# Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 9, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Nikon’s extremely vague development announcement of the <a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/06/nikon-announces-the-development-of-the-nikon-d4s-camera.aspx/" target="_blank">D4s body at CES 2014</a> has sparked the wrath of Canonites wondering when Canon is going to move beyond <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/canon-powershot-n100-official/" target="_blank">selfie technology based cameras</a>.</p>
<p>Lets be clear first, Nikon hasn’t actually released any solid specs or descriptions of the technology in the new body.</p>
<p>We’re told by a longtime source that Canon is indeed still in the game and has some “groundbreaking” camera bodies coming in 2014. Canon will take a different approach at the Sochi games and have test bodies out there without the development announcement. Canon plans to make a “big splash” at the World Cup in Brazil in the spring.</p>
<p>An array of lenses an 3 prosumer/professional DSLR’s are coming in 2014. Along with a host of Cinema EOS products in April.</p>
<p>Patience appears to be the key for the Canon photographer….</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 9, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Patience appears to be the key for the Canon photographer….



Well, that's one thing the Internet doesn't really have much of. Or us, for that matter.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 9, 2014)

Oh thank god!! The EOS T6i with an improved 18MP APS-C sensor is finally here! and it will have a World Cup logo on it!!!!


----------



## 2n10 (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> Oh thank god!! The EOS T6i with an improved 18MB APS-c sensor is finally here!



I'm thinking 20.2MP sensor for the T6i.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 9, 2014)

They don't need to release anything else except a smaller 1DX body.

Silent shutter would be nice but not essential.


----------



## Jesse (Jan 9, 2014)

And where the hell are all the lenses that have been talked about since last year? They couldn't at least offer us those tilt-shifts or an ultra wide?


----------



## duydaniel (Jan 9, 2014)

Wasn't Canon releasing a white SLR 1 camera?
That's the answer to the D4s :


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 9, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>... are coming in 2014. Along with a host of Cinema EOS products in April.</p>



that's the only part of the article I fully believe.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 9, 2014)

I thought that it was generally accepted that they already have - a couple years ago in fact: the 1Dx


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 9, 2014)

Patience patience.. When literally every other company other than Canon is producing some top of the line bodies and lenses.. (minus Nikon) : I still have my bank in Canon. I'm sure they'll blow all competition away very soon. -let's be optimistic- 


2n10 said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > Oh thank god!! The EOS T6i with an improved 18MB APS-c sensor is finally here!
> ...


I think they could just stop with the rebel series. After the t3i, I don't care anymore tbh.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I thought that it was generally accepted that they already have - a couple years ago in fact: the 1Dx



Indeed. The D4s is Nikon's answer to lackluster D4 sales.


----------



## sb in ak (Jan 9, 2014)

It's all kind of ridiculous. The 1DX would be amazing to have in Sochi. 

And maybe I'm missing something, but I'd rather be shooting with a tried and tested body for the Olympics than an experimental one...


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I thought that it was generally accepted that they already have - a couple years ago in fact: the 1Dx


+1 Haha!! So true! 

Another thing.. *WHEN* the 7D mark ii is announced, that is going to be the camera of the year. Seriously, how long we've been waiting.. That's what I really want to see and I don't think I'll be disappointed.


----------



## dufflover (Jan 9, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Patience appears to be the key for the Canon photographer….
> ...


I think 3+ years is already quite generous ... (then again Canon calls many existing things groundbreaking, Apple style  )


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 9, 2014)

cellomaster27 said:


> Patience patience.. When literally every other company other than Canon is producing some top of the line bodies and lenses.. (minus Nikon) : I still have my bank in Canon. I'm sure they'll blow all competition away very soon. -let's be optimistic-
> 
> 
> 2n10 said:
> ...


Why canon will stop producing its most profitable cameras? ??? Is there any mirrorless do everything that the current Rebel, more efficiently, and costing less? :


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Nikon’s extremely vague development announcement of the D4s body at CES 2014 has sparked the wrath of Canonites...


So where are these wrathful "Canonites?" I get the sense that the reaction to the D4s is "meh."


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 9, 2014)

Again, I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> Oh thank god!! The EOS T6i with an improved 18MP APS-C sensor is finally here!



Don't forget the new naming scheme - it will be the U6i.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > Patience patience.. When literally every other company other than Canon is producing some top of the line bodies and lenses.. (minus Nikon) : I still have my bank in Canon. I'm sure they'll blow all competition away very soon. -let's be optimistic-
> ...



I'm not asking them to stop producing it, I'm asking them to stop renumbering it. The T3i is a fine little camera.......but what has changed except the number?


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>... are coming in 2014. Along with a host of Cinema EOS products in April.</p>
> ...



heh.


----------



## xps (Jan 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>*... are coming in 2014. Along with a host of Cinema EOS products in April.*</p>
> ...



Not in April.... NOW!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/09/ces-2014-canon-stand-report/9


----------



## xps (Jan 9, 2014)

but seriously: I read, that Canon has ordered a lot of new BIG boxes, where their Cams are stored inside.
Worlds favourite sports event appears in 2014 too... 
So those of you, that are in hope that there will be an announcement in spring might be not wrong...
Chances are high that we will see something new. But if it will be a gamechanger? Let us see...

The D7100 will be to be beaten in IQ....


----------



## Hazmatt (Jan 9, 2014)

It's a test of faith being a Canon user, it amazes me that that progress has been so slow in the camera dept they have delivered with some great glass but where is the Landscape camera? EVF? Foveon looky likey sensor, and the list could go on. Please lets see some real innovation this year, we ahve been loyal and patient now reward us!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

dilbert said:


> This is one of the funniest "rumors" to be posted ever!
> Canon making strategic "leaks" to pacify its user base.



As opposed to Nikon making strategic "announcements" with absolutely no real information content. :

Regardless, I think I prefer both of the above to Canon's _real_ (i.e., detailed) announcements of lenses and bodies with the announced availability months later, then pushing the actual launch back one or more times - that was BS.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 10, 2014)

cellomaster27 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that it was generally accepted that they already have - a couple years ago in fact: the 1Dx
> ...



Waiting anxiously for the 7D2!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 10, 2014)

I'm sure you guys still remember this :

To be honest, I'm one of those thought Canon going to have something in vintage as well. Last time I check, Df didn't do welllllllll


----------



## sama (Jan 10, 2014)

What about a Hermès Crocodile 24K version with 10 carat diamond Shutter 1DX ?


----------



## scrup (Jan 10, 2014)

How is this a CR2?

Have we run out of rumors so we just pulling s**t out of thin air.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 10, 2014)

IMHO, Canon doesn't need to compete with Nikon, and why should it?
Nikon can continue to produce whatever they like... if you like what they have... please go to Nikon.

Canon has nothing to prove...
They can't afford to cough up a brand new camera every year.... and if they do its going to be Rebel.
If you can afford a camera every year, then you can afford to jump between brands every year.

Fact is... Canon released the 1DX, 5D Mark 3 and the 6D, 2 years ago.
They also released the 70D last year... 

May be a 7D mark II is on the way, but they don't owe us anything... so don't expect it.


----------



## KT (Jan 10, 2014)

Honestly, I believe the only benefit the D4S owners will see is an improved video functionality to bring it on par with the D1X, an improved AF performance, which Canon already addressed with the 1D x firmware version 2.03, and higher FPS, for whatever it's worth, once again to bring it up to speed to the 1D X, all for a price comparable to the 1D X. Basically closing the gap to the 1D X 2 years after Canon released their flagship.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 10, 2014)

mkabi said:


> IMHO, Canon doesn't need to compete with Nikon, and why should it?
> Nikon can continue to produce whatever they like... if you like what they have... please go to Nikon.
> 
> Canon has nothing to prove...
> ...



Totally agree. What is the rush for new cameras? Are there really that many Canon photographers out there being severely limited by what Canon currently offers? I just don't understand the need to upgrade camera gear so often. I'd rather have that cash for other things, no?


----------



## WillT (Jan 10, 2014)

Waiting for them to answer the D800...

If they want to keep up in pro and prosumer market they better start innovating.


----------



## Vincent_F (Jan 10, 2014)

They already have with the Canon 1D X version 2.0! And don't speculate on a camera that you don't even have any of its specs, so far we have just seen pictures that are meaningless - with the exception of the small "s" next to the 4!


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 10, 2014)

cellomaster27 said:


> Patience patience.. When literally every other company other than Canon is producing some top of the line bodies and lenses.. (minus Nikon) : I still have my bank in Canon. I'm sure they'll blow all competition away very soon. -let's be optimistic-
> 
> 
> 2n10 said:
> ...


 Yes I agree please stop with the rebels enough already!!!! 7D II would be nice maybe a 14-24mm 2.8 glass or another 1 series???


----------



## ME (Jan 10, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>Nikon’s extremely vague development announcement of the <a href=\"http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/06/nikon-announces-the-development-of-the-nikon-d4s-camera.aspx/\" target=\"_blank\">D4s body at CES 2014</a> has sparked the wrath of Canonites wondering when Canon is going to move beyond <a href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/canon-powershot-n100-official/\" target=\"_blank\">selfie technology based cameras</a>.</p>
> <p>Lets be clear first, Nikon hasn’t actually released any solid specs or descriptions of the technology in the new body.</p>
> <p>We’re told by a longtime source that Canon is indeed still in the game and has some “groundbreaking” camera bodies coming in 2014. Canon will take a different approach at the Sochi games and have test bodies out there without the development announcement. Canon plans to make a “big splash” at the World Cup in Brazil in the spring.</p>
> ...





I am not very patient, but have to wait anyway because of a lack of funds for photography :'(


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jan 10, 2014)

duydaniel said:


> Wasn't Canon releasing a white SLR 1 camera?
> That's the answer to the D4s :



ooouuuu a white 1dx!! now that would be really cool


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 10, 2014)

WillT said:


> Waiting for them to answer the D800...
> 
> If they want to keep up in pro and prosumer market they better start innovating.



It's amazing how often this fallacy comes up on this site (and probably others)

1. Companies are in business to make money
2. The 5D3 is selling much better than the D800 (and presumably generating more profit)
3. Therefore, Canon has no incentive to invest money into upgrades for that price segment.

That's really all there is to it.

I know there are a lot of people who want camera makers to think of their products the way master winemakers think of their products, to continually strive to put everything they have into each new revision. Unfortunately, that cuts into profit and future R&D, and is therefore bad for the long-term health of the business.

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, et al are in business to make money. They will bring products to market that they believe will do that. Canon has been quite successful at this, Nikon less so.

If you want to tell Canon that their supposedly inferior sensors are costing them customers, their corporate reports will tell you that you are mistaken.

If you want better camera bodies from Canon, then you need to hope that Nikon produces true competitors to Canon's lineup.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 10, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> Yes I agree please stop with the rebels enough already!!!! 7D II would be nice maybe a 14-24mm 2.8 glass or another 1 series???



Profits from Rebel sales subsidize the R&D for the 7D2 and 1-series cameras.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 10, 2014)

I'm glad the article is a CR2, previously we've heard little in the way of news specifying that a 7D2 or 1Dxs would actually come out this year. At least now we can be fairly certain of at least one of the two becoming a reality.

The long periods of time between the release of Canon cameras isn't a big deal as long as they're consistent. Even if they only made one new camera every five years, as long as you know the next camera will blow your socks off you won't mind having something that seems outdated for a little while.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 10, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> I'm not asking them to stop producing it, I'm asking them to stop renumbering it. The T3i is a fine little camera.......but what has changed except the number?


 
Its marketing. The consumer wants the latest and greatest. Its just like Automobiles, they make the same basic car for 5 years, but during each of those 5 years they gets a new model number and a handful of cosmetic changes. 

Nikon has started taking a page from Canon's book, since they see that it works for consumer cameras, surely Pro's will go for it as well.. Next year we will See the D4X with a couple of minor changes. Some buyers will flock to get that one too, after all, it is the latest thing.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 10, 2014)

Canon doesn't have to answer the D4s. It needs to answer the D800(e). 

Both the 1DX and D4 are incredible cameras in every way. So if the D4s is a little better. That's nice. Canon doesn't have to worry about that. No person who owns a 1DX and everything associated with it is going to sell their gear for a slight improvement from Nikon. And that goes for both manufacturer's user bases. It's not going to happen. At least not with Pros and REAL photographers.


----------



## sanj (Jan 10, 2014)

I wonder too what about this is CR2. 
New cameras and lenses being announced in 2014? Would that not be CR3??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2014)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Canon doesn't have to answer the D4s. It needs to answer the D800(e).



No, they really don't. The 5DIII was the answer, and it has outsold the D800 and far outsold the D800E.

I still think it's possible we'll see a high MP sensor from Canon in the future, not as an 'answer' but rather to capture a part of the market they feel may be untapped. But we'll only see that if Canon feels there's enough of a market for it. I wonder if the D800 sales might be pointing them in another direction...


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm sure you guys still remember this :
> 
> To be honest, I'm one of those thought Canon going to have something in vintage as well. Last time I check, Df didn't do welllllllll



I think it didn't do well because of the borked controls, not because it was "vintage". I'd welcome a Canon vintage body design, so long as it did not include the hideous stacked dial controls and...well, basically kept the phenomenal electronic controls and button placement that is now standard on Canon pro bodies, just in a nostalgic retro body design. And, yes, with out any video features...at all... ;o)


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Canon doesn't have to answer the D4s. It needs to answer the D800(e).
> 
> Both the 1DX and D4 are incredible cameras in every way. So if the D4s is a little better. That's nice. Canon doesn't have to worry about that. No person who owns a 1DX and everything associated with it is going to sell their gear for a slight improvement from Nikon. And that goes for both manufacturer's user bases. It's not going to happen. At least not with Pros and REAL photographers.



I doubt the D4s will be better. It will be newer, might have a better sensor...but the 1D X AF has been smearing the floor with every Nikon body since it hit the shelves, and it still has the fastest frame rate on the planet. Frame rate and AF are where it's all at for bodies like the 1D X and D4. I don't foresee Nikon overcoming that in the D4s...not without a radical new AF design, but I don't really see that either because they already have the 51pt system (and the Nikon Rumors link only notes improved "autofocus _performance_", not a new AF system...sounds like firmware to me.)


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Canon doesn't have to answer the D4s. It needs to answer the D800(e).
> ...



I agree, Canon does not need to have an answer for the D4s. I am not sure I would call the 5D III the answer to the D800. The 5D III was WELL under way long before the D800 was released. The 5D III is Canon's answer to their own customers outcry, particularly the wedding photographer.

I suspect a high MP camera from Canon will service the studio segment that the 1Ds used to service, and possibly the landscape photographers. God only knows if it will still be a 1-series, or whether it will take on a new name...but again I don't think it will be direct competition for the D800. I don't think Canon even cares to directly compete with the D800, or any Nikon camera for that matter. One of the things I like about Canon is they ultimately seem to listen _to *their *customers_. Both the 1D X and 5D III very nicely thoroughly answered the biggest and loudest demands from Canon customers up until the date of their release.

Seeing as more DR and more megapixels is now the biggest and loudest demand from Canon customers, I have confidence Canon will deliver. Whether the packages that delivery is served in "directly" competes with anything from Nikon or Sony, however, is yet to be seen...but I wouldn't recommend anyone hold their breath.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 10, 2014)

Canon should forget about answering the D800 and D4S.

Instead, they should use their upcoming sensor tech to answer the Sony A7R.  Now that would make me a happy canonite.


----------



## Dick (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Canon doesn't have to answer the D4s. It needs to answer the D800(e).
> ...



This is a sensible, yet very stupid, way to look at it. Fans of music artists also waste time on caring about the sales of their own favorite artists. In the end though, all that should be irrelevant to the fans. It doesn't matter if plenty of others bump the same music. Bad sales might actually force something better out the next time.

Canon's sales don't really matter to me. Or actually... Had the 5D3 flopped, Canon would most likely work hard to make improvements and maybe they'd even unlock some of the features that have been artificially hidden to justify the 1DX price tag. 

From a sales point of view you can say that they don't have to do shit now, but instead of viewing the whole situation as a competition agains Nikon, there are other aspects. Besides, they need to beat the crap out of the 5D3 with the upcoming replacement to get money from the 5D3 purchasers again. 

The bottom line is though that I don't care how well Canon does on the markets. Nikon can outsell Canon and I just don't care. For me the thing that matters here is the equipment I can afford to use. Surely it's heavily linked to the markets, but that's none of my business.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 10, 2014)

I think Canon has planned this very carefully and from a marketing perspective it could be a scoop. Their current position with the 1DX (especially after FW 2.03) and 5DIII is not really threatened. As we know, the 800/800E did not boost Nikon´s market position and I agree with those who say that the D4s probably only makes those who already shoot Nikon stay with Nikon. 

At the Winter Olympics we will see a number of numberless 1-series and perhaps also 7D-type bodies and hopefully some spectacular images coming out of it. That will create an enormous interest and may well cause Nikon shooters to consider jumping ship before the Soccer World Cup, when they will become available.

Looking in the mirror, from a business perspective, Canon have been quite successful with their timing, regardless of some of the most frustrated postings on CR. To release the next generation bodies, with sensors answering both resolution and DR in a year with both Winter Olympics and a Soccer World Cup ... Pretty much a marketing bulls eye in my opinion.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 10, 2014)

from another thread - 



jrista said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > I was just wondering about where Canons innovation has gone? Sure, they put a touch screen on a dslr, but that is not really innovative. We´ve had this on smart phones for a long time (yes, they are caneras as well), but that is about it. WiFi? They have offered WiFi for a long time as well, but as an add on feature. Integrating it is more of an evolution, the same as with the touch screen.
> ...



i think the points about canon being a solid, pragmatic company that sets a plan and goes forth, not breaking the plan in order to one up ohters that make leaps of desperation quite germane to this topic...

with that said...yeah...why is this a CR2??????


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 10, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I agree please stop with the rebels enough already!!!! 7D II would be nice maybe a 14-24mm 2.8 glass or another 1 series???
> ...


 Good point O


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 10, 2014)

3 new highend bodies? So one is supposed to be a 7D2, another is the high MP 1D body, and possibly the 1Dx successor is the third? Makes sense if we're having a 5D4 in feb/mar 2015.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Canon doesn't have to answer the D4s. It needs to answer the D800(e).
> ...



Yep, there's a world of difference between corporate sales spin and market realities...Canon are masters of weighing the two in a fine balance. I would take a balanced and versatile camera like the 1DX or 5DIII over the crazy specs of the D800E any day.


----------



## WillT (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Canon doesn't have to answer the D4s. It needs to answer the D800(e).
> ...



Can you point me to the source of this information. I didn't know that Canon or Nikon released this info.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2014)

Dick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



The 5DIII is the answer to the 5DII not the D800E...I'm not sure Canon are particualrly bothered at how Nikon splice their line up. The D700 was a huge sucess for Nikon photographers but a disaster for Nikon. It was essentially the same camera as their premium D3...but for a lot less and it totally raided the sales of their flagship. So when it came around to the D700's replacement, the cold reality of a consistent product line up forced Nikon to totally change the direction for that camera line. It's the kind of mistake which Canon rarely gets it self into. They are far more cautious and wiser with their products. Look at the 5D -> 5DII -> 5DIII...it's an evolution which doesn't confuse or frustrate their customer base. Take a look at the 1Dx and 5DIII....neither eat the sales of each other, quite the opposite they compliment. The problem Canon has with the 7DII is that it is a direct challenger to the 1Dx...and the 70D has filled the niche which the 7D once held. So one has to wonder how or where Canon will take the 7DII. It's slow to arrive becuase Canon are thinking about that camera very carefully.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 10, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I think Canon has planned this very carefully and from a marketing perspective it could be a scoop. Their current position with the 1DX (especially after FW 2.03) and 5DIII is not really threatened. As we know, the 800/800E did not boost Nikon´s market position and I agree with those who say that the D4s probably only makes those who already shoot Nikon stay with Nikon.
> 
> At the Winter Olympics we will see a number of numberless 1-series and perhaps also 7D-type bodies and hopefully some spectacular images coming out of it. That will create an enormous interest and may well cause Nikon shooters to consider jumping ship before the Soccer World Cup, when they will become available.
> 
> Looking in the mirror, from a business perspective, Canon have been quite successful with their timing, regardless of some of the most frustrated postings on CR. To release the next generation bodies, with sensors answering both resolution and DR in a year with both Winter Olympics and a Soccer World Cup ... Pretty much a marketing bulls eye in my opinion.


Do you own stock in Canon? : In what way is their conservative / boring innovation, but successful marketing exciting and fun for you as a photographer? Personally, I couldn't care less that Canon still holds the biggest market share.

But maybe their market position is why they aren't trying as hard as SoNikon and others? Why hurry up with new sensor tech, lenses _(and even things like FF mirrorless) _if you already have a huge customer base who always bends over backwards?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2014)

Dick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



Lots of contradictions there! Music fans shouldn't care about sales, bad sales might force the artist to do better. Same with the 5DIII. So we shouldn't care about sales, even though you acknowledge that sales will alter what comes next?

Some people like to keep their heads in the sand, that's ok for them. Since I'm happy with some aspects of my Canon gear, and dissatisfied with others, I care about the business drivers that are going to determine what Canon does next.


----------



## Memdroid (Jan 10, 2014)

Ricku said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon has planned this very carefully and from a marketing perspective it could be a scoop. Their current position with the 1DX (especially after FW 2.03) and 5DIII is not really threatened. As we know, the 800/800E did not boost Nikon´s market position and I agree with those who say that the D4s probably only makes those who already shoot Nikon stay with Nikon.
> ...



Please tell me how the lack of resolution and DR (2 stops! hardly noticeable with decent exposure on real life images and upwards of ISO 400) with your Canon gear imploded your images that cost you money and your clients? 

It blows my mind how some folk love to complain about Canon and their "lack" of innovations, it was not that long ago when Canon completely changed the photography world with the 1Ds III, 5D II, 7D and the recent 61AF en metering system and it kicks its competitors ass almost every way. Please deny this! If you are unable to take decent to phenomenal shots with today's Canon offerings, which is by far one of the best and innovative systems on the planet, you should consider a different hobby/job.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2014)

WillT said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



They don't publish numbers for specific models, true. In their Q2 financials call (Nov), Nikon indicated worse than expected sales of their high-end models. Canon cut their dSLR sales forecast, but one of their execs commented that sales of high end models were doing well. The limited, anecdotal sales data available indicate the 5DIII is selling more in the larger markets. The above, coupled with Canon's already greater overall market share, support that the 5DIII is the better seller. 

Plus, the Internet says so.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 10, 2014)

Ricku said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon has planned this very carefully and from a marketing perspective it could be a scoop. Their current position with the 1DX (especially after FW 2.03) and 5DIII is not really threatened. As we know, the 800/800E did not boost Nikon´s market position and I agree with those who say that the D4s probably only makes those who already shoot Nikon stay with Nikon.
> ...


