussian blur filter (optical low pass filter). This is why USM brings back the sharpness. One way to remove moire is to apply a gaussian blur filter then use USM to bring back the sharpness. All animation and almost all 3d games apply gaussian blur to their renderings and most modern video cards can add it in real time to video. The big issue with this in photos is you loose some photo info. But with a strong AA filter you loose info some of which can be brought back through USM.

Second when I say software I do not explicitly mean Post Processing Software. There is nothing to say that Canon could not apply a two pixel Gaussian blur to the raw readout before combining the phase pixels. This could form a simple optical low pass filter in either software(firmware) or electronics hardware depending on their design. Basically solve it in software and down sample before you ever touch it.

I have not looked into Nikon's patent but if it is not MEMS based optical solution it has to be either a electronic hardware or software trick. I suspect it is electronic readout lowpass filter trick. 

But there will be plenty of people that will complain that all the above is not enough and want there optical Low pass AA filter.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.
> ...



From an engineering perspective I doubt that this is necessary. It would be better if half were vertical and half were horizontal but that is not strictly necessary. I am assuming that a single dual pixel pair is not enough to make a focus determination. They are likely sampling multiple pixel pair in some given pattern. If you use some of the algorithms used in software defined radio (more specifically software defined antenna grid arrays) you can determine vertical and horizontal information. Software defined radio and software defined antenna arrays are the current holly grail of radio FR research and Canon basically implemented an optical version of it to collect phase info for focusing.

I doubt that Canon fully implemented it competently in software it is likely hardwired to some extent but it is easy to see where this is going in the future.


----------



## Pi (Sep 6, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> Second when I say software I do not explicitly mean Post Processing Software. There is nothing to say that Canon could not apply a two pixel Gaussian blur to the raw readout before combining the phase pixels. This could form a simple optical low pass filter in either software(firmware) or electronics hardware depending on their design. Basically solve it in software and down sample before you ever touch it.



Even if the dual pixel sensor is a truly 40 mp one, 40mp on FF still needs an AA filter (yes, I know that the D800E has none, more precisely, a very weak one). On crop, we may be close to the pixel density not requiring an AA filter but this is hard to predict. 



> But there will be plenty of people that will complain that all the above is not enough and want there optical Low pass AA filter.



Those would be the people who understand Sampling Theory.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > Second when I say software I do not explicitly mean Post Processing Software. There is nothing to say that Canon could not apply a two pixel Gaussian blur to the raw readout before combining the phase pixels. This could form a simple optical low pass filter in either software(firmware) or electronics hardware depending on their design. Basically solve it in software and down sample before you ever touch it.
> ...



I understand Sampling Theory the my point is for me we are getting to the point that it may make sense to remove it for good especially for crop. And personally I do not really need it there. Some moire does not realty bother me but that is a matter of preference. In cell phone sensors they are getting to the point that removal of the UV filter likely makes sense as well because of pixel pitch. 

You are right about FF it likely still need a AA filter for some time to come. At least until or if the pixel pitch makes sense to remove it. I would just air on the side of a weak filter. For video use software techniques when down-sampling or better just give us raw.

My first post was really just bait.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 6, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Beyond that I have yet to see an example pair where the AA version couldn't be sharpened to look the same as the non-AA version. Perhaps someone could post such an example, I admit I haven't extensively tested this. But the couple times sample pairs were available a quick USM brought them even.



you need to try it and pixel-peep but the difference is there.
you can sharpen the AA version to be about like the non-AA version
But you can also sharpen the non-AA version to get wow-factor... at least in the center region with a good lens.
edit: I rarely use USM for sharpening fine detail, it messes up edges with too much contrast/halo compared with other sharpening methods.

I love my d800e for that reason, the textural detail it can deliver is very impressive.

I also prefer my K-5 IIs for the same reason, AA-less 16MP crop body that delivers amazingly crisp detail. I can see the difference when I go back and shoot blurred sensors; the pixel-level detail is not the same.
I haven't had a chance to shoot with the higher res D7100 yet.

Moire's not often been a problem, but false-color fine highlite details have been so I rarely use these cameras for shots with energetic moving water and other fine specular reflections.


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > tcmatthews said:
> ...



I dunno. It really kind of depends on the apertures you use most, and whether your lens produces enough diffraction at those apertures to produce blur larger than the pixel pitch. Sensors have a REALLY LONG way to go before they are under-resolving diffraction-limited lenses at f/5.6 or above, and there are some lenses on the market that produce diffraction-limited resolution, or near enough that the lens well outresolves the sensor, at those apertures. If you tend to shoot at such apertures, removal of the AA filter isn't necessarily going to do you any good. Your images might be crisper in some cases, but the potential for aliasing and moire will still be higher.

Nikon's patent regarding a toggleable AA filter is particularly intriguing here, as it would give you the option in the field, optically, to solve the problem if it was necessary, and maximize detail otherwise. 



tcmatthews said:


> In cell phone sensors they are getting to the point that removal of the UV filter likely makes sense as well because of pixel pitch.