No, I don't have any other interest in Canon than the value of my equipment and how I can bring that to good use. As of today, no other camera/lens combo can deliver what I get from my Canon portfolio. Who else can give me the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses, who else can give me an 8-15mm fisheye zoom or an 85mm f1.2, who else can give me a handholdable 600mm f4, who else can give me a 200-400 with built in extender and who can outperform the AF, low ISO and fps of the 1DX?

My interest in Canon's financial position is limited to what that muscle means in ability to service what I have and in bringing the future products I want to market. If they start wasting time, money and talent on premature mirrorless or retro looking bodies, I will become more sceptical. 

The claims of Canon's lack of innovation is getting a bit boring and it is in plain English utter nonsens. Within this domain Canon outperforms Sony and Nikon in patents by a substantial margin. That is more or less the only metric we have for innovation, besides market share in a high-tech area such as this. Canon leads both and have done for a long time. The only innovation some people seem to care about is sensor technology, which is very important, but still only a part. Looking at what Canon brought to the market with the 1DX, you would have to be a total ignorant to claim that that was not an innovative product. And with the firmware release that just came out, it became even better. I have had the camera for quite some time, but I still find new features and smarter ways to use it and my respect for the designers behind that body grows every day.

And you are right, Nikon and Sony is Trying. But trying is not going to get you anywhere, unless it is quality coming out in the other end.

And I repeat, I am waiting for a higher resolution sensor with better DR, to complement what I have. And if Canon has chosen The Olympics and The World Cup to launch their next majors, it shows both consistency and intelligence.


----------



## Memdroid (Jan 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The point I was trying to make is that they were gamechangers and highly innovative, which in turn the competition "copied".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> From:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/canon-to-haul-capacity-back-home-as-yen-continues-slide/#more-15486
> 
> "_Canon’s global shipments of interchangeable lens cameras accounted for 45.1 percent of global shipments in July-September, according to IDC, a 5 percent drop in share from the year prior and a 25.7 percent drop in unit sales._"



You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Nikon's sales also dropped significantly, and that since Canon has a greater marketshare than Nikon, Canon _could_ lose more unit sales than Nikon yet still sell more cameras. 

Plus, I thought you didn't care about sales figures and don't think they are relevant.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 10, 2014)

I'm not sure that I even get the question.

Canon will release some high end models this year.

Nikon have announced one of their own suggesting it might be a bit better in some key areas but not really giving any great idea other than that.

Neither is giving much away.

So what is there for Canon to answer here?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder if the D800 sales might be pointing them in another direction...



I think the fact that Canon has not rushed a 36mp camera to market is further anecdotal evidence that the D800 series have not been an out and out winner for Nikon.

A high mp FF camera seems to fall into two very different camps. On the one hand you have a few serious photographers who really will be able to use that potential resolution in their work, and then on the other hand the casual user who gets most pleasure by drooling over the size of images at 100% on the computer screen. Pleasure may turn to disappointment when they find they have to use the finest glass, stop down a couple, mount on a rock solid tripod, crop out the edges of the frame etc, etc. 

My guess is that when Canon do introduce their high mp offering it will be a very high end camera. Then when the consumer is educated enough to understand why a 18 mp 1Dx is five times more expensive than a 40mp 9D we might see a high mp 'budget' camera.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the D800 sales might be pointing them in another direction...
> ...



The great thing about the 5DIII and 1Dx is their image quality and frame rate. If we have a camera with a higher MP count, then the frame rate will drop. The current throughput for Dual Digic 5 is 225mb/s. This gives us a throughput which can be cut several ways, 12fps @ 18.1mp = 217mb/s. If we assume the same Dual Digic 5 chip set, 225mp / 5 fps 45 mp. If you want the higher MP chip then there's only one way the fps can go.
If the Canon develops Digic 6, generally a gain of 1.5x according to past upgrades, we get a potential figures of 340 mb/s, 12fps @ 28mp (nice) or 5fps @ 67.5 mp or 7.5fps @ 45mp.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 10, 2014)

Ricku said:


> In what way is their conservative / boring innovation, but successful marketing exciting and fun for you as a photographer? Personally, I couldn't care less that Canon still holds the biggest market share.
> 
> But maybe their market position is why they aren't trying as hard as SoNikon and others? Why hurry up with new sensor tech, lenses _(and even things like FF mirrorless) _if you already have a huge customer base who always bends over backwards?



Ricku, your desire for innovation and improvement from Canon is certainly valid. However, you should be equally upset with Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. for failing to provide an alternative that we find impossible to resist. Seriously, when the 1D4 had its early problems, Nikon did gain market share in that category. If the D600 were just a little better, it could have gained market share against the 6D. The D800 is less expensive than the 5D3 and many think it produces better photos. But it has its own problems, so hasn't gained market share.

Stop blaming the purchasers; rather, blame Nikon, Sony, et al for failing to produce a "killer" product that will force Canon to improve.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you guys still remember this :
> ...



+1


----------



## DanielW (Jan 10, 2014)

Memdroid said:


> (...) If you are unable to take decent to phenomenal shots with today's Canon offerings, which is by far one of the best and innovative systems on the planet, you should consider a different hobby/job.



Could not agree more.
I own a 60D and some humble lenses (17-55/2.8, 50/1.4), and even though I would like to have better high-ISO IQ, more DR, faster FPS, AFMA etc, etc, etc, I am pretty sure that after all those years my entry-level camera still longs for a better photographer behind its viewfinder.


----------



## tallrob (Jan 10, 2014)

> wondering when Canon is going to move beyond selfie technology based cameras.



I guess this was just a dumb joke, but seriously, Canon's consumer cameras should never be used as a gauge for it's pro lineup. Nikon is winning the MP race, and slightly better DR and noise control. But Canon is doing just fine. Aside from a 7Dii, what's there to want? The D800, IMHO, just makes bigger files. And it's no PhaseOne.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 10, 2014)

DanielW said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > (...) If you are unable to take decent to phenomenal shots with today's Canon offerings, which is by far one of the best and innovative systems on the planet, you should consider a different hobby/job.
> ...



VERY good point


----------



## unfocused (Jan 10, 2014)

tallrob said:


> > wondering when Canon is going to move beyond selfie technology based cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this was just a dumb joke, but seriously, Canon's consumer cameras should never be used as a gauge for it's pro lineup. Nikon is winning the MP race, and slightly better DR and noise control. But Canon is doing just fine. Aside from a 7Dii, what's there to want? The D800, IMHO, just makes bigger files. And it's no PhaseOne.



Very nicely and succinctly said. So, of course, I'm going to muck it up by adding to it.

We may think the "selfie" technology-based cameras are silly, but we are about the worst demographic to make that judgment. There is a very large segment of the consumer market that wants to use photography and social media to share (some might say over-share) virtually every aspect of their lives. Just look at the number of people on Facebook who take and share pictures of every restaurant meal they eat.

While that market segment might not care all that much about dynamic range or massive megapixels, they do want their pictures to be clear and sharp and their videos smooth and steady. Canon's trying to meet that market.

Canon's little Vixia Mini camcorders seem to be designed to compete with, or perhaps more accurately supplement, the incredibly popular GoPro line. From their promotional videos it is clear they are designed to allow dancers, musicians, skateboarders, etc. etc. to record themselves from a perspective other than the top of their heads. It's a market no one else seemed to be targeting and it's actually pretty innovative on Canon's part. 

On the one hand, people complain about Canon not innovating, but on the other many of these same folks poke fun at clever and innovative niche market cameras that Canon develops. The point and shoot market is dead and every manufacturer has to either adapt or die. In nature, most experiments eventually fail and the critters go extinct. But, nature keeps on experimenting and gets enough right to keep on going. 

Same is true of companies. Either adapt or die. Give Canon credit for trying to adapt.


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Your math here is wrong. The DIGIC5+ is 250mb/s throughput. The full sensor pixel count is 19.1mp, because you have to account for the masked off border pixels as well as the 18mp of actual light gathering pixels. You also have to account for the mirror-locked up 14fps maximum frame rate, rather than 12fps. Canon's full data throughput on the 1D X is 500mb/s.


----------



## Rick (Jan 10, 2014)

Canon hasn't answered the D800/E yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2014)

Rick said:


> Canon hasn't answered the D800/E yet.



Why should they?


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Rick said:


> Canon hasn't answered the D800/E yet.



Why is that an issue? Why is it necessary for Canon to "answer" ANYTHING from the competition? I feel like I just answered this in another thread...Canon has never directly competed model for model with their competition. Instead, *Canon produces what their customers ask for*, and so far, given their track record, they WILL release compelling products that Canon customers want in the years to come.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 10, 2014)

Rick said:


> Canon hasn't answered the D800/E yet.



At the risk of piling on here, I will pile on.

If there is any question, it ought to be why hasn't Nikon answered the 5DIII yet. 

Been there, explained this before, but here goes: 

The 5DIII was targeted to a real audience: wedding and event photographers. They wanted better autofocus and clean high ISO performance. Go back and read some of the threads from when the 5DIII was introduced and you'll see glowing comment after glowing comment from these photographers about how much they liked the 5DIII. The camera is a "must have" for many wedding photographers because it gives them a competitive edge – they can get shots that other photographers can't easily get.

This is a real market and in fact, it is one of the few large professional markets that exists today. 

It so happened that in meeting that market, Canon produced a camera that many of us not in that business still find to be a highly desirable product. Take a look at the Amazon sales rankings. It's incredible that the 5DIII consistently ranks in the top 10 against cameras that sell for one-fifth its price. Having met the needs of a specific audience, Canon was able to expand the base to enthusiasts like myself (who are still a little shocked that we bought a camera this expensive).

Nikon introduced a camera designed to meet the pent-up demand of its buyers, who had suffered for years with cameras that had fallen behind in resolution. I think they resolved to fix that. Unfortunately, the D800 doesn't seem to have found a broader market. Once the pent-up demand of Nikon users was met, where could Nikon go for additional sales? Landscape and other photographers who want high-megapixels and slightly increased dynamic range simply do not constitute a large professional base. (How many professional full time landscape photographers live in your town? I live in the Midwest and I'm not aware of any in my city. Compare that to wedding photographers, which seem to be coming out of the walls around here.) 

So, please, somebody give me a good business reason why Canon "needs" to answer the D800, because frankly I can't find one.
By the way...I still can't quite figure out why we are talking about the D800 when this thread is about the D4s – Nikon's low megapixel flagship. If the D800 sensor is so awesome, why is Nikon so uninterested in using it in its flagship?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 10, 2014)

The D4S is in a sealed glass case at the CES... you can't touch it or use it... so for all practical purposes, it does not exist. At this point in time the appropriate Canon response would to take an empty 1DX shell, paint a 2 on the label (1DX-II), and seal it in a glass case where nobody could touch it.

Until a camera is available to buy/use, it does not exist.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 10, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> I rented a d800 and two good lenses . My test shoots with my own 5dmk3 and D800 shows that Canon are far behind in digital imaging , resolution , color depth and dynamic range.
> Sony 36Mp together with my Canon lenses will be next rental try fom my side


A Swedish Winnie the Poo (Nalle Puh)... Post 1, love anything but Canon, concerned with DR ... Give us a break :


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 10, 2014)

tallrob said:


> Aside from a 7Dii, what's there to want? The D800, IMHO, just makes bigger files. And it's no PhaseOne.




Yeah, I have to stop you there. The 7D is considered to have questionable IQ in some circles, so I don't get how the 7D II is some uber-desirable camera and the D800 "just makes bigger files". The D800 is far superior to the 7D in many areas, and the one that counts the most. 

I really like Canon DSLR gear. I got into them because of their lenses, and I'm sticking with them. But the criticism we are seeing is justified (IE selfie-cam while the D800 mauls the universe unchallenged), and in some cases, entertaining.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 10, 2014)

I think we've all got this backward.

Before 2012 Nikon had one camera that passed the 20MP mark, the D3X, which didn't come until more than a year after the 1DsIII, and was still later than the 5D2. Until the D800 the best full frame body Nikon had to offer for less than $5,000 was 12MP!
For three and a half years the 5D2 filled exactly the same position the D800 is in right now, though I dare say the difference between 12MP and 20MP is a lot more than what we see between the 5D3 and D800 today.
For three and a half years there was nothing to compete with the 5D2.
Canon is not the one playing catch up here.


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Nalle Puh said:
> 
> 
> > I rented a d800 and two good lenses . My test shoots with my own 5dmk3 and D800 shows that Canon are far behind in digital imaging , resolution , color depth and dynamic range.
> ...



Swedish Winnie the Poo also ignores the empirical facts. Even DXO, the organization much loathed by Canon users, demonstrates that a 5D III with most L-series lenses (usually on the longer end) is actually BETTER than the D800 with Nikon's best glass from a resolution standpoint. All those extra megapixels on the D800 are only enough to bring it up to par with the 5D III on longer glass. Canon still suffers on the wide angle end of things, but hopefully 2014 will be the year that changes that.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 10, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Canon is not the one playing catch up here.



In terms of low ISO IQ they most certainly are.


----------



## 100 (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > From:
> ...



Expand the quote from dilbert just a little bit and you get a different story. 
The next line:

_However, Mitarai said Canon had *increased* its share of the SLR market by a few percent over the whole year...._


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is not the one playing catch up here.
> ...



Low ISO IQ is a tiny factor out of hundreds that affect image quality. I find it so incredibly ironic that low ISO IQ is apparently the single most important thing for so many "photographers". How many of you who complain about low ISO IQ actually use low ISO all that often? And for those of you who do use low ISO, how often is it that you actually need to lift your shadows more than a few stops? Canon's current crop of cameras is quite capable of being lifted 2-3 stops without issues at low ISO...it is only when you get into the realm of lifting 4-6 stops (or, if you are a true psycho, 8-10 stops by using Lightroom's exposure brush!!)...but lifting any photo's shadows by that much inevitably results in other issues...funky contrast transitions as you move from bright midtones to shadows, strange noise and color fidelity gradients, etc. I would honestly be extremely surprised if as many people who complain about low ISO performance actually lift shadows 4+ stops on a consistent basis.

Statistically, higher ISO settings are used more frequently these days than lower ISO settings...so it really baffles me that this is such a broad and ubiquitous issue. I am not saying that better low ISO DR is a bad thing, of course it's good...but it is still only one IQ factor out of many. Given how well the D800 has sold, I wouldn't go so far as to say Canon is now playing "catchup" in the low ISO DR arena yet.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...





This is a logical fallacy. The same argument could be applied to the first implementation of auto focus, Image stabilization, etc:

"How can image stabilization possibly be important? How many of you actually use a tripod?"

"Aren't you quick enough to focus manually? There's no need for auto focus if you refine your skills..."

When approaching the conversation with intellectual honesty, one cannot dispute that low ISO IQ is an important aspect of photography....especially for nature photographers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 10, 2014)

That is an interesting question that illustrates why there are so many diverse opinions about th same piece of equipment, we all use them differently.

As for me I took a look, of my last 19,500 images, 9,000 were at 100iso, 7,500 at 200iso, 2,000 at 400 iso and 1,500 at 800 and other random intermediate iso stops.

I'd like higher low iso image quality. But I am not going to spit my dummy out waiting for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> As for me I took a look, of my last 19,500 images, 9,000 were at 100iso, 7,500 at 200iso, 2,000 at 400 iso and 1,500 at 800 and other random intermediate iso stops.



Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights? 

Listening to the DRones, you'd think that Canon sensors completely suck to the point of being unusable at ISO 100 or that a Canon camera would simply explode if you try to take an image of a scene with 13-stops of DR. 

Let's be clear - more is better! Faster AF, faster FPS, better IQ, more DR, all good. Well, not more noise - less of that, please. But those things are not always necessary.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> one cannot dispute that low ISO IQ is an important aspect of photography....especially for nature photographers.



Of course it is. But what fraction of the total market do nature photographers comprise? I think everyone agrees that that D800's sensor is great at low ISO's. For those people whose style of photography plays to the D800's strengths, it's obviously a fine tool. But many have noted weaknesses in the D800 for other styles of photography. (I can't speak to it directly since I've never used one) Other cameras (e.g. 5D3) are reported to have better AF, ergonomics, high-ISO IQ etc. 

The complaint from those such as yourself seems to ask why Canon doesn't put a D800-class sensor in a 5D3 type package to give Canon customers the best of both worlds. (I'll leave aside the reverse question: why Nikon didn't put 5d3 strengths into the D800) The answer, as numerous replies have repeated, is the magic word "business." It costs money (and reduces profit) to use new/innovative components. It costs for R&D, it costs for tooling, it costs for support (e.g. when you have problems with the new tech that don't appear until after there are thousands in the hands of customers). All this reduces profit. Neither Nikon nor Canon are charities.

For the foreseeable future you will not be able to buy a camera that "has it all" and is also affordable.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 11, 2014)

This is interesting. I've never tested it in pictures, but I know in video that ISO noise is non-linear. So technically 160 is better than 100, and 320 is better than 200 or 250, so on and so forth. Wouldn't it be the same in terms of pictures?


----------



## 100 (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Statistically, higher ISO settings are used more frequently these days than lower ISO settings...so it really baffles me that this is such a broad and ubiquitous issue. I am not saying that better low ISO DR is a bad thing, of course it's good...but it is still only one IQ factor out of many. Given how well the D800 has sold, I wouldn't go so far as to say Canon is now playing "catchup" in the low ISO DR arena yet.



Which statistic? Can you point to the result of a scientific study? 

And what exactly do you mean by “higher ISO settings”? Higher than 100, 400, 800, 1600…? 

I buy into a camera system and the sensor is just one part of the system, but I would love to have the low iso DR of the D800 in my 5DIII. 
It’s the one area Canon is really outperformed by just about all other manufacturers. I think they should address that for the next generation and they probably will. 
All manufacturers are playing catchup in some way, because none of them are the best at everything.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights?




You could apply this logic to every facet of image taking when arguing against technological improvements:


"Of all your high ISO shots, how many were so truly noisy that you simply couldn't use the image?"

"Of all those shots of grizzly bears, how many were truly ruined by using only a 2-stop IS system?"

etc....


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Of course it is. But what fraction of the total market do nature photographers comprise?



A ton of people get into DSLR's for landscape and wildlife. This is where you have zero control of light (or wildlife) so the ability to recover highlights is critical.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights?
> ...



Yes, and if you had quoted my entire post, you'd see that I'm not arguing against it. Rather, I'm stating that such technological improvements aren't necessary in every situation. 

There have been significant technological improvements from Canon in AI Servo subject tracking thanks to the high-density 61-pt AF sensor and continual improvements in predictive algorithms. How necessary are those technological improvements to your tripod-based low ISO landscape shooting?


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 11, 2014)

Regardless of the sensor (which I doubt will be much if any superior to the current D4)...based on other performance aspects such as autofocus performance, isn't the 1DX already the answer to the D4S?


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is not the one playing catch up here.
> ...



Point being as an industry wide trend, Nikon is playing catch up, as they have been since the 90's.
This time last year I was dead set on getting a D800, it was the best thing since sliced bread and I could easily have bought a D800 instead of the 5D2. However, as I looked into it more the advantages presented to me did not outweigh the disadvantages, I chose the Canon system as a whole over the temporary advantages of one camera. For some people I'm sure the D800 is everything they could have wanted.
I guess one way to tell how people truly feel about it would be to ask how many people have actually bought one. It would also be interesting to compare that with the effect of the 5D2 on the industry a few years ago.

Here's a poll I made on the topic.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19012.0


----------



## dufflover (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> This is a logical fallacy. The same argument could be applied to the first implementation of auto focus, Image stabilization,



Definitely agree. In fact I'm getting tired of that lame line, in the exact same bucket as "it's not the gear it's photographer". I do not disagree with those statements at all; it's just that in the context of gear, money and let's face it just being camera enthusiasts, we want to improve things, and spend our hard earned with good return - it is not good return when spending top dollar in a given price bracket for something that is old tech, and the competition has proven things can be better.

Obviously some people have money to burn. Good for you, not for most other people  .

Same with Canon business vs. users' wishes. I don't disagree that Canon don't have to do anything with sales figures and what not - that doesn't make the camera any better or the "wishlist" any less valid (or factually untrue). It's a point that just kills discussion in a forum.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is. But what fraction of the total market do nature photographers comprise?
> ...



Why aren't those people buying a ton of D800's, since it appears to be the best landscape DSLR on the market now? I can think of two explanations: either landscape photographers don't know how to choose the right gear, or the number of landscape-oriented photographers is not as large as you believe.

I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo. 

The reason sales numbers are important is that they give us data against which to test our assumptions. If we believe that most people want model X, but many more people buy model Y, then it shows that our belief is not supported by the data, and may well be wrong.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 11, 2014)

> I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo.



True, but then again I doubt most of us active on the CR forums are like that. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but most of these conversations steer towards the middle and upper end of the gear spectrum, and for specialist uses. Not too many people are buying 800 5.6's, but it's still a kick ass lens. Based on these conversations, we're sort of the crowd that is listening for production and engineering background noise on super audio cd's or vinyl, and wondering if the remaster of _Dark Side of the Moon_ has more "air" than the previous versions.

To consistently quote what the average user buys/does has no bearing on most of these technological discussions on CR. It's simply a red herring.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> > I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice to see the audiophile analogy!


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> > I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo.
> 
> 
> To consistently quote what the average user buys/does has no bearing on most of these technological discussions on CR. It's simply a red herring.



But I don't think it is a red herring: while the folks on this forum want 1DX features plus a D800 sensor packed into a 5D3 body, it's the "average user" who drives profits. And without profits there is no business. I think most folks would totally agree with you that it would be *nice*, and occasionally essential to have more DR and IQ to get a specific shot the way we want it. But we recognize the reality that there is no perfect product, so we choose the brand that comes closest to meeting our needs. 

There are plenty of folks who express their wishes that Canon would include certain features in the next model; however, what's tedious -- and pointless -- is the few who step well beyond that, and become nearly frothy in their vehement denunciation of Canon's product choices, as though it were a deep personal insult.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> When approaching the conversation with intellectual honesty, one cannot dispute that low ISO IQ is _*an*_ important aspect of photography....especially for nature photographers.



_*AN*_ important aspect of photography. Not THE important aspect of photography. You made my point for me. 

Yes, it is important, I said as much. It is no where near as important as a growing number of photographers seem to think. It is AN important factor of IQ, but by no means the singular most important one. You are also missing part of my point. Canon has dynamic range, quite a lot of it in the grand scheme of things. The argument I was debating was that Canon so utterly and desperately needed more low ISO DR.

I levy the question again...how many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?

Privatebydesign offered part of the answer: 



privatebydesign said:


> That is an interesting question that illustrates why there are so many diverse opinions about th same piece of equipment, we all use them differently.
> 
> As for me I took a look, of my last 19,500 images, 9,000 were at 100iso, 7,500 at 200iso, 2,000 at 400 iso and 1,500 at 800 and other random intermediate iso stops.
> 
> I'd like higher low iso image quality. But I am not going to spit my dummy out waiting for it.



We know how many he takes at low ISO. He takes a lot, but that doesn't address my actual question, and the question that actually pertains to having more than 12 stops of DR at ISO 100: How many of those 9000 ISO 100 images needed to be pushed by four, five, or six stops? I would guess VERY FEW. Practically none, unless PBD shoots exceptionally difficult scenes with massive dynamic range on a regular basis/for a living. If that is the case, then hell, I highly recommend a D800 for him. In the grand scheme of things, though, I doubt most photographers even think about pushing shadows that much (or could even find a legitimate reason to.)

Personally, I've taken about 55,000 photos at ISO 800 - 3200. I've taken about 15,000 at ISO 400, and less than 10,000 at ISO 100 and 200. Of the ISO 100 photos, I have needed more dynamic range than my 7D offers in about 2000 shots, however I am usually short by maybe one stop (and that is more because of the 7D pixel size...if I had a 5D III, I would have what I need for pretty much everything I've shot before.) In the cases where slight vertical banding noise did show up in the shadows (maybe a couple hundred at most)...I used Topaz DeNoise 5, and was not only able to remove the banding, but I also gained more dynamic range (that's what happens when you reduce noise anyway...you gain DR, but Topaz has a feature that attempts to further recover DR that was lost to shadow noise due to a loss of tonal fidelity, which gains me even more.) 

I use GND filtration for my landscape photography, so dynamic range is actually something I have a lot of control over in the field. I would actually greatly appreciate more native sensor DR, as it would reduce my need to use GND filters. It would also help me avoid that unsightly GND artifact where mountaintops end up dark or even black when you need to use more than two to three stops of filtration. That is the single situation where I think having more dynamic range would actually be the most important factor for IQ...ONE situation. I also suspect that tonemapping 14 stops into 8-10 stops without ending up with quirky shifts in contrast and color fidelity would still be very challenging, and I highly doubt I would stop using GND filters even if I had a D800. I still doubt I would push shadows around more than 2-3 stops....but it would be 2-3 stops along with fewer GND filters, which still makes the job easier in the end.

Again, I am not saying more DR is bad. Certainly not. I would just like to know, given how many people have started complaining about it since the release of the D800, how many of them actually have a real-world USE for more DR. Of PBD's 9000 ISO 100 shots...in how many did he actually push shadows around more than 2 stops? That's the real indicator of how much dynamic range we NEED, vs. how much more dynamic range we just WANT because, well, you know...the other guy has it. 

Personally, I know the use cases I would love to have more DR for. It's a small fraction of my work. I also know that the kind of photography I do most is in line with the majority of DSLR users...action. Action photographers are what make the Canon Photography world go round. There are far more action shooters than any other kind of shooter, when you factor in sports, air shows, car races, bike races, watersports, wildlive, birds, and all those little children running around dimly lit houses. I want more DR, but I also know it isn't the singular most important IQ factor that so many forum talkers seem to think it is. If more people would honestly answer the question: "How often do you NEED to lift ISO 100 shadows more than 2-3 stops?" I think people might get a clearer picture of how important more dynamic range actually is to their work.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

mkabi said:


> This is interesting. I've never tested it in pictures, but I know in video that ISO noise is non-linear. So technically 160 is better than 100, and 320 is better than 200 or 250, so on and so forth. Wouldn't it be the same in terms of pictures?



This is a Canon quirk. It's actually one of the very few things I hate about my Canon cameras. Canon doesn't have native third-stop ISO settings. Unlike Nikon and Sony (and probably others) who use electronic gain to boost the signal on-sensor for all ISO settings (up to a certain point, like ISO 1600 or 3200, after which more complex means are usually employed to boost the signal), Canon uses a downstream secondary amplifier to additionally adjust for third-stop ISO settings.

This is also where the "ISO 160 base ISO" MYTH for Canon cameras comes from. Canon's native base ISO is literally ISO 100, no question. Canon employs a full stop gain for ISO 200. For ISO 160, Canon does a downstream third-stop "push" for ISO 125, which actually COSTS you a third of a stop of dynamic range (clipping highlights). Since it is a post-read push, it also amplifies read noise by a third of a stop (not much, but if you do end up having to push shadows around a LOT, you notice it.) For ISO 160, Canon does a downstream third-stop "pull", which again costs you a third of a stop dynamic range (crushing blacks). Since it is a post-read push, it reduces read noise by a third of a stop (hence, the notion that ISO 160 is "cleaner" than ISO 100...it is, by a minuscule amount.)

The push pattern is used for all third-stop settings just above full stops (125, 250, 500, etc.) The pull pattern is used for all third-stop settings just below full stops (160, 320, 640, etc.) Depending on the camera, this pattern is abandoned at higher ISO. It used to be that all Canon cameras employed this push/pull third-stop pattern up through ISO 1600, after which a different and more complicated approach was used. With the 5D III and 6D, I believe the pattern is employed up through ISO 6400, beyond which their more complicated approach is used. The 1D X does not seem to exhibit the same differences in noise and DR for third stops as all the rest of Canon's cameras. I am not sure why, but for whatever reason, the 1D X third stops are much better and more linear overall, and therefor much more usable (with no loss of DR.)


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Statistically, higher ISO settings are used more frequently these days than lower ISO settings...so it really baffles me that this is such a broad and ubiquitous issue. I am not saying that better low ISO DR is a bad thing, of course it's good...but it is still only one IQ factor out of many. Given how well the D800 has sold, I wouldn't go so far as to say Canon is now playing "catchup" in the low ISO DR arena yet.
> ...



High ISO...I'd call that ISO 800 or above. ISO 100, 200, and 400 I consider low ISO, although ISO 400 is kind of in the middle there, and others might have a different opinion.

I don't have a specific study. It's a simple observation, however on that I have been making over the last four years or so. (FYI, I've moderated photo.stackexchange.com since 2010, and have encountered and chatted with quite a number of photographers over the last four years from a wide range of photographic endeavors.) How many white Canon lenses do you see at pretty much every sporting event around the globe? Hundreds to thousands at each and every event. Canon dominates sports, hands down, no question. They really dominate action, not just sports. I spend a lot of time out in nature, and meet a fair number of nature photographers. The very vast majority of the people I've met out in the wilderness, including both wildlife and bird photographers as well as landscape photographers, overwhelmingly have Canon equipment. Canon 1D IV, Canon 5D III, and Canon 1D X are becoming almost ubiquitous in the wildlife and bird world. Canon great white lenses, 300s, 500s, and 600s, are extremely common (particularly the 500 Mark Is...lot of wildlifers and birders use that lens, guess it's at a sweet spot of weight and cost). I've met a few who have Nikon equipment, two of whom use D800's for bird photography. I know of one (now a good friend) who uses Pentax and Nikon. I also know and have encountered/chatted with a decent number of wedding & portrait photographers. Most use the Canon 5D II. A few still use the 5DC (they don't seem to care about resolution). Some use the 5D III (and all of the 5D line wedding photographers had one consistent complaint before the 5D III: Sucky AF.) I know of several wedding photographers who use Nikon and other brands (some have gone to mirrorless as of late, with a variety of brands.) I know two wedding and portrait photographers who use Nikon exclusively. One uses a D800 and D3, the other uses a D7000, with a D800 planned for very soon. I would say that Nikon seems to have a growing following in the strait portraiture arena...not so much for DR, but for the sheer amount of detail the D800 or D600 bring to the table...seems that ridiculous, razor-sharp detail that brings out every single pore is really "in" right now, and there is no question that the D800 offers that in spades. 

So, sorry, I don't have an official study for you, but it really isn't a difficult observation to make. Just look around. It's a very well-educated guess. The number of cameras and lenses that you can spot in the world that say "Canon" on them vastly outnumber any other brand. Of those, the biggest group that uses the most cohesive set of camera features are the action shooters. Sports/Olympics, Wildlife, Birds...and you can throw in car racing, air shows (know a few guys who do this, damn good at it too), kayaking, boat racing, pretty much anything you could remotely call a sport, or has moving subjects...the camera is going to be at a higher ISO setting, and is probably a 5D III or a 1D X. The next two biggest groups would be Wedding & Portrait, and Landscapes. Not sure which is bigger...seems pretty evenly split here in Colorado, but if you hit larger metropolitan areas, I would make the educated guess that Wedding and Portrait photographers would end up significantly out-pacing the Landscape photographers (and I mean real landscape photographers...I know more people than I can count who use entry level cameras, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, everything...and call themselves landscape photographers, but their work wouldn't land on anyones walls (no offense to anyone like this, but)...blown clouds, random people in the frame, lack of interesting composition, effectively point-and-shoot mountain peaks and a few scattered rocks or stubby evergreen trees here and there, never any post processing, thrown up on Imgur, PhotoBucket, or Facebook.)

I honestly don't have all that much knowledge about studio photographers. I can't really say how big a customer segment studio photographers might be for Canon...but I guess big enough for them to create the 1Ds line in the past. What I DO know about studio photography, it seems to lean medium format (or maybe Leica S-system) a lot more than it leans Canon, Nikon or Sony. Phase One also seems to be the brand I hear about most from the studio photogs I do know or have crossed paths with.


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 11, 2014)

I'm quite content with the DR of my 5D3 ;D


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> I'm quite content with the DR of my 5D3 ;D



I've always loved your cars! Great stuff!


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> I've always loved your cars! Great stuff!



Thanks. I've learned a ton from your technical ramblings, and find it very informative. I haven't posted the "EOS Bodies" forum in quite some time, but I see everyone's still whining about the same thing


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights?
> ...



The point is that Canon addressed those issues. We no longer rely on 2-stop IS systems, we have 4- to 5-stop IS systems. We no longer have to worry about noise at ISO 3200 or even ISO 6400, with the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D, they are amazingly clean.

Canon addressed the most vocal demands of their customers. Solving the problems you listed above were at the top of the customer demand list. Does no one remember what all the pros were literally demanding from Canon before the D800 hit the streets? Fewer megapixels! Better high ISO! An AF system that doesn't suck like the 1D III's did! Canon delivered what their customers asked for...so no, we no longer have to deal with the issues you listed.

I also believe Canon _*will*_ deliver on the DR front. _Why?_ Because its what the largest and most vocal group of Canon users are screaming for now. Canon users weren't calling for more dynamic range before the D800...they were all largely satisfied with what they had. It's only SINCE the D800 that the customer demand has changed...which indicates it is more a result of "Hey, that other guy over there has more DR than I do! I want more DR, too!" syndrome _(all while concurrently ignoring that they already have better AF, faster frame rate, better frame buffer handling, better glass options, better...)_, than the all-encompassing, singularly important, most absolutely critical factor for IQ that photographers thing it is. I mean...no one complained about it when 11-12 stops was "all" ANY camera offered, including $60,000 MFD systems (which, ironically, is what they are STILL limited to...an yet no one complains!)...

Anyway...this is the same old thing that always crops up. Yeah, more DR == good. DR != Single Most Important IQ Factor (SMIIQF...pronounced like a _"squeaky chick fart"_). I'm out! Peace out! 8)


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I've always loved your cars! Great stuff!
> ...



Oh, the DR debate has actually died down a lot as of late. It's actually kind of surprising...this is the first time since he-who-shall-not-be-named was everbanned that it became a major issue again. 

I am still interested in an answer to my question...I really wonder how often people actually need to lift low ISO shadows more than a couple stops. I am entirely willing to admit I'm wrong if something like a hundred people said they always need to lift four or five stops...it would really blow my mind...but I'd still happily admit I was wrong. (I don't suspect I'll have to admit anything, though...if people really need to lift that much that frequently, they should probably head back to Photography Basics 101...)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Canon hasn't answered the D800/E yet.
> ...



whats odd to me is that there 2 topics basically talking about the same thing right now --- jrista, I actaully cross quoted you within these! ( I don't remember which one at this point).


----------



## sanj (Jan 11, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> I'm quite content with the DR of my 5D3 ;D



Lovely shot. But is it only me who feels that a bit more detail in the burnt out sun area would be nicer? A grad filter or change in lighting. Just wondering... I know the hot spot is interesting but JUST A BIT MORE DETAIL perhaps?


----------



## sanj (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I do not need to generally. But but but, if I ever needed to, it would be nice to be able to do that. Peace!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I'd suspect it's basic economics. It was asked by another person - how many out there are full time landscape photographers? When I say full time, I don't mean my wife is a a lawyer and earns 3 figures and I sell a few large prints per year and earn maybe 10 k. I'm talking full time, this is my business - landscape photography, you support yourself, pay your rent and all the other costs associated with that?

I'd say the # of people doing that is fairly small. And most of them wouldn't be on tech rumor sites bashing their gear provider!

That leaves the part time guys - and that crosses some spectrums from shooting fine art but also portraits and commercial stuff to pay the bills (still a full time photog !) - to those who keep their day jobs and travel on their vacations take nice shots and sell them at the art fair.. to those that don't do festivals, but are happy to shoot and post a few, maybe sell some here and there...and yeah there is a lot of in between there!

This is a large group of shooters, but, they lack the financial resources to devote to it --- to many even the expense of the body (yet along the system!) is more than they can justify ($3k on a camera is a lot of $$$). 

Oddly enough as i think on it...If Canon introduced a 50 MP body with 14 stops of DR and priced it at $4500 body only --- how quickly would this conversation change from - when will the answer the d800/when will they innovate to - why is it so costly.. hmmmmmmmm


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

sanj said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite content with the DR of my 5D3 ;D
> ...



Personally, I like it how it is. I might actually increase the glare just a bit. Not every region of a photo needs more detail, sometimes lower detail and less contrast is exactly what you want.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



My answer to this is.... when I totally blow it!!! Head outside of the church to snap a few, then head back in and something pops up before i think to reset the settings...more times than not the scene in that sitatuion is never important enough to actually try to lift the shadows...

Or, I have my triggers on camera, and it rubs on my leg and turns it off, no flash burst...again, problem noticed quick, fixed, and there wouldn't be anything missed that couldn't be captured later....


----------



## sanj (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



I see your point.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> I levy the question again...how many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?



You keep falling into the logical fallacy trap. The logic you are using can be applied to every argument ever made against improving imaging technology:

"If you need fancy image stabilization, you aren't using a tripod properly. How many of your shots actually need this? Is your hand-holding technique sound?"

"Jimmy, do we really need fancy auto focus? Won't this just make cameras even more expensive? Why not just improve your manual focus skills? How many shots *really* need auto focus if you know what you are doing?"

An improvement in technology is an improvement, regardless of how many use the improvement, or how skilled or not skilled you may feel the person is.

You've posted large blocks of text concerning how many photographers use Canon (one might even say heavy cheer-leading), but that's a red herring when applied to the context of technological improvements.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I levy the question again...how many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?
> ...



Sorry, but you are still misunderstanding. I am *not* arguing against improving technology. I am trying to make the point that more DR is not as important as a great number of photographers these days think it is, the same great number of photographers who regularly bitch about Canon not having a mere two stops of additional DR *(DR they probably wouldn't use most of the time.)* I've never once said Canon shouldn't improve DR...your reading into something that simply isn't there (I actually have stated I have great confidence that Canon WILL improve DR.) 

If someone has a critical need for more DR RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, they could have more DR. Just buy a D800, or a D600. I mean, that's the only option right now. I'm not arguing against DR...if you really need it, you really need it. 

It just isn't nearly as common to need that much dynamic range, and it isn't so critical to image quality in general that it is the sole thing that would improve most photographer's work. For anyone who shoots ISO 400 and higher most of the time, I would actually offer that Canon currently offers the best gear which offers the best overall image quality for the greatest number of situations: Better AF, better high ISO, faster maximum frame rates, deeper frame buffers, more consistent and continuous frame rates after the frame buffer is full, and still good DR (even though it isn't "the best") that serves the majority of photographers needs most of the time.

My posts so far are making the point that for the _majority _of photographers who bitch and moan and complain about Canon's low ISO DR, even if they had it, they wouldn't actually need it most of the time. I've never made the point that we shouldn't try to progress technologically on all fronts (of course we should.)

The same general argument I'm trying to make could be applied to cameras that have no AA filter on the sensor. That seems to be as much a fad right now as more DR. I am always surprised by how many photographers blather on about how they want Canon to remove the AA filter from the next camera they want, "just like Nikon did." There are SOME cases where not having an AA filter can be useful, but it is far from a particularly desirable thing. Photographers just want it because its the new thing, and its "that thing the other guy has that I want." The lack of an AA filter, unlike DR, can actually result in a detrimental impact on IQ in a lot of circumstances. AA filters are actually useful and necessary most of the time, to avoid overly sharp and "nonsense" detail that can actually detract from overall IQ. I would really like to know how many photographers that want the AA filter to be removed would actually truly benefit from that...vs. how many would actually suffer from it. I think landscape photographers are really the key group who might benefit from no AA filter...but as others have argued, landscape photographers are a rather small segment of photographers at large.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



It's a lovely shot and one I really like...but that sky is blown out. An ND grad would render the sky darker and probably lost detail in the darker sky areas. It would have increased contrast where it wasn't wanted. The only way to have fixed this here is to have taken a 2nd photograph but at a 2-3 stop darker exposure and then blended the highlight areas carefully in photoshop using a layer. Shadows can be pulled but clipped highlights are not recoverable. It's also important to render the sky brighter than the foreground, another error I regularly see where ND grads are employed. If an ND grad was used with the above photo, the sky would have been darker than the foreground and wouldn't look right.

Many people here are talking about the D800's extra DR, but the truth is that it's only in the shadows...or rather it's the push-ability in the shadows during post production with low iso noise is really what is being talked about. Highlight clipping / blown highlights occurs at pretty much the same between the 5DIII and D800. So it's not really any extra DR, just better iso thresholds in the deep black areas.


----------



## 100 (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> High ISO...I'd call that ISO 800 or above. ISO 100, 200, and 400 I consider low ISO, although ISO 400 is kind of in the middle there, and others might have a different opinion.
> 
> I don't have a specific study. It's a simple observation, however on that I have been making over the last four years or so. (FYI, I've moderated photo.stackexchange.com since 2010, and have encountered and chatted with quite a number of photographers over the last four years from a wide range of photographic endeavors.) How many white Canon lenses do you see at pretty much every sporting event around the globe? Hundreds to thousands at each and every event. Canon dominates sports, hands down, no question. They really dominate action, not just sports. I spend a lot of time out in nature, and meet a fair number of nature photographers. The very vast majority of the people I've met out in the wilderness, including both wildlife and bird photographers as well as landscape photographers, overwhelmingly have Canon equipment. Canon 1D IV, Canon 5D III, and Canon 1D X are becoming almost ubiquitous in the wildlife and bird world. Canon great white lenses, 300s, 500s, and 600s, are extremely common (particularly the 500 Mark Is...lot of wildlifers and birders use that lens, guess it's at a sweet spot of weight and cost). I've met a few who have Nikon equipment, two of whom use D800's for bird photography. I know of one (now a good friend) who uses Pentax and Nikon. I also know and have encountered/chatted with a decent number of wedding & portrait photographers. Most use the Canon 5D II. A few still use the 5DC (they don't seem to care about resolution). Some use the 5D III (and all of the 5D line wedding photographers had one consistent complaint before the 5D III: Sucky AF.) I know of several wedding photographers who use Nikon and other brands (some have gone to mirrorless as of late, with a variety of brands.) I know two wedding and portrait photographers who use Nikon exclusively. One uses a D800 and D3, the other uses a D7000, with a D800 planned for very soon. I would say that Nikon seems to have a growing following in the strait portraiture arena...not so much for DR, but for the sheer amount of detail the D800 or D600 bring to the table...seems that ridiculous, razor-sharp detail that brings out every single pore is really "in" right now, and there is no question that the D800 offers that in spades.
> 
> ...



If you present something like some sort of statistical fact, you need to prove it. If it’s just an educated guess based on personal observation, it’s not a very strong base to build an argument on because it has no more value than any other personal observation claiming the opposite unless you have some proven authority on the subject. I have no way of knowing how well-educated your guess is. Please point me to your scientific publications in this particular field of research because moderating a website about photography doesn’t make someone a statistical expert. Ask yourself if the people visiting the website you moderate are even close to a cross section of camera users worldwide (that needs to be true if you want to extrapolate). 

Anyway, if iso 800 and above is high iso, just look at the facts as they are presented by DxO mark. I’m not looking for (yet another) debate about DxO sensor scores. Just look at their measurement. 






ISO 800 (high iso by your standard) on the Nikon D800 is as good as ISO 100 on the 5D3 (that’s a 3 stop ISO difference). 
At ISO 3200 and above the 5D3 gets me marginally better results. 

The reason I think “playing catchup” in the DR department is true for Canon is because they are not purposely crippling the 5D3. It’s not like the autofocus or fps on the 5D2. Canon doesn’t have a senor in production with the low iso DR capabilities of other manufacturers and at some point they need to catchup. 

But don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing the D800 is a better camera or Nikon has better camera systems. I know there is more to photography than dynamic range and sensor resolution. I’m happy with my 5D3 and my Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is much better than the Nikon 24mm PC-E but as Canon users we probably will be better off if we encourage Canon to catchup in the DR department.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> For ISO 160, Canon does a downstream third-stop "pull", which again costs you a third of a stop dynamic range (crushing blacks). Since it is a post-read push, it reduces read noise by a third of a stop (hence, the notion that ISO 160 is "cleaner" than ISO 100...it is, by a minuscule amount.)



Bill Claff's data show the 'jagged' relationship of read noise vs. ISO, where the 'valleys' of noise are 160-320-640-. But, his data show the same jagged plot for DR vs. ISO, except the 'peaks' are the inverse of noise, with the greatest DR at 160-320-640. Your statement of a loss of 1/3-stop ISO at 'pulled' settings doesn't jive with his data that ISO 320 has greater DR than ISO 400 as well as less noise. 

You express certainty that ISO 100 is the true base, but I think a model where the real base ISO was somewhat lower than 100, such that multiples of 100 are a light push, multiples of 125 are a harder push, and multiples of 160 are a light pull, would explain Claff's data. 

Any idea what's going on there?


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Personally, I've taken about 55,000 photos at ISO 800 - 3200. I've taken about 15,000 at ISO 400, and less than 10,000 at ISO 100 and 200. Of the ISO 100 photos, I have needed more dynamic range than my 7D offers in about 2000 shots, however I am usually short by maybe one stop (and that is more because of the 7D pixel size...if I had a 5D III, I would have what I need for pretty much everything I've shot before.) In the cases where slight vertical banding noise did show up in the shadows (maybe a couple hundred at most)...I used Topaz DeNoise 5, and was not only able to remove the banding, but I also gained more dynamic range (that's what happens when you reduce noise anyway...you gain DR, but Topaz has a feature that attempts to further recover DR that was lost to shadow noise due to a loss of tonal fidelity, which gains me even more.)
> 
> I use GND filtration for my landscape photography, so dynamic range is actually something I have a lot of control over in the field. I would actually greatly appreciate more native sensor DR, as it would reduce my need to use GND filters. It would also help me avoid that unsightly GND artifact where mountaintops end up dark or even black when you need to use more than two to three stops of filtration. That is the single situation where I think having more dynamic range would actually be the most important factor for IQ...ONE situation. I also suspect that tonemapping 14 stops into 8-10 stops without ending up with quirky shifts in contrast and color fidelity would still be very challenging, and I highly doubt I would stop using GND filters even if I had a D800. I still doubt I would push shadows around more than 2-3 stops....but it would be 2-3 stops along with fewer GND filters, which still makes the job easier in the end.