UV filter? That would mean pixels are approaching 380nm (0.38µm). At the moment, the smallest pixels are 1100nm (1.1µm), which is approaching the near-infrared spectrum. Once we achieve 700-800nm pixels, then you could remove the IR cutoff filter (which most digital sensors have). If we ever actually get to 700nm, then we would already be filtering some red light. The chances of us getting to pixels smaller than 400nm is impossible...as we would then no longer be able to record visible light!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> In cell phone sensors they are getting to the point that removal of the UV filter likely makes sense as well because of pixel pitch.



How would removal of the UV filter based on small pixel pitch make sense? UV wavelengths are _shorter_ than visible light. Perhaps you meant the IR cut filter?


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 7, 2013)

I'm pretty sure a sensor made up of pixels smaller than 700nm would just end up collecting excess heat if you let IR light hit it, so it's still in your best interest to filter light not being translated into a signal.


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2013)

9VIII said:


> I'm pretty sure a sensor made up of pixels smaller than 700nm would just end up collecting excess heat if you let IR light hit it, so it's still in your best interest to filter light not being translated into a signal.



You are still gathering that heat. It will either be directly in the sensor itself, or a fraction of a millimeter above it. One way or another, the ambient temperature of the sensor is going to increase, so why put in an unnecessary filter?


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> UV filter? That would mean pixels are approaching 380nm (0.38µm). At the moment, the smallest pixels are 1100nm (1.1µm), which is approaching the near-infrared spectrum. Once we achieve 700-800nm pixels, then you could remove the IR cutoff filter (which most digital sensors have). If we ever actually get to 700nm, then we would already be filtering some red light. The chances of us getting to pixels smaller than 400nm is impossible...as we would then no longer be able to record visible light!



I don't think that's actually true. As best I understand the behavior of light, some light passes through holes at a given wavelength even if the holes are significantly smaller than the wavelength. It just falls off in intensity, both as the size of the hole shrinks below the wavelength and as the distance between the hole and the detector on the other side increases.

So if we had pixels that were on the order of 300 nm, you might be able to get away with dropping the infrared filter, but you'd also have a lot of red loss by that point, some green loss, and a little blue loss.

That said, I am not a physicist, so I could be understanding things incorrectly.


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > UV filter? That would mean pixels are approaching 380nm (0.38µm). At the moment, the smallest pixels are 1100nm (1.1µm), which is approaching the near-infrared spectrum. Once we achieve 700-800nm pixels, then you could remove the IR cutoff filter (which most digital sensors have). If we ever actually get to 700nm, then we would already be filtering some red light. The chances of us getting to pixels smaller than 400nm is impossible...as we would then no longer be able to record visible light!
> ...



Sure, its not a _sudden_ cutoff to zero light, however it falls off faster than you think. you would be working with practically no visible light with 380nm pixels. I dont see the usefulness of a sensor that is filtering out the vast majority of the light it is supposed to be sensitive to. It takes some rather specialized equipment, for example, to perform subwavelength EUV lithography for cmos manufacture...I can't imagine a subwavelwngth sensor would be an easy or cost effective thing. I guess color splitting in place of color filtration might help...


----------



## Aglet (Sep 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > In cell phone sensors they are getting to the point that removal of the UV filter likely makes sense as well because of pixel pitch.
> ...



On tiny camera systems, with little in the way of a lens in front of the sensor, UV might be an issue.
But since glass already attenuates a great deal of UV, specifically filtering for it may become unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Natural_sources_and_filters

Add to that large, multi-element lenses and their intrinsic coatings bandpass, there's likely very little UVA reaching a sensor, much less shorter wavelengths.

edit:


jrista said:


> You are still gathering that heat. It will either be directly in the sensor itself, or a fraction of a millimeter above it. One way or another, the ambient temperature of the sensor is going to increase, so why put in an unnecessary filter?


IR certainly an issue for now, but not likely for causing much in the way of heat gain unless aiming at some well lit scenes without a shutter in the way. The electronics and remainder of the system packaging is likely to radiate more heat to the sensor than what comes thru a small aperture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2013)

Aglet said:


> On tiny camera systems, with little in the way of a lens in front of the sensor, UV might be an issue.



What issue? The sensors have a CFA, which does a pretty good job of filtering out UV, and an ok job of filtering IR (ok but not great, which is why there's an IR cut filter over the sensor).


----------



## Aglet (Sep 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > On tiny camera systems, with little in the way of a lens in front of the sensor, UV might be an issue.
> ...



YUP. Non issue.


----------



## Harald Wiking (Sep 9, 2013)

unfocused said:


> After following the 30 pages (currently) of obscure debate over DXO ratings, I have to say this:
> 
> I am getting a little sick of the conventional wisdom that somehow Canon is "behind" in sensor technology. The more accurate statement is that Canon has placed a different emphasis in its sensor development than some of its competitors. And, it would also be correct that Canon has placed a different emphasis on its sensor development than a vocal group of participants in this forum would like.
> 
> ...




If I understand you right you mean that canon leads the sensor Tech

My qestion will therefore be . leads over who?
canon are not the leader i high resolution or best performing sensor and parameters as like DR, color resolution or high iso reproduction


----------



## Skulker (Sep 9, 2013)

Harald Wiking said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > My point is: declaring one company ahead or behind on sensor technology without considering all aspects of the various offerings is a selective, skewed assessment.
> ...



I think he was saying that anyone leads is selective and or skewed. It all depends on your criteria. And is a pointless.


----------