I've been used GNDs for 20+ years, but that's because I have to. However I would not say that gives me control over DR. It allows me to compress it into a range which the sensor can capture. But if you didn't have to use a GND, wouldn't that be better?

Re low ISO - surely the point is that where possible, post processing should be kept to a minimum. It's not the fact that you can push, it's the fact that if you could avoid it, then you can spend more time doing the things you want to, and less effort after.

Third, the more you can see the picture as is, in the field then the less you have to visualise what post processing will do for you.

As a landscape photographer, I would like lower ISO (<100, ideally ISO 12 as I used to shoot in slides), and yes I would like the ability to have better DR and less noise in the picture full stop (but there are also a lot of times where you don't want greater DR and you will reduce it to focus the viewer where you want to)

When I do wildlife, urban or sports the same is true. But that does depend on the shots you are trying to take.

However, does the 1Ds III still take amazingly good photos? Sure does. As does every camera in the last 5-10 years. But is not the point that we still want better/improvements, and aside from the UX/Software features, where else can Canon improve (AF for movies, DR, tracking algorithms)? Like you, I'm not saying it's the end of the world for my photos if I don't have these features - you work with what you have, it's just that it would make it easier.

As for stats on ISO ranges - surely that changes with time? With the 10D I hated going to ISO 200, let alone 400. With a camera today, I'm not bothered about ISO 1600. So I'm not sure that's too helpful.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 11, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> As for stats on ISO ranges - surely that changes with time? With the 10D I hated going to ISO 200, let alone 400. With a camera today, I'm not bothered about ISO 1600. So I'm not sure that's too helpful.



Good point! Before I shot Canon, I shot Olympus. I can honestly state that I NEVER shot above ISO 1600... because that was as high as it would go... ISO 1600 was absolutely unusable.... even ISO 800 was so bad that it took heroic effort post-processing it to get something that wasn't embarrassing to show. realistically, ISO 400 was as high as you would ever go. ISO 12,800 on a Canon crop sensor is cleaner than the Oly was at ISO 800, and a 5D2 at ISO 25,600 easily beat ISO800 from the Oly...


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 11, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



+1 on the picture but it is personal preference. I remember a Pro photographer giving a talk where he describes the best photos as where your eye is drawn into the photo to where you want it. You can take it on a "journey" around the picture, but it never leaves the shot and always comes back to where you want.

I love the car, I get the positioning of the sun, like how the lighting has been done on the car, the slight glare on the roof (don't disagree more might work also) and the composition / low vantage point (tbh far better than I could take) but my eyes still oscillate between the car and the sun, (sorry just personal affliction aka "pet hate").


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 11, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> 3 new highend bodies? So one is supposed to be a 7D2, another is the high MP 1D body, and possibly the 1Dx successor is the third? Makes sense if we're having a 5D4 in feb/mar 2015.


A 5DIV in 2015 that could be possible...


----------



## Dick (Jan 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Maybe I chose the words a bit badly. Music fans want platinum sales, which is ridiculous as they pretty much guarantee a bad album the next time. For some weird reason it matters a lot that others like the same music, like it'd be hard to come up with own opinions without support. As a Mac user I really liked the fact that Macs weren't that common - 0 risk of viruses and so on. Now that everyone has a Mac, it's most likely just a matter of time...

Canon sucking at sales would benefit me more than them outselling everyone. "Canon has to do this and that" is the common argument, when in reality Canon doesn't have to do anything if they get the sales with their current stuff. You might be right that business drivers control things (Damn I hate that wording... I'm a management consultant & I really work hard not to clutter my work with bullshit bingo words like that.), but that is a really sad reality. That means that instead of great stuff, they sell cost competitive mediocrity at the highest price they can. Well, at least I can somewhat afford the hobby, but the perfect lens will never be released.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > For ISO 160, Canon does a downstream third-stop "pull", which again costs you a third of a stop dynamic range (crushing blacks). Since it is a post-read push, it reduces read noise by a third of a stop (hence, the notion that ISO 160 is "cleaner" than ISO 100...it is, by a minuscule amount.)
> ...



I am not exactly sure how Bill Claff derives his data. Logically, I am unsure how one could gain dynamic range by shifting the signal after the pixels are read. Think of what Canon does as a digital post-process exposure boost. If you utilize 100% of the sensor's available dynamic range at ISO 400, you have information at every level from 0 through 65535. If you "push", you shift the whole histogram to the right...and clip the highlights. If you "pull", you shift the whole histogram to the left...and clip the shadows. Now, in post, your probably working with a tool like Lightroom, in which case your actual RAW data is never changed, and you can shift the digital signal around to your hearts content without loss of precision or data. However with third-stop ISO settings in a Canon camera, the results after the push or pull are *baked in*. If you push, anything that clipped past pure white is permanently pure white. You cannot recover it. Similarly, if you pull, anything clipped past pure black is permanently pure black.

I'm wondering if the apparent reduction in the read noise floor is what gives Claff's results this third-stop "pull" boost to DR. If he is _ignoring_ the fact that the highlights shift down along with the rest of the exposure, and simply uses a the 5D III FWC as a constant for the upper limit for the signal, then I can see how dynamic range would theoretically increase. The read noise floor is indeed lower, however because of the pull, you actually destroyed data in the shadows, and the camera itself is not actually utilizing the headroom gained by shifting highlights down (since this all occurs AFTER the sensor has been read)...hence the "loss" of a third of a stop dynamic range.


----------



## altenae (Jan 11, 2014)

Nice topic (not)

Reminds me on the iphone IOS vs Android topic. 
What is the answer from Apple to or what is the answer from Android to......etc.

It's very easy you don't like Canon because they don't have an answer to the D800 or D4s ( what ever the specs will be). Buy the Nikon and stop complaning. 

Rather share usefull information on this forum then these never ending stories. 

Some people need very fast and good AF and less need for DR

http://www.wildlife-photos.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=664
http://www.wildlife-photos.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=692


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > High ISO...I'd call that ISO 800 or above. ISO 100, 200, and 400 I consider low ISO, although ISO 400 is kind of in the middle there, and others might have a different opinion.
> ...



Alright, fair enough.



100 said:


> Anyway, if iso 800 and above is high iso, just look at the facts as they are presented by DxO mark. I’m not looking for (yet another) debate about DxO sensor scores. Just look at their measurement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, I don't disagree that Canon lags behind in the low ISO arena. I just don't think having that extra two stops of dynamic range is actually quite as important as may photographers thing. It improves editing latitude, that's all it really does. One way or another, the things we view our photographs on...screen and print...have considerably less dynamic range. Screens average 8 stops, print averages 6-7 stops (or even as little as 5 stops). If anyone has tried to print on a low dMax paper with a natural white L*, they would understand how difficult it can be to compress even 11 stops of dynamic range into less than half that. It is not an easy task, and one has to be careful to avoid posterization and color fidelity issues in the shadows, where the available data (even after you remove noise and recover DR in the case of Canon sensors) is "sparse" compared to the midtones and highlights. 

Compressing 13 stops of native dynamic range into 8 stops of screen DR is similar. You can lift the shadows, but beyond a certain point (around 3-4 stops) you run into the same issues...information in those low signal strength areas is sparse...discrete level transitions are often harsh, and ironically, the addition of noise is often the only way to combat posterization. Don't get me wrong, having more DR is useful, but until we have more available dynamic range on screen and in print (both of which I think are coming), being able to push shadows around by 4-6 stops doesn't buy you as much as you might think.

Pushing around exposure with more dynamic range than your screen is like tonemapping a 32-bit HDR image into 16-bit. You have twice the dynamic range (really, more than that, since 32-bit is floating point...so you have MANY times the dynamic range) as your output target. If you have a lot of shadow tones bunched up at the left end of your histogram, and have done much HDR, you would know how difficult it can be to tonemap all that extra dynamic range into the mere few shadow stops you have in a 16-bit scalar image. It's DIFFICULT! The results usually end up having that "HDR Look", where you end up with funky noise issues, posterization, odd tonal gradients, poor color fidelity, and even tonal inversions in the shadows. 



I totally agree, though. I am not saying Canon shouldn't continue to push the envelope with their sensors. I just think dynamic range gets FAR more importance put on it by photographers than it really deserves. I think other in-camera factors are more important for most forms of photography, particularly any form of action photography (hence my earlier arguments about my observations of Canon's distribution of customers...honestly, observe a little yourself, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion...sports/action shooters are Canon Photography's bread and butter! ) Autofocus is probably the most important factor for action shooters. After AF, I would say frame rate. If you don't capture the right frame in focus, it really doesn't matter a wit how much dynamic range you have...you either have the wrong frame where that basketball players arm is half out of the frame, or the image is miss-focused. You might have 14 stops of missfocused arm-clipping wonder...but it ain't usable!

Finally...*I do believe Canon will deliver more DR*. How and when, and at what cost, I honestly don't know. However having been a Canon customer for almost five years now, I've only grown more fond of them. They make a good product, they put in the effort to ensure their product, whatever it is (even if it is perceptually inferior to the competitions) is solid, reliable, and always backed by the best customer support in the industry (and I speak from experience on a few occasions where I needed to send my lenses in for repair.) Canon, in my opinion, very carefully listened to the most important and broadly held demands of their customers with the designs of both the 1D X and 5D III. I mean, people here on CR and on many other forums like DPR seemed surprised that Canon chose to release the 1D X with "only" 18 megapixels, and were surprised that the 5D III "only" got a 1mp boost. Personally, I felt that Canon delivered exactly what their customers were asking for...as I'd heard, and even called for myself, the following on photo.stackexchange.com (that site I moderate...which actually has a very broad worldwide participation, so I think it is a decent source of information like this):

"I'm so sick and tired of the megapixel wars! I want better pixels, not more pixels!"
"I don't care about pixel count. I just wish Canon would make less noise at high ISO."
"Fewer megapixels! All I need is 10mp. I can print very large with just 10mp. Give me low noise ISO 204,800!! I want to photograph the aurora as I see them with my own eyes."
"The 1D III AF system really needs to be replaced with something much better. Something like Nikon's D3 AF system." (The guy was talking about a denser, reticular AF design, which Nikon actually had first.)
"The 5D II 9pt AF is horrible. I just don't have the points I need to focus where I need. I wish they would make the hidden AF assist points selectable." (That guy got a lot more than he asked for!)

I heard a lot of this kind of stuff from 2010 (and maybe late 2009) through 2012. It was only AFTER the release of the D800 and the 5D III that the things people complained about regarding Canon's equipment changed. Once they actually had fewer megapixels and better high ISO, they stopped complaining about it. Now, they complain about not having more DR (although I know for a fact that many of them are action shooters, and rarely use ISO settings below 800...so more DR wouldn't do them a bit of good. Fewer megapixls, bigger pixels, and less noise at high ISO, however, would do them a LOT of good! ) 

Personally, I was one of those hoping the 5D III would get more DR and more megapixels. I wanted a landscape camera. I still do. Ironically, the 5D III will still fill a role as a bird and wildlife photography camera given its feature set, and it is one of the top two things on my list of camera gear to buy this year. So I still find the 5D III to be a great camera. Regardless, I still hope Canon releases a landscape camera with lots of megapixels and lots of DR at some point in the future, because that is the one area of my work where more megapixels and more DR are literally the most useful things (AF and frame rate don't matter for jack when it comes to landscapes...but I also admit that as a landscape photographer, I become part of a much smaller minority of Canon customers, so I don't expect them to release anything with tons of MP and more dynamic range in the price range I want...I suspect the camera will be a 1Ds X at $5000. :\)


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



You wouldn't consider the blown out sky to be artistically desirable? Personally, I think the sky is exactly how it should be (maybe even more blown out, covering more of the corner, would be even better.) With our own eyes, we couldn't see this scene without the sky being much brighter than it is depicted here in this photo. I think it speaks to realism that V8 captured it the way he did, and I think it maintains a certain artistic flare. 

Not everything in photography is nor should be about recovering every last scrap of detail, so much so that you could see sunspots in the glaring sun...I think that would result in a grave imbalance in a shot like this.


----------



## Niki (Jan 11, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>Nikon’s extremely vague development announcement of the <a href=\"http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/06/nikon-announces-the-development-of-the-nikon-d4s-camera.aspx/\" target=\"_blank\">D4s body at CES 2014</a> has sparked the wrath of Canonites wondering when Canon is going to move beyond <a href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/canon-powershot-n100-official/\" target=\"_blank\">selfie technology based cameras</a>.</p>
> <p>Lets be clear first, Nikon hasn’t actually released any solid specs or descriptions of the technology in the new body.</p>
> <p>We’re told by a longtime source that Canon is indeed still in the game and has some “groundbreaking” camera bodies coming in 2014. Canon will take a different approach at the Sochi games and have test bodies out there without the development announcement. Canon plans to make a “big splash” at the World Cup in Brazil in the spring.</p>
> ...



D4s…so??


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 11, 2014)

Surely that picture has been filled, either by flash or some reflector ? 

I don't see how it can be an example of DR


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Yes, I get the effects of in-camera push and pull. Where does your certainty that ISO 100 is the true base come from? As I stated, Claff's data could be explained if base ISO is slightly lower than 100. On the ML forums, one if their devs determined that using ISO 100 multiples with 'a little bit of negative gain' yielded the highest DR, and that's also consistent with base ISO being less than 100.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

Dick said:


> Music fans want platinum sales, which is ridiculous as they pretty much guarantee a bad album the next time.



Ok, except that Canon has led the market every year for 10 years. So success didn't engender failure, at least from a sales perspective. 



Dick said:


> As a Mac user I really liked the fact that Macs weren't that common - 0 risk of viruses and so on. Now that everyone has a Mac, it's most likely just a matter of time...



I guess I'm clinging to the hope that the Unix kernel will protect us... 



Dick said:


> That means that instead of great stuff, they sell cost competitive mediocrity at the highest price they can. Well, at least I can somewhat afford the hobby, but the perfect lens will never be released.



Sad, but true.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Well, certainly. Literal ISO is always different. It isn't even consistent within the same brand, though. For example, according to DXO, "measured" ISO 100 on the 5D III is 80, measured ISO 200 is 160, where as "measured" ISO 100 on the 70D is 93 and ISO 200 is 160. The 6D measures 80 for ISO 100, but 153 for ISO 200. 

My point was that when you select ISO 100 on a Canon camera, you have selected the cameras actual native base ISO (whether it is 80 or 93 or 100 in actuality under the scenes.) Whether the measured ISO is 80 or 100 doesn't change anything, though. Instead of ISO 125 for the first 1/3rd stop push, you would have a measured ISO 105, and for the first 1/3rd stop pull you would have a measured ISO 140. Same difference in the end...you are clipping either blacks or whites, and baking in that loss of information into the final output that is actually recorded into the RAW file.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, certainly. Literal ISO is always different. It isn't even consistent within the same brand, though. For example, according to DXO, "measured" ISO 100 on the 5D III is 80, measured ISO 200 is 160, where as "measured" ISO 100 on the 70D is 93 and ISO 200 is 160. The 6D measures 80 for ISO 100, but 153 for ISO 200.
> 
> My point was that when you select ISO 100 on a Canon camera, you have selected the cameras actual native base ISO (whether it is 80 or 93 or 100 in actuality under the scenes.) Whether the measured ISO is 80 or 100 doesn't change anything, though. Instead of ISO 125 for the first 1/3rd stop push, you would have a measured ISO 105, and for the first 1/3rd stop pull you would have a measured ISO 140. Same difference in the end...you are clipping either blacks or whites, and baking in that loss of information into the final output that is actually recorded into the RAW file.



So DxO measures an ISO less than 100 when ISO 100 is selected. But DxO only measures full stops. It would seem they have the capability to measure 1/3-stops, but they don't. Perhaps it's just too much work. Or perhaps they do measure them, use them in Optics Pro, but don't publish them. I wonder, if they actually measured ISO 160, perhaps the real measurement would be closer to the setting. Canon's internal processing isn't necessarily as one would expect, as shown by the clandestine ISO boost with very wide aperture lenses.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, certainly. Literal ISO is always different. It isn't even consistent within the same brand, though. For example, according to DXO, "measured" ISO 100 on the 5D III is 80, measured ISO 200 is 160, where as "measured" ISO 100 on the 70D is 93 and ISO 200 is 160. The 6D measures 80 for ISO 100, but 153 for ISO 200.
> ...



I don't know why DXO doesn't measure third stops. Or half stops, for that matter. Either way, I don't really think it matters. All I know is that the way Canon manages their non-full-stop ISO settings irks me.  I wish they would just use electronic gain at the pixel for every ISO setting (up until those very high ISO settings...seems whatever they do at very very high ISO results in better output than simple gain off the pixel.)

Anyway, I don't suspect Canon will be changing their MO any time soon. Even if they improve DR, I expect to be saddled with quirky third-stops for a long time to come (however they work, whatever their consequences.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> I don't know why DXO doesn't measure third stops. Or half stops, for that matter. Either way, I don't really think it matters. All I know is that the way Canon manages their non-full-stop ISO settings irks me.  I wish they would just use electronic gain at the pixel for every ISO setting (up until those very high ISO settings...seems whatever they do at very very high ISO results in better output than simple gain off the pixel.)
> 
> Anyway, I don't suspect Canon will be changing their MO any time soon. Even if they improve DR, I expect to be saddled with quirky third-stops for a long time to come (however they work, whatever their consequences.)



If it really bothers you that much, you could always get a 1D X. It would go great with your 600/4L IS II...


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why DXO doesn't measure third stops. Or half stops, for that matter. Either way, I don't really think it matters. All I know is that the way Canon manages their non-full-stop ISO settings irks me.  I wish they would just use electronic gain at the pixel for every ISO setting (up until those very high ISO settings...seems whatever they do at very very high ISO results in better output than simple gain off the pixel.)
> ...



Aye! I know! I wish I could afford it...but I have too many things I want to buy. At the top of my list right now is a Celestron EdgeHD DX 1100 SCT (about $4000) and the 5D III (seems to run under $3000 now). I could get both of those for about the cost of a single 1D X...and both of those would be more useful to me in a much broader range of situations than just the 1D X.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> At the top of my list right now is a Celestron EdgeHD DX 1100 SCT (about $4000) and the 5D III (seems to run under $3000 now). I could get both of those for about the cost of a single 1D X...and both of those would be more useful to me in a much broader range of situations than just the 1D X.



Where do you live? Maybe we could split costs and share.


----------



## jrista (Jan 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > At the top of my list right now is a Celestron EdgeHD DX 1100 SCT (about $4000) and the 5D III (seems to run under $3000 now). I could get both of those for about the cost of a single 1D X...and both of those would be more useful to me in a much broader range of situations than just the 1D X.
> ...



;D I live in Colorado. It's actually a fairly decent place for astronomy/astrophotography, as it is rather arid, so few problems with humidity screwing with a telescope. (I think on the best of days we might have 30% humidity, and on most days it is way down around 16%. There have been times when we've had less than 10% humidity.) We have mountains, too, so you can get up to 11,000 feet or more for thinner, clearer air.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Well, that won't work: I'm several states west of you. That telescope looks pretty sweet. How does it do for birds?


----------



## Ivar (Jan 11, 2014)

> Will Canon Answer the D4s? 

As others have pointed out there is not much need in this particular context.

However I wonder about the future strategy of Canon and other (top) camera makers. 

At this point in time I think to have more quantity sold (read: maintain the same levels) more disruptive technologies are needed. A bigger, more expensive and heavier camera must make a difference, a lot of difference to catch the interest. Majority of professionals (who make living of photography) can get easily by less than the top end. Then there are wealthy amateurs. For an average consumer the camera what matters most is the camera what happens to be at hand and that is a "smart"phone. Fortunately most of us (not only having this forum in mind), it gets you there, though it's a different story for the camera makers. Without much effort, it all goes back how it happened to be - small cameras are today's phones and the rest are for a remaining small group, really interested to make the difference. But can you, in the light of the fragmentation in features (all brands included)? It is much easier to give up and just go for the less trouble.


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


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



I have the EF 600 f/4 L IS II for birds.  Which, actually, doubles as a pretty decent, fast, apochromatic refracting telescope in a pinch, as well!  This is far from the greatest photo of Orion Nebula, due to lack of a GEM that can track, but it demonstrates well enough how good the 600/4 can be for astrophotography:







Stack of 30 1.3s ISO 3200 frames.


----------



## 100 (Jan 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I just don't think having that extra two stops of dynamic range is actually quite as important as may photographers thing. It improves editing latitude, that's all it really does. One way or another, the things we view our photographs on...screen and print...have considerably less dynamic range. Screens average 8 stops, print averages 6-7 stops (or even as little as 5 stops). If anyone has tried to print on a low dMax paper with a natural white L*, they would understand how difficult it can be to compress even 11 stops of dynamic range into less than half that. It is not an easy task, and one has to be careful to avoid posterization and color fidelity issues in the shadows, where the available data (even after you remove noise and recover DR in the case of Canon sensors) is "sparse" compared to the midtones and highlights.
> 
> Compressing 13 stops of native dynamic range into 8 stops of screen DR is similar. You can lift the shadows, but beyond a certain point (around 3-4 stops) you run into the same issues...information in those low signal strength areas is sparse...discrete level transitions are often harsh, and ironically, the addition of noise is often the only way to combat posterization. Don't get me wrong, having more DR is useful, but until we have more available dynamic range on screen and in print (both of which I think are coming), being able to push shadows around by 4-6 stops doesn't buy you as much as you might think.
> 
> Pushing around exposure with more dynamic range than your screen is like tonemapping a 32-bit HDR image into 16-bit. You have twice the dynamic range (really, more than that, since 32-bit is floating point...so you have MANY times the dynamic range) as your output target. If you have a lot of shadow tones bunched up at the left end of your histogram, and have done much HDR, you would know how difficult it can be to tonemap all that extra dynamic range into the mere few shadow stops you have in a 16-bit scalar image. It's DIFFICULT! The results usually end up having that "HDR Look", where you end up with funky noise issues, posterization, odd tonal gradients, poor color fidelity, and even tonal inversions in the shadows.



Let’s face it, we all want the best of everything and we complain about the things others have and we don’t have but we think we should have because we paid the same or more money. 
In a decade Canon managed to gain just one stop of dynamic range over the almost 11 stops of the entry level 350D (Rebel XT) I bought in 2005. At the same time the Nikon D70s had little over 10 stops by comparison so Nikon managed to gain 4 stops in the same amount of time. To put that in perspective, if you replace dynamic range by paycheck it’s the difference between double your income (1 stop) or 16 times your income (4 stops). 

I like to do night shots in cities (tripod, low iso, long exposure) so I know pretty well what a couple of stops better dynamic range would bring me. I started doing hdr with my Canon 350D back in 2005 because I didn’t want to push the dark parts of a single frame more than 1 or 2 stops. 
Today with my 5D3 I usually take 7 shots with 2/3 of a stop between each shot at iso’s up to ISO 640. That gives me 4 stops on top of the native DR which is enough in most cases. An example below (7 shot hdr; 24mm; f/8; ISO 320)





These are the kinds of shots 2 or 3 stops more dynamic range would eliminate the need for hdr. 
I know the average photographer doesn’t need 14 stops of DR for most shots, neither do I, but I don’t need ISO 12800 or 1/8000 second for most shots either. What I need (or want) is the range to take all the pictures I need (or want) and I do encounter scenes with 20 stops of DR, so I take every stop I can get.


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Surely that picture has been filled, either by flash or some reflector ?
> 
> I don't see how it can be an example of DR



I wouldn't call it an example of DR. It's an example of how, with the right tools, you can still pull off an insanely contrasty shot with just 12 stops of DR. I don't find it limiting at all. I understand landscape shooters don't have the same luxuries, so the landscape folks can just disregard my commentary as irrelevant  BTW, I love your architectural shots!

Anyhow, it's been interesting reading some of the commentary regarding the image I posted, speculation regarding which techniques were used, and suggestions on what techniques should have been used. The real story is that the image is a bit deceiving in that the car is parked on top of a five-story tall parking structure/car park. In other words, the car is 50 feet off the ground, which makes the sun appear much lower in the sky than it really is, which is another way of saying it was a $hit ton of ambient light when the shot was taken. 

How bright? I used a 5-stop ND grad filter to darken the sky. There's also a circular polarizer on the lens eating up another 1 stop of light. The ambient light is underexposed an additional two stops for several reasons. First off, when balancing ambient light with flash with cars, it never quite looks right with a neutral exposure. I find that I have to underexpose the ambient by at least 1 stop to achieve a pleasing balance of ambient light vs. flash output. Secondly, I reduced the ambient by 1 stop further to create a more moody, high-contrast feel and to gain additional detail in the clouds. In total, the foreground is underexposed by two stops, which is very noticeable on the door and quarter-panel of the car, where there was no fill flash present. The same goes for the concrete, which as we all know is actually white, not gray. 

In total, between the ND grad filters, polarizer, and the intentionally dark exposure, the sky has been darkened a total of 8 stops. Experimenting with darker exposures netted a big loss in could detail with minimal gain in detail around the sun. It's one bright mofo  

The car itself is a very dark metallic gray that looks black. With black cars, you would not believe how much power it takes to defeat the ambient light of the sun during the middle of the day using monolights. They're like blackholes. Obviously, underexposing the ambient by 2 stops only compounds matters, as does shooting at f/8 to achieve the desired level of sharpness from my 70-300L. With two White Lightning 2400 monolights, which are actually 1000ws, I still had to crank up the ISO to 400 to achieve the desired flash output. The big lights also spill onto the foreground, so I took a few exposures with the lights turned off, and layered one of them into the shadow area. 

I'm sure that in the next 1-2 generation of DLSR bodies, we'll have sensors that can pull out five-stops worth of shadow detail. However, I firmly maintain that in a shot like this, the final image that results from using that approach won't look nearly as good. IMHO, in this particular shot there's a big difference in quality between pulling up the shadows vs. adding fill light and highlights with some monolights. If you pulled the shadows, the light on hood, bumper, and wheels would be way too flat and lack any semblance of definition. A more contrasty light source like a monolight fixes this problem. Likewise, the metal flakes embedded into modern metallic automotive paint must be side-lit or back-lit, otherwise they will not reflect any light and therefore the paint color will look dull, muted, and subdued. 

I will always welcome more DR, but even when the day comes when it's possible to lift the shadows by 5 stops, I will still take the same approach to shots like this and bust out the monolights. If I have to choose between good light and lifting shadows, I'll go with good light every single time. 

On a side note, as anyone that lives in a tropical climate will attest, the clouds can roll in and out very quickly. When the clouds quickly rolled in and provided the opportunity to take this shot, I had to scramble to switch lenses, rig up the ND grads, re-position the monolights, and balance out the ambient exposure and flash output. In that sense, I suppose it would have been nice if my camera had so much DR that I didn't need to waste time attaching the ND grads. Nevertheless, I was able to fire off a few frames before the clouds disappeared as quickly as they appeared. 

I'll take all the DR I can get, but in the meantime I'll manage to get by with 12 stops that I've got


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


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



Carrying a telescope for bird pictures is fairly normal.... A lot of people use spotting scopes on tripods to look at birds, and with a cell phone pressed up to the eyepiece (look up digiscoping) yon can get a surprisingly good picture of a stationary bird... Of course it S***S on moving birds and the image quality just does not compare to a real camera and a "big white", but it is fun to experiment with...


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2014)

100 said:


> Let’s face it, we all want the best of everything and we complain about the things others have and we don’t have but we think we should have because we paid the same or more money.



I guess that's one of the things I don't much like about other people. Personally, I have made a lot of effort in my life to be satisfied with what I have, and not complain when "the other guy" ends up with something better. That doesn't mean I don't dream about having something better, I certainly do (I've been dreaming about that Celestron 11" telescope for years! ), but I try very much to avoid the whole "Bitch bitch bitch! You have something better than me!" or "Nah nah na nah nah! I have something better than you do! Haha!" To be quite frank, I find that to be the epitome of childishness...and the thing that really blows? It seems almost EVERYONE is like that!! I don't get it, and it constantly rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps that's why I battle against it so much.

The thing I tend to bitch about is when I feel I've hit a wall with my current technology, and no matter how much I try to work around it, I simply cannot get the results I demand from myself. I literally dropped almost eleven grand on a lens to solve a problem like that. I felt my 100-400mm lens was holding me back. I worked and worked to get better results, but I plateaued. I didn't get a 600mm lens because the other guy had it. I got a 600mm lens because I wanted to keep pushing my own personal envelope. I really could care less about what other people have...it just plain and simply doesn't matter, it's unimportant. What really ultimately matters is what's holding your own personal progress back.

In your case, based on that photo, it seems rather clear that you can indeed benefit from additional dynamic range!



100 said:


> In a decade Canon managed to gain just one stop of dynamic range over the almost 11 stops of the entry level 350D (Rebel XT) I bought in 2005. At the same time the Nikon D70s had little over 10 stops by comparison so Nikon managed to gain 4 stops in the same amount of time. To put that in perspective, if you replace dynamic range by paycheck it’s the difference between double your income (1 stop) or 16 times your income (4 stops).



For the bulk of those years, Nikon went from about 10 stops to about 12 stops. It was only when they decided to stop making their own sensors and use Sony Exmor that they jumped almost another two stops (the D800 and D600 don't actually get 14+ stops of native DR...if you look at the Screen DR measures on DXO, the actual DR, the "hardware" DR before any post processing mucks up the numbers, is 13.2 stops.) Actually, I think the D3x had about 12.8 stops. Sony Exmor gave Nikon that extra 1.2-1.4 stops of DR on average over the ~12 stops they had on average before.

I'd point out that it is still just Sony Exmor that has that much of a dynamic range edge. There are few other sensors on the market that get that much dynamic range at ISO 100. The vast majority, including big name medium format sensors, are still in the 10-12 stops range. It isn't like Canon is lagging behind the whole industry. On the contrary, the whole industry is lagging behind Sony. (Just to keep things in proper perspective.)



100 said:


> I like to do night shots in cities (tripod, low iso, long exposure) so I know pretty well what a couple of stops better dynamic range would bring me. I started doing hdr with my Canon 350D back in 2005 because I didn’t want to push the dark parts of a single frame more than 1 or 2 stops.
> Today with my 5D3 I usually take 7 shots with 2/3 of a stop between each shot at iso’s up to ISO 640. That gives me 4 stops on top of the native DR which is enough in most cases. An example below (7 shot hdr; 24mm; f/8; ISO 320)
> 
> 
> ...



Amazing shot! I like it! This kind of night photography is another area where more DR is certainly an enviable trait to have. Your the type who could probably benefit from a full 16 stops of DR with a true 16-bit sensor, even. 

I would offer that this kind of photography is considerably less common than landscape photography, so it isn't exactly indicative of the most common user. Canon tackles the problems the greatest majority need first. Increasing dynamic range, at least up through the 1D X/5D III, wasn't on the top of most people's lists. I guess the one good thing out of "people being people" and complaining about what they don't have and the other guy does is it might light that fire under Canon and get them to address dynamic range sooner rather than later.

BTW, one question. You mentioned you used 7 frames separated by 2/3rds of a stop for that HDR shot. I'm curious why you didn't simply use -3 stops and +3 stops around 0 EC? Would that not have effectively achieved the same thing, with less work?


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 12, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's a lovely shot and one I really like...but that sky is blown out. An ND grad would render the sky darker and probably lost detail in the darker sky areas. It would have increased contrast where it wasn't wanted. The only way to have fixed this here is to have taken a 2nd photograph but at a 2-3 stop darker exposure and then blended the highlight areas carefully in photoshop using a layer. Shadows can be pulled but clipped highlights are not recoverable. It's also important to render the sky brighter than the foreground, another error I regularly see where ND grads are employed. If an ND grad was used with the above photo, the sky would have been darker than the foreground and wouldn't look right.



It's been a while since I took the shot in question, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but nevertheless I revisited the original CR2 file and darkened the entire exposure 1 stop in post. I don't think the tradeoff in the slight increase in detail around the sun vs. the substantial loss in detail of the clouds is worth it. 











Big, puffy, tropical clouds like this are fickle and have some very fine tonal gradations. It's very difficult to layer in a darker exposure for the sun into a brighter exposure for the clouds. When I've tried it in the past, it looks like $hit. Of course, it's quite possible that my post processing skills are simply lacking.

Besides, I like the blown out sun


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > It's a lovely shot and one I really like...but that sky is blown out. An ND grad would render the sky darker and probably lost detail in the darker sky areas. It would have increased contrast where it wasn't wanted. The only way to have fixed this here is to have taken a 2nd photograph but at a 2-3 stop darker exposure and then blended the highlight areas carefully in photoshop using a layer. Shadows can be pulled but clipped highlights are not recoverable. It's also important to render the sky brighter than the foreground, another error I regularly see where ND grads are employed. If an ND grad was used with the above photo, the sky would have been darker than the foreground and wouldn't look right.
> ...



Your PP skills aren't lacking...trust me. I think you not only have the skills, but I've always found your work to be rather artistic. I love how you enhanced the glare of the sun...not every part of a photo needs to be contrasty and highly detailed. 

Some portrait and wedding photographers THRIVE on low contrast sun glare...it's what they use to give their work that artsy fartsy flair...and personally, I think it looks great. That's what I mean about DR...sometimes, I wonder if people might discover a whole new world of ART if they would look past the "Damn, I've only got 12 stops DR!" and look at the image they have in their hands...they might be amazed with it just how it is...


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Your PP skills aren't lacking...trust me. I think you not only have the skills, but I've always found your work to be rather artistic. I love how you enhanced the glare of the sun...not every part of a photo needs to be contrasty and highly detailed.
> 
> Some portrait and wedding photographers THRIVE on low contrast sun glare...it's what they use to give their work that artsy fartsy flair...and personally, I think it looks great. That's what I mean about DR...sometimes, I wonder if people might discover a whole new world of ART if they would look past the "Damn, I've only got 12 stops DR!" and look at the image they have in their hands...they might be amazed with it just how it is...



I appreciate the kind words. It's definitely not the easiest way the shoot, as you're always fighting lens flare, yet you often have to use a bunch of filters get the contrast under control, which only further increases the potential for flare and additional IQ degradation. This isn't as bad with Canon's long lenses since they have beastly hoods, but my 24-105 is a hopelessly flare-prone piece of glass. 

Honestly, I think I'm using only 5-10 percent of what Photoshop has to offer. I can usually accomplish what I want to in PP, but I'm certain that there are more efficient methods of accomplishing the same thing. There are just so many freakin' tools in Photoshop that I have never even used before. My primary motivation for painstakingly trying to get things right in camera is that I don't particularly enjoy editing images. I'd rather be watching internet porn ;D


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Your PP skills aren't lacking...trust me. I think you not only have the skills, but I've always found your work to be rather artistic. I love how you enhanced the glare of the sun...not every part of a photo needs to be contrasty and highly detailed.
> ...



For your style of shooting, I really don't think more dynamic range is really going to help much. You tend to shoot strait into the sun. Doesn't matter whether you have 14 stops or 16 stops of DR...your scene, from deepest shadows to the sun itself, is going to have well more than 20 stops of DR. For your style, lighting the scene manually is probably the best and maybe only way to do it. But, thats photography. Photo-graphy, light painting. It's ALL about the light, and you can't do any better than directly controlling as many aspects of the light that illuminates your scene yourself. I think your results speak volumes to that.

I just love digging through the portraiture groups on Flickr, 500px, and 1x...you can REALLY TELL the difference when a good portrait photographer skillfully uses light...the differences are phenomenal, and the quality is beyond stunning. Doesn't matter how much dynamic range you have, or how noisy the images are (hell, some still use film!) The difference between portrait shots that did not add and control light, or only minimally controlled it, rarely have the same impact and artistic flare as portrait shots that finely control every aspect of light and shadow in a scene. I've been digging through Flickr's portraits since the days of the 5D classic...and even that camera never seemed to have any problems producing phenomenal results, despite its DR handicap (which is at least two thirds of a stop worse than the 5D III.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> I levy the question again...how many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?
> 
> Privatebydesign offered part of the answer:
> 
> ...



I do, and the number of images I have shot at 100 iso and had to bracket to blend is well in the hundreds, could even be in the thousands. To preempt the question of why don't I use a Nikon instead? Well two more stops would still require a blend and they don't have a TS-E 17.

I am not going to become the new Mikael here, as I already said I am happy to work with what I have even thought here are "better" alternatives available now, but I do find it rather funny that whilst you, jrista, constantly go on about how you, and you seem convinced everybody else too, will benefit from many more MP's, you seem very reluctant to accept peoples opinions when they present exactly the same argument about DR. 

I, for instance, do not want many more MP, I do want increased low iso performance, a lot of my shooting requires it. I appreciate that my requirements might put me in the minority here, but I only speak for myself.


----------



## sanj (Jan 12, 2014)

I will always welcome more DR, but even when the day comes when it's possible to lift the shadows by 5 stops, I will still take the same approach to shots like this and bust out the monolights. If I have to choose between good light and lifting shadows, I'll go with good light every single time. 

[/quote]

Shhhh. You will soon create enemies here.


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I do, and the number of images I have shot at 100 iso and had to bracket to blend is well in the hundreds, could even be in the thousands. To preempt the question of why don't I use a Nikon instead? Well two more stops would still require a blend and they don't have a TS-E 17.



I'd never ask why you don't go to Nikon. ;P And the TS-E 17 is a damn good reason to pick Canon.



jrista said:


> I am not going to become the new Mikael here, as I already said I am happy to work with what I have even thought here are "better" alternatives available now, but I do find it rather funny that whilst you, jrista, constantly go on about how you, and you seem convinced everybody else too, will benefit from many more MP's, you seem very reluctant to accept peoples opinions when they present exactly the same argument about DR.



I happily accept cogent arguments for more DR. My issue is that, across a multitude of forums, it seems MOST canon shooters have started complaining about DR. Ironically, it seems many of them who shoot at high ISO don't quite seem to understand that improved low ISO DR won't actually do a damn bit of good for them. Perhaps I levy my counterarguments too broadly, I don't mean to belittle anyone's legitimate need. I totally understand the desire for more DR when you have a legitimate need. (Hell, I have a legitimate need, and I've held off buying a new Canon camera because I too am interested in seeing what Canon does.)

But I do think the ratio between the volume of Canon shooters who complain about not having the same DR as "that Nikon guy over there", and the number who actually need it (or, for that matter, would understand how to use it if they had it) is far higher than it should be. Perhaps some people are just complaining to get Canon to do something about it...guess there is nothing wrong with that...but still, it feels people complain about it more because "that other guy has it, so I want it too" rather than for a truly legitimate reason. As I mentioned before (or maybe in another thread)...I kind of loath that mentality, always having to one-up the other guy, or bitching and moaning about how the other guys stuff is better than yours. It comes off as so childish. I'm certain I am not the only one who gets that feeling from the DR crowd either (I know for a fact Neuro does.)

I'll try to filter a bit more, debate the "children" when they complain just because they want to scream "me too" without actually having a need, and back up the guys who have a demonstrated need for more DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 12, 2014)

100% agree.

My personal problem area for low iso DR, and one which would only be mitigated, not entirely overcome, with 14 or even 16 stops, is real estate and architecture. Yes, for part of my portfolio I shoot a niche, and I have tried just about every technique out there from tone mapping, blending, layer masks, PS 32bit, Enfuse, HDR, speedlites, studio flash etc etc and still, after all that, I haven't found one that works in every situation. 

For everything else, and I am a generalist, I have very few problems with low iso DR.


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 12, 2014)

sanj said:


> Shhhh. You will soon create enemies here.



I've marveled at your portfolio quite often, and considering the types of subjects that you shoot, if you stated that more DR would be beneficial for the subjects that you shoot, I would certainly wouldn't doubt it. Cars don't care if you flash 2000ws worth of monolights in their faces. I wouldn't dare do the same with zebras and rhinos who would most definitely get scared off, or lions that might get pissed off and decide to eat me


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 100% agree.
> 
> My personal problem area for low iso DR, and one which would only be mitigated, not entirely overcome, with 14 or even 16 stops, is real estate and architecture. Yes, for part of my portfolio I shoot a niche, and I have tried just about every technique out there from tone mapping, blending, layer masks, PS 32bit, Enfuse, HDR, speedlites, studio flash etc etc and still, after all that, I haven't found one that works in every situation.
> 
> For everything else, and I am a generalist, I have very few problems with low iso DR.



I do wonder if we will see 20-24 stops of DR in a stills camera at some point. I know that 20stop plus cinema sensors have been developed by Red. Granted, that is pretty cutting edge and extremely expensive high end 4k cinema gear. But knowing that it's been done, one can't help but wonder if that kind of dynamic range will eventually find it's way into photographer hands.


----------



## sanj (Jan 12, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I will always welcome more DR, but even when the day comes when it's possible to lift the shadows by 5 stops, I will still take the same approach to shots like this and bust out the monolights. If I have to choose between good light and lifting shadows, I'll go with good light every single time.
> ...



I've marveled at your portfolio quite often, and considering the types of subjects that you shoot, if you stated that more DR would be beneficial for the subjects that you shoot, I would certainly wouldn't doubt it. Cars don't care if you flash 2000ws worth of monolights in their faces. I wouldn't dare do the same with zebras and rhinos who would most definitely get scared off, or lions that might get pissed off and decide to eat me 
[/quote]

Hahahaha. 
DR helps people when they cannot fill in with bounce boards or flash, or bracket exposures and fix in post because of handheld situations or moving subjects. I believe there will be lots of such photographers.
DR is not relevant when shooting in controlled situations. I believe there are fewer such photographers. 
(But of course you know this and have stated it above).

Pls be clear: I am not complaining about current DR in Canon sensors, just saying that better DR would be nicer.


----------



## 100 (Jan 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> For the bulk of those years, Nikon went from about 10 stops to about 12 stops. It was only when they decided to stop making their own sensors and use Sony Exmor that they jumped almost another two stops (the D800 and D600 don't actually get 14+ stops of native DR...if you look at the Screen DR measures on DXO, the actual DR, the "hardware" DR before any post processing mucks up the numbers, is 13.2 stops.) Actually, I think the D3x had about 12.8 stops. Sony Exmor gave Nikon that extra 1.2-1.4 stops of DR on average over the ~12 stops they had on average before.



The D3x has 13,65 EV of dynamic range according to DxO and that’s a 2008 camera… 
The big leap was made before 2009, after that it’s “only” about 1 stop. Canon never made the big leap. 



jrista said:


> I'd point out that it is still just Sony Exmor that has that much of a dynamic range edge. There are few other sensors on the market that get that much dynamic range at ISO 100. The vast majority, including big name medium format sensors, are still in the 10-12 stops range. It isn't like Canon is lagging behind the whole industry. On the contrary, the whole industry is lagging behind Sony. (Just to keep things in proper perspective.)



I beg to differ. Nikon uses all kind of sensors. The D7100 has one by Toshiba (13.72 EV) for instance. It’s not only Nikon and Sony, the Pentax K3 has a 13.41 EV sensor and those aren’t even full frame pro camera’s. 
Medium format is a niche market Canon doesn’t compete in, not yet anyway, so let’s leave medium format out of it for now. 



jrista said:


> I would offer that this kind of photography is considerably less common than landscape photography, so it isn't exactly indicative of the most common user. Canon tackles the problems the greatest majority need first. Increasing dynamic range, at least up through the 1D X/5D III, wasn't on the top of most people's lists. I guess the one good thing out of "people being people" and complaining about what they don't have and the other guy does is it might light that fire under Canon and get them to address dynamic range sooner rather than later.



I agree. 



jrista said:


> BTW, one question. You mentioned you used 7 frames separated by 2/3rds of a stop for that HDR shot. I'm curious why you didn't simply use -3 stops and +3 stops around 0 EC? Would that not have effectively achieved the same thing, with less work?



You get a smoother transition particularly in the highlights in night shots if you use more frames closer together. I combine the frames in photoshop to a 32 bit image and “develop” that in ACR. A 32 bit files in ACR let me play with 20 stops DR (-10 to +10). I develop the result to a 16 bit tiff file and tweak that in photoshop. It takes more time but gives me more control over the results than I get with dedicated HDR software like Photomatix Pro.


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2014)

100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > For the bulk of those years, Nikon went from about 10 stops to about 12 stops. It was only when they decided to stop making their own sensors and use Sony Exmor that they jumped almost another two stops (the D800 and D600 don't actually get 14+ stops of native DR...if you look at the Screen DR measures on DXO, the actual DR, the "hardware" DR before any post processing mucks up the numbers, is 13.2 stops.) Actually, I think the D3x had about 12.8 stops. Sony Exmor gave Nikon that extra 1.2-1.4 stops of DR on average over the ~12 stops they had on average before.
> ...



That is after downsampling. Downsampling doesn't do you any good when you are editing RAW images. Dynamic Range improves editing latitude. Since you can only ever edit RAW images at full size, the Print DR spec from DXO is meaningless. You have to look at the Screen DR spec from DXO. Screen DR tends to be a stop or more less than the downsampled statistics. 

Downsampling is only useful for comparing image results from different cameras on a normalize basis. It doesn't actually tell you anything about your RAW post-process editing latitude, and can actually GREATLY exaggerate how flexible your camera's images will be in post. 



100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'd point out that it is still just Sony Exmor that has that much of a dynamic range edge. There are few other sensors on the market that get that much dynamic range at ISO 100. The vast majority, including big name medium format sensors, are still in the 10-12 stops range. It isn't like Canon is lagging behind the whole industry. On the contrary, the whole industry is lagging behind Sony. (Just to keep things in proper perspective.)
> ...



I'll keep medium format in the mix if I please, thank you very much!  With the likes of the D800 and A7r, it becomes ever more relevant to include medium format, which used to be the ONLY way to get 30-40 megapixels. As for your DR numbers, read my response above...that is only when downsampling. Actual hardware DR as it pertains to real-world editing latitude is much less. There are only a couple cameras on the market that actually break the 13-stop DR barrier, and none yet, to my knowledge, that actually reach 14 stops exactly. It is impossible to have more than 14 stops of actual real-world DR with DSLRs because we only have 14-bit AD converters. To achieve a true 14-stop DR at ISO 100, you would literally have to have zero noise (which isn't even possible at -80°C). I think there may be a medium format camera or two that uses a 16-bit ADC, however that clearly hasn't done them any good, as they are all still limited to around 11-12 stops of DR due to read noise.

It looks like the D7100 actually does get up there, though. ScreenDR is 12.9 stops, which is actually pretty impressive for a non-Exmor sensor. The K3 gets 12.6 stops, which is getting there. 



100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, one question. You mentioned you used 7 frames separated by 2/3rds of a stop for that HDR shot. I'm curious why you didn't simply use -3 stops and +3 stops around 0 EC? Would that not have effectively achieved the same thing, with less work?
> ...



Hmm, so you are actually creating a 32-bit float TIFF, then passing it through ACR? Any chance you have or could write a tutorial on that? As in how you actually combine the frames and all. Using ACR to tonemap sounds WAY better than using that crummy little HDR tool Photoshop has, which makes tonemapping a real PITA. I stopped bothering with HDR a while ago because of how difficult it is to use either Photoshops HDR or Photomatix Pro and really get the kind of results I want from tonemapping. ACR is far more intuitive with its controls, and would be immensely more effective, I think. I'd love to get back into making HDR landscapes, especially if I can extract the same kind of quality you did with that bridge shot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2014)

I use the 32bit technique a lot.

Shooting and creating photo real HDR

You can edit them in LR5 too, all the power and controls of ACR with 100% history.


----------



## jrista (Jan 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I use the 32bit technique a lot.
> 
> Shooting and creating photo real HDR
> 
> You can edit them in LR5 too, all the power and controls of ACR with 100% history.



Thanks! That's actually really awesome, and extremely strait forward. I had no idea ACR would open a 32bit TIFF and give you 20 stops of editing latitude. Well, I'm going to have to play with that once spring and summer roll around, and I'm able to get back into landscapes. This is basically the kind of HDR editing I've always wanted, ironic that it was right at my fingertips...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 13, 2014)

I do something a little different. I try to contain the whole contrast range in a single frame if possible.
If not, I'll shoot two or three frames to contain the range needed and then edit in LR, 16 bit files exported into CS5. These I lay over each other as layers and then I use a large soft eraser / brush and work on the layers until I get an image with no blown highlights or blocked up blacks....but still looks natural and simualr to how my eye remembers the scene.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2014)

It isn't a panacea, and as I said in my reply a few days ago, I use it along with many other techniques. The key is to capture the information at the highest quality you can, then find the best way to present that information.

My top three methods for interiors with problematic exterior light levels are; 1, bring the light up in the room with strobes, this can look ok if the room is smaller and the architectural lighting is not a key element to the actual space. 2, layer mask in PS. 3, PS 32bit. 

I often end up using a combination of all three but will bracket the hell out of the scene to guarantee I have all the information in front of me. 

On one thread about HDR techniques many months ago I wrote about all the different kinds of blending, HDR, etc techniques and posted a same image comparison, but it is one of many hundreds of my posts that disappeared for no known reason. It was funny, the thread was basically about Photomatix and how horrible it was, yet my Photomatix HDR rendition, not the blend, was very popular and showed none of the comedy HDR look we are all so familiar with. Photomatix is an extremely powerful program and has recently been updated, skilful use of it can make remarkably subtle images now.

This again highlights another aspect of forum anxiety, I regularly shoot in situations where I am severely low iso DR limited, not just by my Canon's DR range even the mighty D800 wouldn't help much, because of that I have fully explored all the techniques available to mitigate that and am aware of how to work around it. Meanwhile other posters are adamant there is no DR "issue". However, I am not placing myself on a higher plane, I am a noise nazi, can't stand it, as far as I am concerned even a 7D at base is too noisy, but only because I haven't fully explored every noise reduction technique to satisfy myself, because it is not a priority for me. For the birders out there who have to shoot at >800iso they do prioritise that technique so don't understand my frustration at low levels of noise. Yes I have Topaz etc, but you can't know everything about every technique, and as far as end result, what is acceptable to one person might not be to another.


----------



## jrista (Jan 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It isn't a panacea, and as I said in my reply a few days ago, I use it along with many other techniques. The key is to capture the information at the highest quality you can, then find the best way to present that information.
> 
> My top three methods for interiors with problematic exterior light levels are; 1, bring the light up in the room with strobes, this can look ok if the room is smaller and the architectural lighting is not a key element to the actual space. 2, layer mask in PS. 3, PS 32bit.
> 
> ...



Well, there can most definitely be DR issues in many kinds of scenes. Photographing interiors is probably the best way to exacerbate dynamic range to the ultimate limits. If that's what you do, you should be screaming for Canon to reduce read noise to less than 1e-, and demand full 16-bit output with 20 stops of DR.  

As for the 7D, by todays standards, there isn't any question it's a noisy little bugger. It's sweet spot is ISO 400-1600, it does rather poorly at ISO 100 and pretty badly at ISO 3200. It isn't TERRIBLY far behind modern APS-C cameras, however it really lags pretty far behind modern FF cameras. Between the 7D and 5D III or 6D, the difference in noise is so massive, it's almost painful. Part of that is due to the 7D having smaller pixels, part of it has to do with the strong AA filter (softer detail is more prone to being perceptually noisier, vs. sharper detail with is perceived as less noisy, even when they technically have the same amounts of noise)...however the 7D's pixels seem to have a particularly low full well capacity. At 4.3µm the FWC is 20187e-, where as the 70D with even smaller pixels has a FWC of 26726e-. The difference in Q.E. is a mere 4%, where as the difference in full well capacity is 32%! I am not sure what Canon did with the 70D sensor, but they have clearly made some fairly significant advancements with their sensor fabrication as far as efficiently utilizing the minimal amount of space they have. I would love to see ChipWorks break down the 70D sensor design...a die shrink to 180nm from 500nm could account for the necessary increase in surface area to support a higher FWC. 

Even more impressive is the D7100, which as a FWC of 29236e- for pixels that are even smaller than the 70D. Again, the difference in Q.E. is relatively small, 11%, but the difference in charge capacity is huge, 45%! Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor simply wasn't really a thing of wonder...never really has been. It's surprising it's survived as long as it has in as many cameras as it has, given it's rather lackluster low-level specs. I am hoping the 70D sensor becomes the new standard for low end DSLRs and the EOS-M. I also sincerely hope the 7D II gets a sensor with a FWC in the 30,000e- range at 24mp...that would help immensely with the noise issues.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't a panacea, and as I said in my reply a few days ago, I use it along with many other techniques. The key is to capture the information at the highest quality you can, then find the best way to present that information.
> ...



Another brilliant post, jrista! 
Learning a lot from you, neuro, Mt Spokane and others. Thank you all.
Daniel


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> It is impossible to have more than 14 stops of actual real-world DR with DSLRs because we only have 14-bit AD converters.



At the risk of looking like an idiot, I confess I don't quite follow this. I've never examined de-mosaic algorithms, but I haven't assumed that they are limited to weighted averages of adjacent photosites. I've always assumed that a de-mosaic algorithm could choose to include some "addition." In other words, that the resultant pixel RGB values could be scaled up to accommodate adjacent photosites that are (nearly) maxed out or nearly-zero. By analogy, it's the difference between rolling two dice and averaging, vs. rolling two dice and adding.

Certainly an individual photosite can't have more DR than permitted by its physical characteristics, but I don't see why the resultant post-demosaic scale can't, as it were, "go up to 11."


----------



## jrista (Jan 14, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It is impossible to have more than 14 stops of actual real-world DR with DSLRs because we only have 14-bit AD converters.
> ...



That would be post-demosaic, though. I mean, we can downsample images and gain DR as well...but again, post-demosaic. Our editing latitude in a tool like Lightroom comes from editing the RAW image. The RAW is effectively a digital signal, and we push that signal around with the exposure, highlight and shadow sliders, the tone curve, etc. Once you "rasterize" that digital signal, your editing latitude disappears. If you've ever tried to push a 16-bit TIFF around the same way you push a RAW around, you would understand how much you lose by converting to an RGB image...you lose a LOT. So, technically speaking, you could gain a stop or more of dynamic range simply by downsampling...however in order to downsample, you have to demosaic the RAW...and you lose your editing latitude. You have less noise, but you don't have quite the editability you once did.

In the statement of mine you quited, I was speaking about the hardware aspects of a camera. The RAW, as it comes strait out of a DSLR, is limited in terms of dynamic range, by the bit depth of the ADC. If you have a 14-bit ADC, you can't have more than 14 stops of DR...and to actually achieve 14 stops of DR, you would require a zero noise floor. Not even Sony Exmor has a zero noise floor, which is why DXO's "Screen DR" measure says 13.2 stops, rather than 14.4 stops, of dynamic range. DXO Screen DR is effectively a direct measure of the hardware capabilities...Print DR is a measure of a post-processed image (and, to be quite frank, we don't know exactly what kind of processing is used to produce the 12mp normalized "print" image they measure Print DR from...so it is, IMO, a sketchy measure.)

For all intents and purposes, until we have 16-bit ADC, the theoretical maximum hardware DR of a camera is 14 stops, and due to noise, the actual realizable dynamic range is going to be less than 14 stops.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> That would be post-demosaic
> (snip)
> If you've ever tried to push a 16-bit TIFF around the same way you push a RAW around,



But isn't everything on a Bayer sensor post-demosaic? You can use your slider settings as parameters to your demosaic algorithm, but you still have to demosaic the raw file to have an "image" rather than "data." E.g. a very intense, pure-green light will show as (near) zero on a red-filtered photosite.



> downsample



I get the downsample thing, and I don't dispute that.



> how much you lose by converting to an RGB image...you lose a LOT.



Seems to me this could have more to do with round-off error than raw vs. TIFF. I'm not, by any measure, an expert in Photoshop, but maybe I'll try "pushing around" a TIFF file using adjustment layers vs. old-style hard edits.



> In the statement of mine you quited, I was speaking about the hardware aspects of a camera. The RAW, as it comes strait out of a DSLR, is limited in terms of dynamic range, by the bit depth of the ADC.



I guess this is another item I don't quite get: I'd assume "hardware" DR would be limited by the fwc and read noise, rather than the ADC. You could always have an ADC whose digital output does not fall on EV boundaries, being either coarser or finer. E.g., the 20D has fwc of about 51,400e (per Clarkvision) but has 12-bit ADC. The 7D has fwc of about 24,800e (per Clarkvision) but has a 14-bit ADC. If I understand correctly, this should give the 7D finer gradation, but not necessarily more hardware DR. (all dependent on noise, of course)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 14, 2014)

Re the linked video above, you don't need CS6, CS5 will do it too but you can't open the file it creates in PS5, you can in LR5.

So, CS5 + LR5 and 32 bit works as you can edit the file in LR, 32 bit compatibility was added to LR5. LR4 and CS6, same thing, you just open the file in CS6 but can "store" it in LR4 and open the original files to remap in LR4.

CS6 and LR5 and you are golden, you can adjust the file anywhere. When you have a 32 bit file in LR5 the exposure slider changes to +/-10, the other sliders stay the same values.


----------



## jrista (Jan 14, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That would be post-demosaic
> ...



No. When you edit a raw, most of the exposure settings, white balance, and a number of other things are applied to the RAW data. Demosaicing converts the results of that initial processing on the RAW into an image that can be displayed on screen. Other settings, such as sharpening, occur after demosaicing (which is partly why sharpening in a RAW editor can have such a great impact on increasing noise.) Some raw editors apply wavelet denoise algorithms on the RAW, and a couple tools like Topaz DeNoise apply some pre and some post demosaic denoise if you apply it to the raw.

Most RAW settings are applied pre- or during- demosaic, and some are applied after. Demosaicing, during RAW editing, is near the end of the pipeline that repeatedly renders, realtime, a RAW image on screen. If you export to a TIFF, this same pipeline is used to render to a file rather than to the screen. Any edits on the TIFF, from that point on, are obviously on RGB data.



Orangutan said:


> > downsample
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't really matter if you use old style edits or adjustment layers. Once demosaiced, you lose your editing latitude. It's like using sRAW or mRAW in Canon cameras...you can push exposure around a bit, but you lose a lot of editing latitude. Where before you might be able to shift exposure up or down by five stops without encountering attenuation limitations or artifacts, with sRAW, you can only push exposure around a couple stops before you run into problems. TIFF is the same deal...you can push levels and curves around a bit, but attenuate too much, and you run into problems. 



Orangutan said:


> > In the statement of mine you quited, I was speaking about the hardware aspects of a camera. The RAW, as it comes strait out of a DSLR, is limited in terms of dynamic range, by the bit depth of the ADC.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is another item I don't quite get: I'd assume "hardware" DR would be limited by the fwc and read noise, rather than the ADC. You could always have an ADC whose digital output does not fall on EV boundaries, being either coarser or finer. E.g., the 20D has fwc of about 51,400e (per Clarkvision) but has 12-bit ADC. The 7D has fwc of about 24,800e (per Clarkvision) but has a 14-bit ADC. If I understand correctly, this should give the 7D finer gradation, but not necessarily more hardware DR. (all dependent on noise, of course)



Well, depends on what you consider hardware. If you are thinking purely sensor, then yes, DR is limited by FWC and read noise. According to some of Roger Clark's older work with Canon gear, their sensors themselves have actually been capable of around 15 stops of dynamic range for a while. The intrinsic read noise component from dark current in a Canon sensor is pretty low, only a couple electrons. Canon CDS technology, built into their sensors, is very good. However, the more significant component of read noise in Canon cameras comes from downstream sources. One of those sources is their high frequency off-die ADC units themselves, which probably consume about a stop or so worth of DR alone. Canon also has a downstream amplifier, used in a variety of situations, which also has the potential to add read noise. Shipping an analog signal along a bus is also another opportunity for noise to be introduced. Total read noise would be an amalgamation of noise from all these sources, not just the sensor itself. 

When I refer to hardware DR, I am referring to this entire processing pipeline in the camera. I'd say Sensor DR if I meant just the sensor, but hardware DR is what you get out of the sensor + bus + downstream junk + ADC + DSP. Since the ADC is 14 bits, and the output is digital rather than analog, your implicitly limited to 14 stops, regardless of what the sensor itself might actually be capable of. Your quantizing the analog sensor information, with a cap on the maximum quantization value. If Canon can solve their downstream noise problems, if their intrinsic dark current noise from the sensor really is as low as 1.5-2e- after CDS, then I think Canon could actually benefit from 16-bit ADC. We might be able to get as much as 15.6 stops of DR out of Canon's current sensor tech.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 14, 2014)

jrista said:



> RAW



Thanks for the extended response. I'm not quite convinced, but I'll chew on it a while.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Jan 15, 2014)

I think the bigger question is - Does Canon Even Need to Answer the D4s...
(btw: if naming convention holds up the D4s will not be any significant increase in mp, if any at all, so it is not going to be a 'pro-body' D800 - just improvements Nikon feels worthy of a different model name)

If we look at Canon's current lineup of top tier bodies (1Dx, 5DmkIII, 6D, 70D, T5i) they all outsell their competitors offerings. While Canon surely wants to advance the technology as much as the next brand, it comes down to dollar and cents in the end.. and it is there that Canon continues to hold the lead. So other than bragging rights to some ambiguous scoring service there is actually little reason for Canon to worry about a specific brand or model they already outsell...

Not everyone will agree with this but as for the other argument - DR! - well it is not as significant or as necessary as many believe. By that I mean while a generous range can provide flexibility and creativity in certain situations it is of limited use. A properly or creatively exposed shot can relieve the need for 14 stop post processing as there would be no 'need' for it to begin with. To give an example: If Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc were to develop a sensor that captured every scene with well lit shadows, exaggerated colors, exaggerated contrast, a complete dream like scene with 50-stops of DR, and no more leeway for processing because the sensor has already captured and reproduced everything there is to be seen - people would still complain about the lack of stops they have in post as a must have, must design etc.

Isn't photography the art/science/creativity of capturing light and shadow?? If the scene being captured has shadows you cannot see into with your eye then there is no 'need' to remove the shadows in development/print, actually doing so tends to ruin the feel of the scene most of the time. It is true that there is an interest/intrigue in an image that looks the way you see the world in a dream - where everything is lit by some magical indirect lighting coming from every direction - but as it is not the way we see the world in real life it will always be a method of processing, a fad, an interest that comes and goes.. It is not something a camera manufacturer need redesign their products around. It is simply not something 'needed' to the point that people fret over 1,2,3 stops difference between this model or that brand.

We would all be better served by a sensor that produces noise free images through the ISO range, even if it did not capture any more than 11 stops of DR, and I mean without downsampling, without film-like-grain, and without 3x the post processing.. I personally would not care if Canon ever squeaked out another stop of DR as long as they work towards ISO 100 performance at >6400 ISO...


----------



## mkabi (Jan 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you guys still remember this :
> ...



Canon didn't exactly create it, but then again by this guys standards, Nikon is about 3 years too late:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/29/canon-ae-1-program-slr-gets-a-digital-retrofit/


----------



## jrista (Jan 15, 2014)

SiliconVoid said:


> I think the bigger question is - Does Canon Even Need to Answer the D4s...
> (btw: if naming convention holds up the D4s will not be any significant increase in mp, if any at all, so it is not going to be a 'pro-body' D800 - just improvements Nikon feels worthy of a different model name)
> 
> If we look at Canon's current lineup of top tier bodies (1Dx, 5DmkIII, 6D, 70D, T5i) they all outsell their competitors offerings. While Canon surely wants to advance the technology as much as the next brand, it comes down to dollar and cents in the end.. and it is there that Canon continues to hold the lead. So other than bragging rights to some ambiguous scoring service there is actually little reason for Canon to worry about a specific brand or model they already outsell...
> ...




You clearly don't understand the primary source of noise. It is impossible to have ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400, while still having comparable sensor resolution to sensors of today. "Noise" is a general term that refers to ALL noise in an image. NOT all noise in an image is from the camera's electronics. Noise caused by camera electronics is called read noise, however read noise only affects the deep shadows, and it is generally only present to a relatively significant degree at lower ISO settings. You are also missing the fact that dynamic range is relative to noise. Eliminate noise, and you effectively have infinite dynamic range (or, in the case of a digitized result, you gain the maximum dynamic range up to your bit depth...whatever that may be...14bits/14stops, 16bits/16stops, 1024bits/1024stops.) 

The primary source of noise, by a very significant margin, is photon shot noise. This noise is present in the analog image signal itself, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the camera. The amount of photon shot noise is approximated by SQRT(Signal), so as signal strength drops (which is what happens when you crank up ISO), the ratio of noise to signal increases. Canon cannot fix that. Canon, as well as every other camera and sensor manufacturer on the planet, have absolutely no control over that. You will never have ISO 100 performance at very high ISO settings like ISO 6400. For that matter, even ISO 100 has noise...its less, but noise is always present in every signal, regardless of what the ISO setting is.

Even if Canon reduced megapixel count to 1mp, and greatly increased pixel size, you are STILL not going to have ISO 100 like performance...it'll be a lot better, but it will still be noisy relative to the image size, because the total signal strength at ISO 6400 is still the same, it's just spread out across fewer pixels with larger capacities. Reducing megapixel count is largely no different than downsampling. You gather more photons per pixel...you lose detail (in the case of a 1mp sensor, a LOT of detail), but you have less apparent noise. ISO 100 noise levels drop right along with ISO 6400 noise levels, so even though ISO 6400 is better, ISO 100 is that much better, too! If you take this concept to its ultimate conclusion, you eventually arrive at a one-pixel sensor of infinite size...that would be the only way to actually eliminate noise at all ISO settings...but, it's entirely impractical and implausible.

You MUST make a trade off. More megapixels, more per-pixel noise, fewer megapixels, less per-pixel noise. Doesn't matter if you reduce sensor pixel count, or downsample in post, either way, it's the same tradeoff. Assuming we stick with current technology, we could DOUBLE quantum efficiency for all sensors that have less than 50% (which isn't that many these days, most sensors are 49-51% Q.E. at least now). If we double quantum efficiency, and leave pixel size the same, that only means that ISO 6400 is now as good as ISO 3200. At the same time, ISO 100 got a stop better as well! It is now as good as a native ISO 50 would have been on a sensor with a Q.E. of 50%. Once were at 100% Q.E. (also technically infeasible...at best we could get somewhere around 90% or so with extreme cooling to -80°C), that's it...we cannot improve quantum efficiency any more. ISO 6400, for that sensor resolution, is the best it's going to be without taking some radical departure from standard sensor designs. 

Some patents exist, like color splitting filters, as an alternative to color filter arrays. This might get you another half stop or so. So, ISO 6400 might look as good as ISO 2500. Maybe we employ some kind of layered photodiode...its been done in Foveon-type sensors, however its tricky and the impact on noise is minimal in practice. We might gain another half stop...so ISO 6400 now looks like ISO 1600. Back-illuminated sensor design might get us a small fraction of a stop for pixel sizes as big as they are in DSLRs...it wouldn't be worth the added fabrication costs. That about exhausts the extreme measures we could take to improve ISO 6400. Our sensors will now probably cost a good three to four times as much as they did if we employ all of these techniques...all for two stops of ISO improvement. Were still a long, long ways from ISO 6400 looking anything remotely as good as ISO 100, however...and there is still that nagging little fact that every time we improve ISO 6400, we also improve ISO 100. We never actually achieve the goal of normalizing noise at all ISO settings, because anything we do to make ISO 6400 better makes all the other ISO settings better as well.

It doesn't matter what you do, there is no normalizing the noise levels of different ISO settings. There will always be noise, at all ISO settings, and noise will increase as the square root of the signal as ISO is increased, because that's simply how the physics works. It is impossible to have the same levels of noise at all ISO settings. It's a matter of physics, not technology. We can't break the laws of physics. And they are already bent pretty far with current sensor technology...it is nothing short of amazing that we get the kind of IQ we currently do out of small form factor sensors with 1100nm pixels...that is as small as a wavelength of deep infrared light!!

Now, contrary to the issues above with eliminating all noise at all ISO settings, camera manufacturers DO have control over how much noise their electronics generate. They don't have total control, some things are still beyond their control...for example, we cannot completely eliminate dark current noise, but we can reduce it with CDS (Correlated Double Sampling), and we can greatly reduce it even more by cooling sensor circuitry to temperatures well below zero (-80°C is the sweet spot for power vs. dark current reduction). We can reorganize circuitry, move high frequency components into isolated areas on the die, increase parallelism and reduce operating frequency, and probably a whole host of other things that are currently being discovered or have yet to be discovered that give us control over read noise.

By controlling read noise, we reduce the thing that is actually eating away at dynamic range at lower ISO settings. Canon sensors are not limited to 11 stops of DR. Actually, according to some older studies done by I believe Roger Clark of Clarkvision, when we ignore downstream sources of read noise, Canon's current sensors are likely capable of over 15 stops of dynamic range in analog space. That dynamic range is REDUCED by read noise, which includes noise from dark current as well as noise from high frequency components downstream of the sensor. Canon technically has a lot of options when it comes to reducing this source of noise...hence the reason low ISO dynamic range is a highly contentious point with Canon users. Many manufacturers in the CIS industry have started moving past the 11-12 stop "barrier" that used to be the limit throughout the first half or so of the last decade. Several manufacturers are achieving more than 12 stops of DR at ISO 100, and one has achieved over 13 stops of DR at ISO 100. All of them have achieved that by reducing read noise.

So sorry...but Canon cannot eliminate all noise. Simply not possible. Canon CAN reduce the noise their camera electronics are introducing into the low end of the image signal, however that will do little to affect ISO 6400 performance. Even assuming we employ all the best known options for improving literal light sensitivity on the sensor, outside of GREATLY reducing pixel count (by a factor of two or more, which is really just the same as downsampling), we MIGHT get another two stops of noise performance before we hit an impenetrable brick wall. That still leaves us at least four stops away from having ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400. Assuming the trend towards higher megapixel counts continues, that will only continue to diminish performance at ISO 6400, meaning any technological improvements to improve light sensitivity will only restore ISO 6400 noise performance to the level of sensors with fewer megapixels.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> ... Assuming the trend towards higher megapixel counts continues, that will only continue to diminish performance at ISO 6400, meaning any technological improvements to improve light sensitivity will only restore ISO 6400 noise performance to the level of sensors with fewer megapixels.



while I really like to read all your insights I would still like to question your last sentence here a bit:

Has not the D800 sensor (+ electronics) proven, that it is possible to improve on both targets - resolution AND image quality [at low and high ISO] ... at the same time? The D800 has dramatically more resolution than the preceding D700 and still better (less visible noise and more DR, color fidelity) at ISO 6400. 

While there obviously is some tradeoff between resolution, low-ISO IQ (DR, noise/banding) and hi-ISO IQ it seem that with innovative approaches all 3 corners of the triangle can be pushed forward. SOny (+ Nikon) have been able to do this and get products to market that deliver the goods to customers, while Canon has been lagging for some time by now. Canon has managed to only push 1 corner of this triangle: hi-ISO image-quality - but not resolution and low-ISO IQ. And even in the Hi-ISO IQ, Canon's sensors are definitely not really superior to Nikon/Sony sensors: 1DX sensor is really only marginally ahead of the D800 from ISO 3200 upwards and probably not at ahead of the D4. 

As far as I am concered, that is the main source of "relative discontent" with Canon compared to Nikon (/Sony) when discussing sensor performance. 

My feeling is, that Canon up to now really is UNABLE to match Nikon/Sony sensor performance, rather than UNWILLING to do so - or intentionally "holding back", saving improvements for future products.


----------



## jrista (Jan 15, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ... Assuming the trend towards higher megapixel counts continues, that will only continue to diminish performance at ISO 6400, meaning any technological improvements to improve light sensitivity will only restore ISO 6400 noise performance to the level of sensors with fewer megapixels.
> ...



The D800 is no better at high ISO than any other camera. My post was specifically addressing the notion that you could flatten the noise curve, or even eliminate noise. You can't. It is IMPOSSIBLE to simultaneously have ISO 100 and ISO 6400 perform the same. Cannot happen. If you reduce the quantity of light, the ratio of noise to signal will increase, simple as that...and that has nothing to do with the hardware, that is an attribute of gathering light. 

The D800 did exactly what I said Canon could do: Reduce read noise. That's it. Sony Exmore has 3e- read noise at all ISO settings, which is why its LOW ISO settings are better. Canon has a non-linear read noise curve. In the case of the 5D III, for example, it is 33e- at ISO 100, 18.2e- at ISO 200, 10.6e- at ISO 400, and 6e- at ISO 800. After that it drops to 3e- and below. Canon needs to eliminate their read noise, and they will gain Low ISO DR as a result. But Canon can't really do anything to make ISO 6400 have the same amount of total noise as ISO 100, and they have very limited options to reduce high ISO noise in general (which is done by increasing signal strength, which allows for a reduction in gain, which is directly what impacts photon shot noise...but we are talking fractional changes here, nothing significant or particularly substantial.)

All cameras currently on the market that have pixels that fall into certain size ranges are going to have similar high ISO performance. There isn't even the option of making them significantly different, because it is a matter of physical limitations, not technological. Canon has a lead when it comes to high ISO performance over SoNikon right now, however it is marginal. The primary reason Canon has the lead is generally larger pixels, and better CDS (Canon's high ISO read noise can be less than 2e-, where as with SoNikon sensors it is usually closer to 3e-.) The D800 has visibly worse high ISO performance than any Canon sensor (especially the 6D, and except the old 18mp APS-C) due to its use of smaller pixels. And that is entirely expected by the theory...high ISO is limited by physics, and how that limit affects noise is ultimately guided by FWC...of which the D800 has 33% less of compared to the 5D III (and 41% less than the 6D).


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 18, 2014)

Jrista, without quoting that long post...do you honestly think it's possible for a DSLR to have its sensor cooled to -80 C? How would that be done in a DSLR?


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Jrista, without quoting that long post...do you honestly think it's possible for a DSLR to have its sensor cooled to -80 C? How would that be done in a DSLR?



Active cooling is actually done quite frequently today with high end astrophotography cameras. They use dual stage peltier (TE/TEC, or ThermoElectric) cooling. Peltiers are very thin electronic heat pumps, being simply an array of N and P type silicon sandwiched between two ceramic plates (one "cold" plate and one "hot" plate, heat is pumped from the cold side to the hot side). It would be easy to fit a peltier into existing DSLR bodies without anyone being the wiser (with the exception of increased heat output, as the peltier generates it's own heat along with drawing out heat from whatever is attached to it's cold side.) Now, with most astrophoto cameras, the delta-T they aim for is around 50°C. On an average night, the temperatures drop to somewhere around -10° to -20°, however the really high end ones can cool much more effectively with delta-T over 60°. On a cold night, CCD temp with a really good astrocam can get to below -75°. Most cooled astrocams also employ low noise fans to actively cool a heat sink or heat pipe attached to the hot side of the upper peltier and actively exhaust heat...something similar could be done with a DSLR. 

Professional scientific grade CCD cameras used in professional astrophotography, microscopy, etc. use much more significant measures to cool. Professional scientific grade CCD cameras are usually cooled to at least -80°C. In some cases, temperatures are pushed below -125°C, and I've even heard of some scientific grade equipment operating in superconducting conditions at nearly absolute zero (however once you move past -80°C, the cost of maintaining temperature becomes excessively prohibitive.)

In the case of a DSLR, at some point I see some kind of peltier based cooling becoming necessary. At some point, we are going to exhaust the material options, when we've employed things like black silicon, color splitting in favor of color filtration arrays, and maybe even some kind of layered photodiode approach to increase maximum charge capacity per pixel. To continue improving (and at that point, low ISO will be about as good as it can get, so all the improvements will have to occur at the high ISO end), without reducing megapixel count, we will need to reduce dark current noise in the electronics themselves. The most effective way to reduce dark current once CDS is employed is to cool the sensor. 

Even for a relatively cheap $2000 astrocam with dual-stage peltier cooling, average dark current drops from around 5e- to 0.02e-, and better ones can be had for $4000 to $10,000 where dark current drops to as little as 0.01e- to 0.008e-. At 0.01e-, you release one electron worth of noise for every 100 electrons released by photons. Today, average read noise at high ISO is around 3e- or so, so cooling could gain us a fair amount of real-world high ISO sensitivity. Even at medium ISO settings, where dark current can still be as high as 5-10e-, could benefit from cooling. Extreme cooling could even be an option to reduce ISO 100 noise as well, albeit at a power cost. 

On the notion of power consumption, that would certainly be a hurdle to overcome. Power cells would have to be far more efficient, and certainly hold more capacity, than even the most capable camera batteries of today. I suspect some kind of fuel cell technology would need to be employed to make extreme peltier cooling a reality for high ISO shooters. Fuel cell tech has come a long way recently, and I suspect at some point camera manufacturers will probably switch to them anyway. Thermoelectric cooling could be a user-selectable option as well, and the peltier could be activated automatically on demand if it is enabled so that it does not constantly draw power.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Jrista, without quoting that long post...do you honestly think it's possible for a DSLR to have its sensor cooled to -80 C? How would that be done in a DSLR?
> ...



But is this realistic? How much would it add to the cost?

I've been familiar with cooling used on CCD cameras for astrophotography for a long time. Which is why I asked if it was realistic or feasible to do it in a DSLR.


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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



Peltiers are super cheap. As for powering them, that's where cost would probably come in...they draw quite a bit of power. I'm not sure what the actual cost might be, but it wouldn't be the most significant cost in the camera, not by a long shot.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 18, 2014)

jrista said:


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



So the problem would be getting a giant lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner and letting that dangle from a strap below the camera?


----------



## Eldar (Jan 18, 2014)

A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :



Indeed...


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :



You would only run the low risk of bursting into flames, it'll be ok. And worth it, for 0.01e- read noise.  

I do suspect, however, that viable fuel cells the size of current batteries will arrive soon enough. And provide much more power. They will probably cost a good bit more than the average battery, but such is the price of progress, I guess...


----------



## SiliconVoid (Jan 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> You clearly don't understand the primary source of noise. It is impossible to have ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400, while still having comparable sensor resolution to sensors of today. "Noise" is a general term that refers to ALL noise in an image. NOT all noise in an image is from the camera's electronics. Noise caused by camera electronics is called read noise, however read noise only affects the deep shadows, and it is generally only present to a relatively significant degree at lower ISO settings. You are also missing the fact that dynamic range is relative to noise. Eliminate noise, and you effectively have infinite dynamic range (or, in the case of a digitized result, you gain the maximum dynamic range up to your bit depth...whatever that may be...14bits/14stops, 16bits/16stops, 1024bits/1024stops.)



On the contrary, I am well aware of where noise is introduced, both as a consequence of design as well as the increased gain to have a sensor simulate higher ISO sensitivities..
However do not be mislead in the assumption that the digital sensors in modern cameras in any way represent the cutting edge of digital imaging - they do not - they are not even close. Unfortunately real cutting edge technologies result in million dollar digital imaging equipment that is of course not cost effective to build into a consumer product. Additionally do not assume what we know about physics today is all there is in the universe, our knowledge and conceptual understanding of physics has been challenged many times over through human history. Your response asserts your comprehension of imaging technology is limited to any single wafer sensor design, and additionally those limited by todays consumer technology… The Hubble telescope for example can resolve more detail than the D800, with greater dynamic range, and all at much higher ISO ranges because that is what is was designed to do regardless of cost as it was not intended to be a consumer product - yet its total mp count is a mere 5.1mp. It does however use multiple sensors to capture the analog data which is then put back together to produce an image, but clearly showing that 'more mp' is not the only approach to image quality.
In dslr sensor design there are several immediate approaches that could be researched, one being a sensor that is designed to operate at a base signal amplification much higher than current technology (~300 ISO) resulting in a base ISO sensitivity of say around 3200, with the greater gain adjustment at the lower sensitivity end as opposed to current implementation, and only a small increase in gain to achieve 6400-12800. Textbook physics tell us that such an approach would not leave enough signal strength at ISO 100 sensitivity to get readable data (again thinking we know everything about physics) but that could be countered by charging and reading fewer photosites at lower sensitivity settings. Then increasing the number of photo sites charged and read at the higher ISO range. That would of course mean the resolution output of the camera is lower at lower ISO settings and higher at higher ISO settings, or it could simply be set to output say 15mp images during ASIC processing regardless of the actual mp count of the sensor.. There would of course be a massive number of consumers who would feel cheated in some way in buying a 45mp camera that only outputs 15mp images, but hey people are buying a 36mp camera today that has to be downsampled to 8mp in order to generate DxO award winning images so that should not really have any impact as long as it produces the desired output in the end, right…
Another method would be multiple sensors, very much the same method high end digital video camera equipment is designed. With only a small increase in camera size there could be multiple sensors utilized to only read certain spectrums of light, four being the most logical array (Red, Blue Green, and UV to measure intensity) which would yield more color and light intensity data than is captured today by any consumer device. Data that translates to detail, color spectrum, tonal accuracy, and dynamic range..
Yet another method would be a single wafer design where one third of the photosites are dedicated for each primary color spectrum, somewhat similar but further on the approach taken by Fujifilm and their X-Trans sensors (and the original design found in the S2, S3, S5 Pro)..
Fujifilm is probably the best example of what I meant in my original post.. Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina are not actually pushing the boundaries of digital imaging technology, they are catering to the boundaries of consumer marketability. Fujifilm is unfortunately one of the few (if not the only) consumer imaging company actually trying to advance the digital imaging world at this time by working outside the box.. As I stated earlier, and it is to the actual detriment of the technology, it is simply a matter of dollars and cents - for Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina it is cheaper to try and improve current technology than to explore/develop new technology. The major players have too much invested in current technology to explore a new approach, at least not any time soon.
Regarding my ‘unfortunately’ reference to Fujifilm I did not mean that in a bad way, quite the contrary, I love Fujifilm’s approach - What I meant is if new technology like that was being backed by the kind of money/research Canon and other major players spend on 'old-tech' improvements we would already be where I stated we should be in the imaging world.


----------



## weixing (Jan 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Jrista, without quoting that long post...do you honestly think it's possible for a DSLR to have its sensor cooled to -80 C? How would that be done in a DSLR?
> ...


Hi,
There had been quite a few DSLR out there with active cooling modification, the result was very good with very low noise, but it's quite bulky. Also, with active cooling, you will have condensation issue unless you sealed your DSLR and dry the air inside like adding an dehumidifiers.

Have a nice day.


----------



## jrista (Jan 19, 2014)

SiliconVoid said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly don't understand the primary source of noise. It is impossible to have ISO 100 performance at ISO 6400, while still having comparable sensor resolution to sensors of today. "Noise" is a general term that refers to ALL noise in an image. NOT all noise in an image is from the camera's electronics. Noise caused by camera electronics is called read noise, however read noise only affects the deep shadows, and it is generally only present to a relatively significant degree at lower ISO settings. You are also missing the fact that dynamic range is relative to noise. Eliminate noise, and you effectively have infinite dynamic range (or, in the case of a digitized result, you gain the maximum dynamic range up to your bit depth...whatever that may be...14bits/14stops, 16bits/16stops, 1024bits/1024stops.)
> ...



Ok, first, you are largely correct, _assuming a global context_. Now, I assumed a video and small form factor CIS context, as that is pretty much what we deal with on this forum...and in that context, yes, we are VERY advanced, and it will not be long before we start hitting physical walls. It is because we have encroached upon several physical walls already that there are some truly radical innovations being discovered in the CIS arena.

Second, there ARE physical laws that govern how far we can take CMOS Image Sensor technology. Doesn't matter what the application, or how big the sensor, or how big the pixels. Those physical laws will always apply. Once we run into the limitations imposed by those physical laws, we will have to start doing other things...like backstep. For example, instead of increasing pixel count, we will have to reduce it, in order to gain dynamic range once we have reached the maximum Q.E. possible with the greatest light gathering capabilities per pixel (which might actually involve something fairly radical, such as monochrome sensors with some kind of piezoelectric color filter that is cycled for each color throughout the duration of an exposure). Once all the technological advancements are used up, the only real final option is to make pixels bigger. That will either entail reductions in megapixel count...or larger sensors. But I already mentioned all of these things...



SiliconVoid said:


> Unfortunately real cutting edge technologies result in million dollar digital imaging equipment that is of course not cost effective to build into a consumer product. Additionally do not assume what we know about physics today is all there is in the universe, our knowledge and conceptual understanding of physics has been challenged many times over through human history. Your response asserts your comprehension of imaging technology is limited to any single wafer sensor design, and additionally those limited by todays consumer technology…



No, it is not limited to todays consumer technology. It is based on a lot of patents and research that have yet to actually be employed in any real-world designs at all, as well as prototypical designs, as well as consumer technology. The context from which my response comes is much broader than simply existing consumer technology. I spend a lot of time on ChipWorks reading about the innovations found in consumer level technology, as well as on Image Sensors World reading about all the latest and greatest innovations in the CIS world (which is pretty up to date as far as yet-to-be-used new research and patents go.) 



SiliconVoid said:


> The Hubble telescope for example can resolve more detail than the D800, with greater dynamic range, and all at much higher ISO ranges because that is what is was designed to do regardless of cost as it was not intended to be a consumer product - yet its total mp count is a mere 5.1mp. It does however use multiple sensors to capture the analog data which is then put back together to produce an image, but clearly showing that 'more mp' is not the only approach to image quality.



Comparing a DSLR with the Hubble Space telescope is a little extreme. Again, I lets try to limit our context contextto what is relevant to hand-holdable camera technology. Hubble's original primary CCD sensor was quite large (larger than medium format, actually about four times larger). It's low megapixel count is actually the very reason why it has much greater dynamic range. I mentioned in my earlier posts that I assumed maintaining pixel size. The most obvious and simplest approach to improving dynamic range/reducing noise levels is to increase pixel size. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what Canon did with the 1D X, and one of the reasons why it's high ISO IQ is so good. 

As it stands today, some of Hubbles CCD sensors were upgraded. They use smaller pixels now (although, still quite large at 15 microns), offering more resolution. I believe current Hubble resolution is 16 megapixels, rather than 5.1 megapixels. Still, remember that hubble's sensors are effectively supercooled (actually, since the telescope exists in space, I believe many of it's electronic components are actually heated to keep them at relevant operating temperatures), so current efficiency in hubble's CCDs is significantly better than an uncooled hand-held camera. I also mentioned in this very thread that cooling sensors with peltiers can greatly improve current efficiency, however again...there are physical limits to how far that will take you (especially in your average photography...it isn't like the things most people photograph will actually take advantage of the 0.0001e- of dark current you get at true supercool temperatures...only extreme low light photographers who regularly shoot at very high ISO would see any benefit from 0.01e- dark current, and maybe aurora photographers might benefit from even lower levels at even higher ISO settings.)

So, yeah, Hubble gets much higher dynamic range. It's pixels are also have as much as 15 times more surface area at exceedingly high current efficiencies relative to the average room temperature DSLR or Mirrorless sensor. Even assuming we find a way to supercool DSLR sensors...they are still going to be packing in significantly more pixels in significantly smaller sensor area...so dynamic range is never going to be as good as the MONSTER CCD in the Hubble. 



SiliconVoid said:


> In dslr sensor design there are several immediate approaches that could be researched, one being a sensor that is designed to operate at a base signal amplification much higher than current technology (~300 ISO) resulting in a base ISO sensitivity of say around 3200, with the greater gain adjustment at the lower sensitivity end as opposed to current implementation, and only a small increase in gain to achieve 6400-12800.



First, need to make sure we are on the same page regarding "base" ISO. Base ISO is the ISO where you achieve FWC at Max Saturation. If you made ISO 3200 your "base" ISO, there simply wouldn't be lower ISO settings, or if there were, they would be something akin to ISO 50, where you lose DR to "gain" a lesser ISO setting via exposure trickery. There is Unity Gain, the ISO setting at which 1 Gain gets you 1 ADU. By "base signal amplification", are you referring to "unity gain"? 



SiliconVoid said:


> Textbook physics tell us that such an approach would not leave enough signal strength at ISO 100 sensitivity to get readable data (again thinking we know everything about physics) but that could be countered by charging and reading fewer photosites at lower sensitivity settings. Then increasing the number of photo sites charged and read at the higher ISO range. That would of course mean the resolution output of the camera is lower at lower ISO settings and higher at higher ISO settings,



Why would you have lower resolution at lower ISO settings, and higher at higher ISO settings? That seems inverted to me. When you have a lot of light, it is easy to get more resolution...you don't have to amplify the signal as much. It is when you have LITTLE light that you have to amplify the signal more... OR, you could bin pixels at higher ISO to increase real-world sensitivity, which indeed would reduce resolution for a gain in signal strength. Sure, that is an option...try selling it to the average consumer, though. Dynamic resolution is a quirky feature. 



SiliconVoid said:


> or it could simply be set to output say 15mp images during ASIC processing regardless of the actual mp count of the sensor.. There would of course be a massive number of consumers who would feel cheated in some way in buying a 45mp camera that only outputs 15mp images, but hey people are buying a 36mp camera today that has to be downsampled to 8mp in order to generate DxO award winning images so that should not really have any impact as long as it produces the desired output in the end, right…



The average camera buyer doesn't know that DxO downsamples 36mp images to 8mp. All the average camera buyer knows is that, at least according to DxO, their D800 gets 14.4 stops of DR. Nevermind the fact that as far as RAW editing is concerned, the unscaled Screen DR is the measure that provides the correct DR, which is 13.2 for the D800...most consumers would never know that, instead thinking they have an extra 1.2 stops of DR that simply doesn't exist in their images. That's a detrimental state of affairs if a landscape photographer decides to leave their GND filters at home when they go out to photograph a 14+ stop sunset...oops.

That would be the inherent problem with dynamic resolution (at least, as anything but a niche camera)...few would actually know that at point of sale. They would only discover it through use, assume something was broken, and create a customer service nightmare in their ignorance. Keeping technology viable for consumers does matter in the grand scheme of things. I think a sensor with dynamic resolution that maintained real-world sensitivity is interesting, for sure. I wonder if it is practical, though. I guess for night sky and aurora photographers who downsample and publish on the web and never do anything else with their work, such a camera would be a dream.

In relation to the part of your answer I was originally responding to, dynamic resolution with a sensor that automatically binned pixels at any ISO setting above 100 (in order to maintain actual sensitivity, and achieve the same levels of noise at any ISO) wouldn't be a practical consumer product. You said you thought "we all" would best be served if Canon produced a sensor where ISO 6400 looked the same as ISO 100 in terms of noise. Sorry, but if dynamic binning and dynamic resolution is the only real-world solution to that, I don't really agree...and Canon will never do it anyway. Nikon might do it, they love getting their hands dirty with niche technology that doesn't help their bottom line, but even for Nikon, it seems like a bit of a stretch. The technology has to be viable to the consumer before any manufacturer would really touch it.




SiliconVoid said:


> Another method would be multiple sensors, very much the same method high end digital video camera equipment is designed. With only a small increase in camera size there could be multiple sensors utilized to only read certain spectrums of light, four being the most logical array (Red, Blue Green, and UV to measure intensity) which would yield more color and light intensity data than is captured today by any consumer device. Data that translates to detail, color spectrum, tonal accuracy, and dynamic range..



I thought I mentioned Three-CCD in my answer (although I may be conflating conversations, as much the same conversation is occurring in multiple threads on this forum.) I agree, Three-CCD would definitely be intriguing as a means of improving both sensitivity and resolution. However, it does NOT solve the problem of making ISO 6400 look like ISO 100. It actually solves the resolution problem...it would let us push resolution more (for a while) without incurring further losses in pixel size, noise, etc. 



SiliconVoid said:


> Yet another method would be a single wafer design where one third of the photosites are dedicated for each primary color spectrum, somewhat similar but further on the approach taken by Fujifilm and their X-Trans sensors (and the original design found in the S2, S3, S5 Pro)..
> Fujifilm is probably the best example of what I meant in my original post..



Again, I am taking from a conversation in another thread. X-Trans was just brought up in a thread about AA filters and Moire. Technically speaking, FujiFilm, while they are innovative, have not actually brought us anything significantly better than Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Apina. Fuji once had extra pixels in "dead space" on the sensor die. These extra pixels were monochrome, and were simply used to increase dynamic range. It was slightly effective. It was also completely blown away by Sony with their Exmor technology. COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY.

X-Trans is another great example of an undiscriminating "improvement". It is intriguing, for sure...however it doesn't actually do a better job at anything than standard Bayer sensor designs from C/S/T/A. X-Trans claims to be moire free. Indeed, it is...however that comes at a cost. It uses a 6x6 pixel grid for interpolation...which inevitably results in a greater degree of blurring. Problem with a 6x6 pixel grid is it is less discriminating about which frequencies NEED to be blurred in order to avoid moire than a classic OLPF. Interpolating 6x6 rather than 2x2 inherently requires greater overlap, so more blur than standard bayer interpolation as well. I spent a lot of time researching X-Trans when Fuji first released the technology, I have looked at quite a few images from those cameras. High ISO performance is great, thanks to the greater degree of pixel averaging offered by a 6x6 grid, however you will never see the same kind of high fidelity image detail from any X-Trans camera that you get from standard bayer sensors. You sometimes also get a bit of haloing around sharp edges that are either particularly dark or particularly bright.

Fuji has some interesting ideas, and they definitely know how to think out of the box. But again...you can't beat physics. All Fuji has done with X-Trans is find an alternative way to blur higher frequency image detail, same as an OLPF. The difference is that the OLPF is more discriminating, and it only blurs frequencies RIGHT around Nyquist, where as X-Trans is less discriminating, and will blur relatively evenly in whatever radius is imposed by their 6x6 pixel interpolation. Personally, I'll keep my OLPF, thanks! 



SiliconVoid said:


> Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina are not actually pushing the boundaries of digital imaging technology, they are catering to the boundaries of consumer marketability.



I'm not so sure about that. Excluding Canon (they do a lot of innovation, but admittedly the percentage of it that is dedicated to sensors seems rather small as of late), Sony, Toshiba, Aptina, and quite a number of other CIS authorities like Omnivision, SiOnyx, Panasonic, etc. are indeed pushing boundaries. You should read Image Sensors World...there are some pretty amazing innovations being created by die hard consumer companies, including Sony. They may not be breaking from a standard bayer as much as Fuji has, however that doesn't diminish the fact that they have made some significant strides for products that most definitely find their way into consumers hands. Sony's Exmor is nothing short of phenomenal, and it is still "just another bayer sensor", albeit with a very innovative approach to digital low noise readout.

Just because you produce products that sell to the consumer doesn't mean you can't be innovative. 



SiliconVoid said:


> Fujifilm is unfortunately one of the few (if not the only) consumer imaging company actually trying to advance the digital imaging world at this time by working outside the box..



Again, I think this is an ill-informed opinion. Fuji has a knack for pixel arrangements. They just recently applied for a patent on a bayer-type sensor with different sized pixels for green, red, blue, and white. It's quirky, it's different, certainly out of the standard box...but...given Fuji's track record of making SIGNIFICANT breakthroughs...I suspect it is also really just more of the same. I don't suspect that Fuji's latest patent will really make any major waves in the long run. 

Now, if Fuji keeps pushing this technology, they may be on the right track to creating a sensor with a truly random "retina-style" distribution of pixels in a sensor. THAT would be an intriguing innovation, and one that could truly eliminate moire without any real cost to detail. We'll see, though...Fuji has had other non-standard bayer pixel arrays in the past, and again...none of them really produced IQ that was significantly better (or even better at all) than the competition.

Speaking of the competition, Fuji is not the only one exploring non-standard pixel layouts. Several of the rumors about Sony's supposed 54mp sensor indicate that it will not use a standard bayer layout. Not only are they targeting non-standard layouts, but Sony also filed patents for triangular and hexagonal pixels as well (although I'm honestly not sure how that improves photodiode area, which is the single most significant factor when it comes down to literal sensitivity...so only time will tell if such pixels are actually better.) So it isn't JUST Fuji who is thinking outside the box.

Just being more radical in your designs does not necessarily mean they are better. 



SiliconVoid said:


> As I stated earlier, and it is to the actual detriment of the technology, it is simply a matter of dollars and cents - for Canon/Sony/Toshiba/Aptina it is cheaper to try and improve current technology than to explore/develop new technology. The major players have too much invested in current technology to explore a new approach, at least not any time soon.



Again, ill-informed opinion. All of these companies have a certain amount of their R&D budget dedicated to more extreme innovation. Most of these companies, and others, have made more significant discoveries than Fuji, ones that have demonstrated very significant real-world benefits. Seriously, read Image Sensors World...some of the innovations are pretty cool, and many will indeed change the imaging world.


----------



## jrista (Jan 19, 2014)

SiliconVoid said:


> Regarding my ‘unfortunately’ reference to Fujifilm I did not mean that in a bad way, quite the contrary, I love Fujifilm’s approach - What I meant is if new technology like that was being backed by the kind of money/research Canon and other major players spend on 'old-tech' improvements we would already be where I stated we should be in the imaging world.



I think the imaging world at large (beyond the scope of Canon) really IS there. The imaging world, which today is actually defined by security video sensors and consumer image sensors in all their consumable devices, is a whole world ahead of the ILC world. The big and bad cameras are using technology that is a ways behind the cutting edge. Sony Exmor is probably the most amazing innovation to hit the DSLR world in years, however even Exmor is behind the curve on a lot of other stuff. Security video sensors have actually really pushed the bubble, especially in the low-light arena. There are new video sensor designs that utilize black silicon that can see rather clearly in nothing but starlight...or one miliLux. The sensor also has a read noise level of only 2e- at normal temperatures, which is a pretty amazing feat (even Sony Exmor barely breaches below 3e-). 

There will eventually be trickledown. All these cutting edge discoveries being employed in other markets (usually with much smaller sensor areas) will eventually be employed in the ILC markets. That takes time, though, for one as many of these new innovations are just that, innovations, and haven't yet been put into practice anywhere. New innovations are often researched and developed for specific target markets in mind for initial implementation, and today, that is unquestionably the small form factor markets...video cameras, phone cameras, tablet cameras. Once it becomes established, and other more effective options that already exist for larger form factor sensors have been exhausted, more radical innovations will find their way into larger cameras. 

Don't expect "eventually" to be tomorrow, though. The big name DSLR cameras are the high end ones. They don't sell as much as the Canon Rebels and Nikon Dxxxx models, but they are usually where significant leaps in larger format technologies are made. We already had major new DSLRs released over the last couple of years, and major new mirrorless cameras just over the last year. It'll be a couple years at least before we see any significant innovations trickle down to the DSLR and Mirrorless arena.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 19, 2014)

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/04/canon-sensor-records-video-in-very-low-light/

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/13/visualized-canon-35mm-cmos-sensor-fireflies/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi


----------



## jrista (Jan 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/04/canon-sensor-records-video-in-very-low-light/
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/13/visualized-canon-35mm-cmos-sensor-fireflies/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi



As I've been saying, the only real way to significantly improve sensitivity is to increase pixel size. The pixels on that sensor are HUGE, relative to the kind of pixels we normally use these days (or, for that matter, have used for the last ten years). That would be the *lest *technological means of achieving higher sensitivity...and it still doesn't solve the "Make ISO 6400 as good as ISO 100" argument...ISO 100 on that puppy would be freakin amazing...


----------



## jrista (Jan 20, 2014)

This is the most advanced imaging device I know of:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/superconducting-video-camera-sees-the-universe-in-living-color

It uses true superconducting Titanium Nitride (at 0.1 Kelvin, basically absolute zero) to "detect time and energy (thus wavelength) of each photon in real time with zero intrinsic noise." Since it must operate at 0.1 K, it is WELL outside of the realm of consumer grade technology...it's only application at the moment is for space telescopes. The intriguing thing about it is the fact that it detects photon energy, so it knows the exact wavelength and therefor the true color of each and every photon encountered during an exposure. It also detects EVERY photon, so it has 100% Q.E., and it's design as a spectral power detector means there isn't any electronic noise (however, there would theoretically still be photon shot noise).

The readout mechanism uses a microwave frequency comb to "interrogate" each pixel 2500 times per second. This allows the sensor to be equally sensitive to color from about 100nm (deep ultraviolet) to 5000nm (very deep infrared.) Since the readout is basically achieved by multiple short interrogations, there is no reason that for longer exposures, dynamic range could effectively be infinite (however for shorter exposures, dynamic range would become limited...however I am unsure of what kind of signal strength this thing achieves for exposures at or below 1/2500th of a second. It would still offer more dynamic range than any current standard CMOS or CCD sensor, probably by several fold.) 

If, at some point in the distant future, the ability to supercool electronics to absolute zero becomes "easy", this would basically be the ultimate pinnacle of image sensor technology. We would have perfect color reproduction, perfect electronic current, near-infinite dynamic range (basically only limited by exposure time), etc. The energy requirements for maintining temperature at 0.1K would probably drain even a high capacity DSLR battery like that found in the 1D X in seconds, so I suspect this kind of technology would need an always-on power source (i.e. outlet), or some kind of fuel cell that provided MASSIVE power.

Anyway...given the prior discussion, I remembered this sensor. Had to dig it up again, but it basically represents the ultimate in imaging sensor technology. I don't think you can get better than the ability to detect every single photon, it's sensor position, incident time, as well as it's exact energy frequency. I guess the only real improvement would be to increase the number of actual pixels in the device (the article uses a 2024 pixel (44x46) sensor for deep field astrophotography....that could probably be increased to megapixels.)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 20, 2014)

So in sumary....Canon doesn't need to create a 1Dxs to answer the D4s...because it's still selling very very well and hasn't stopped selling since it was introduced. The D4s was introduced to address some issues why the D4 wasn't such a big success. Even though the D4 has a slightly better shadow noise control in under exposed areas, the 1Dx is a better camera overall and less glitchy / lockup / AF issues (being a comitted Canon user, that felt nice to write).
Then the next 12 pages...were mostly written by guys who think they under stood camera sensor design, those who do understand camera sensor design and those who really don't understand what on earth the last 12 pages were about....(i'm in the latter) . 

We all know a high MP sensor based camera is coming from Canon at some point...but at the moment it's not here and is vapour ware. It will satisfy a few noisy buyers, but for most pros and serious amatures, they will be far better served with the current 1DX or 5DIII cameras....go figure. 
in the mean time, some of us have been out and photographed stuff....it's cold out there!


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > A lithium ion battery out of a Dreamliner ... That wouldn´t be very reliable, would it? :
> ...



Fuel cells...you mean those that use natural gas? Or what type of fuel cell are you referring to? 

The only time (so far) that I have been able to visit CA...I travelled with my brother to silicon valley, to check out a fuel cell that was about to be purchased by the university my brother worked for at the time. Funds for this purchase came from various places (some public). I think they paid a total of $8 million. It was spec'ed to produce only 4000 to 5000 watts...but for the brief weeks it actually worked at all, it produced about half that. It is now gathering dust, does not work at all.


----------



## jrista (Jan 21, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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



A fuel cell is simply an energy cell that produces energy by controlled chemical reaction. Technically speaking, batteries are a type of fuel cell, albeit ones that do not produce much energy. Basic fuel cells generally oxidize hydrogen with oxygen in some controlled chemical process that ultimately produces water (the reaction is obviously not direct, otherwise that would likely cause an explosion), which is an energy-producing reaction that can produce a lot more energy than your average battery.

Theoretically fuel cells can be remarkably efficient, especially when waste heat energy is reemployed, reaching the 85-90% efficiency mark. Even if the kind of fuel cells that might be employed in DSLRs only reached the 50-60% efficiency range, they can still produce more power than a battery. Fuel cells are an area of pretty intense research, and many fuel cells exist that function quite well. High temperature fuel cells have been known to reach as high as 83% efficiency when recycling and reusing heat waste.

Also theoretically, since a fuel cell functions by combining hydrogen and oxygen...they can be "refueled" with water which is then split into hydrogen atoms and oxygen via electrolysis. A well built fuel cell could last for a very long time, and be repeatedly recharged with an external device and clean water. 

Now, this is all theory. There have been some applications. Fuel cells have been used in laptops in recent years. Apple is considering powering future macbooks with fuel cells. Fuel cells are being used more frequently in Europe to power all kinds of things. I don't think we will see a _rechargeable_ hydrogen fuel cell any time soon, but I do think that at some point, fuel cells will probably become the standard means of powering larger cameras.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 22, 2014)

Jrista

As per my other post pluses and minuses of big verses small pixels dynamic range verses definition / sharpness. Cameras can have different pixels but are Canon & Nikon really going to make different lenses to maximise the "system abilities" unlikely.


----------



## jrista (Jan 22, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> Jrista
> 
> As per my other post pluses and minuses of big verses small pixels dynamic range verses definition / sharpness. Cameras can have different pixels but are Canon & Nikon really going to make different lenses to maximise the "system abilities" unlikely.



Sorry, but I think you have some grave misunderstandings, based on your post in another thread. Lenses have non-linear, non-constant resolving power. The notion that you build a lens to match a sensor is inane. The lens would only "match the sensor" at one specific aperture, and at all other apertures would either resolve less or resolve more detail than the sensor is capable of resolving.

Maximizing the overall camera system's capabilities means increasing the resolving power of the least common denominator. I've done the math for that here on these forums countless times. If the lens is the least capable element of the system, then improving lens resolving power will get you the most bang for the buck. If the sensor is the least capable element of the system, improving sensor spatial resolution will get you the most bang for the buck. The simple FACT of the matter is that system output resolution is a product of all system components combined. You don't match the lens to the sensor. You maximize the capabilities of BOTH to extract the most you possibly can overall. And, so long as you have an AA filter, pushing lens resolution well beyond sensor resolution is actually the easiest way to improve output resolution.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 22, 2014)

jrista said:


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



I'll grant you that, anything is possible...just as travelling through wormholes to various points in the universe and time, are "theoretically possible".

I'm not sure anything will replace the current lithium ion batteries cameras are using in the next 5 or even 10 years.


----------



## jrista (Jan 22, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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



Maybe not in the next five, but quite possibly within the next ten. They never had a real commercial foothold until the last few years...but now that they do, I think they will start to take hold much faster. My dad works on a lot of high end, cutting edge stuff, fuel cells are one of them. It's one of the hottest things in engineering today, across the globe...so I wouldn't be surprised to see them becoming more common in the not so distant future.


----------



## nicku (Jan 22, 2014)

What I wish to see from Canon in 2014 :

1. An big megapixel camera in a 5D body.
2. An APS-H 7Dmk2
3. An improved version of the 6D (improved AF in particular)

What i believe Canon will release:

1. Big MP camera in a 1D series body with a considerable price tag.
2. APS-C 7Dmk2 with a improved version of the 20.2 MP sensor.
3. EOS 700D replacement


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 22, 2014)

nicku said:


> What I wish to see from Canon in 2014 :
> 
> 1. An big megapixel camera in a 5D body.
> 2. An APS-H 7Dmk2
> 3. An improved version of the 6D (improved AF in particular)



So they can:- 
1: Replicate the comparative flop that is the D800? With a multitude of people who don't know what they are doing with sub optimal lenses and technique leaving an aura of dissatisfaction over their "premium" sensor. I doubt it.
2: So they can restart a stopgap solution to sensor yields on an unsupported sensor size. Not likely.
3: That is the 5D MkIII. The 7D (or whatever) which is the 6D replacement, that is the 5D MkII/5D replacement, will probably not have particularly good AF, high end AF is a market segment deliminator, it seems lower level (cheaper) cameras get WiFI ad GPS built in, even the Powershots get this stuff, though I think this is changing and WiFI/GPS will be standard features soon.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 22, 2014)

[quote author=jrista]
I live in Colorado. It's actually a fairly decent place for astronomy/astrophotography, as it is rather arid, so few problems with humidity screwing with a telescope. (I think on the best of days we might have 30% humidity, and on most days it is way down around 16%. There have been times when we've had less than 10% humidity.) We have mountains, too, so you can get up to 11,000 feet or more for thinner, clearer air. 
[/quote]

Goodness! I was happy for the humidity to be below 95% the other night, when we finally had a clear few hours!

[quote author=jrista]
This is the most advanced imaging device I know of:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/superconducting-video-camera-sees-the-universe-in-living-color

...

If, at some point in the distant future, the ability to supercool electronics to absolute zero becomes "easy", this would basically be the ultimate pinnacle of image sensor technology. We would have <b>perfect color reproduction</b>, perfect electronic current, near-infinite dynamic range (basically only limited by exposure time), etc. The energy requirements for maintining temperature at 0.1K would probably drain even a high capacity DSLR battery like that found in the 1D X in seconds, so I suspect this kind of technology would need an always-on power source (i.e. outlet), or some kind of fuel cell that provided MASSIVE power.
[/quote]

Perhaps this is beyond the scope of the current discussion, but what does 'perfect colour reproduction' mean? I get that this device tells us the wavelength of each photon, but doesn't the reproduction of colour boil down to mapping the readout to things the human eye can recognise? Our eyes don't have perfect colour reproduction, they respond differently across the visible spectrum. Is there an easy way of converting one to the other? Or is this a matter of philosophy?

One last thing (actually a few things). Do you know if anyone has tried using these supercooled astro cameras for earthly subjects? Are they related to so-called 'starlight cameras' used for night time ambient light capture of wildlife? And in the long run, given all you've said, would a move to larger sensors (medium format, for want of a better term) be feasible for this sort of thing? I appreciate that requires larger lenses, but new materials and designs seem to be able to shave off weight, perhaps that could help?

Incidentally, I've been fascinated by this whole discussion, once we got past people moaning. So many fascinating concepts!


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 22, 2014)

nicku said:


> What I wish to see from Canon in 2014 :
> 
> 1. An big megapixel camera in a 5D body.
> 2. An APS-H 7Dmk2
> ...



I agree with much of your guesswork, and I also would like to see a new APS-H sensor (or preferably something in between 1.3x and 1.6x). Unfortunately there aren't many fans of it...and either way, it would not be inexpensive.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 22, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > What I wish to see from Canon in 2014 :
> ...



Agree with Carl --- APS-H is a done deal. 

The Big MP -- that's a big who knows - if canon is toyingaround with a new naming scheme it may end up being between a 1d and a 5d in size and price - or they may pump out 2 bodies, one full pro with a 1d price tag and one semi-pro with a 5dish price tag

If the 6d gets a bump this year I doubt we'll see a huge AF upgrade - same 11 points, maybe add a few X type points...We'll see though, originally I thought the 6d may be on a 1 year upgrade cycle because it's got the entry level tag...but, they may be opting to put it on a 2 year cycle (they have have had both plans on the table, if sales don't exceed this then we update it, if they do, then we skip an upgrade cycle).

Asto the 700d thing...that's just a given as rebels always get the 1 year upgrade bump....


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 22, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...



The 6D better not be on a 1 year upgrade cycle! Glad we can still agree on things Chuck old buddy! The watchers thought we were still enemies and were holding that against me!


----------



## jrista (Jan 22, 2014)

scyrene said:


> jrista]
> I live in Colorado. It's actually a fairly decent place for astronomy/astrophotography said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## moreorless (Jan 23, 2014)

I doubt we'll see a reply personally, the D4s to me looks to be Nikon trying to answer the superiority of the 1DX in some areas. The Nikon camera might have advantages in low ISO DR but for this kind of body that's much less of an issue where as the Canon has the advantage in FPS and AF.

This is a market Nikon is playing catchup in far more than Canon who could afford to wait even when Nikon went FF rather than ASPH with fast FPS pro camera's with double grips.


----------



## vscd (Jan 23, 2014)

Yepp. I think the Nikon D4s is no catch for the 1Dx, it's just closing the gap. It's just newer, so what? The D3s beats the "newer" D4 in a lot of situations...


----------



## moreorless (Jan 24, 2014)

vscd said:


> Yepp. I think the Nikon D4s is no catch for the 1Dx, it's just closing the gap. It's just newer, so what? The D3s beats the "newer" D4 in a lot of situations...



For Canon I don't think its nearly as important to have the latest greatest camera in this section of the market, even if the new Nikon were slightly better I think they would be happy to leave it another year or two until the more natural end of the 1DX lifecycle to update.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 24, 2014)

moreorless said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Yepp. I think the Nikon D4s is no catch for the 1Dx, it's just closing the gap. It's just newer, so what? The D3s beats the "newer" D4 in a lot of situations...
> ...



Good point, Canon has the luxury of approaching it from a position of strength. Either way though, (based on previous product cycle durations)...I see a 2015 development, or even very likely a _replacement_ announcement for the 1DX, with units being widely available to everyone by spring or summer 2016, if not before. I'd be more surprised if units are actually on sale before the end of 2015. That might mean a development announcement (or even a reliable rumor of one)...this year in 2014.

The Rio summer Olympics, will surely not come before a 1DX replacement is not only set in concrete, but in full production. 

It need not have vastly more MP...anywhere from 20 to 26 (or perhaps slightly more if they would just bite their lip and include some in-camera sensor crop modes...for instance a 1.2x crop would be ideal...such as Nikon has done for going on a decade now).

The real and more pressing question for Canon, is when will the 5D4 be available? 2014 or 2015? I would be surprised if it's before 2015, but it would speak well for Canon if that happened. It would mean they are really focused on not only testing new technology, but perfecting it more quickly than they have been doing the past 5 years or so...at least in my opinion!


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 24, 2014)

Quote from: jrista

This is the most advanced imaging device I know of:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/superconducting-video-camera-sees-the-universe-in-living-color


Thanks, I liked reading this. A bit troubling that the galaxy on the left does not have a remotely resolved "nucleus" when compared to the Hubble image, but perhaps some of that is due to an unfiltered capture of a broader spectrum of light (where the Hubble's is meant to only portray visible light)??


----------



## jrista (Jan 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Quote from: jrista
> 
> This is the most advanced imaging device I know of:
> 
> ...



Remember, the test sensor only has 2024 pixels. The Hubble image is taken with a 15 megapixel sensor. BIIIG Difference. Once this kind of technology finds its way into megapixel sensors, you'll be able to tell the difference.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Quote from: jrista
> ...



Well, unless the image was scaled up and smoothed (a lot), it does seem like it should have resolved at least a bit of the "nucleus"...because it does reveal more of the detail in the galaxy to the right (you can even see the warm colored portion along the edge). That's why I thought it might be due to the Hubble image only portraying visible light, where the other image portrayed full spectrum light. Infrared light could possibly be filling in the "void" that is defining the "nucleus" in the Hubble image.


----------



## MovingViolations (Jan 25, 2014)

Canon may not have anything to answer to. The D4S may be just a fix for the D4 rather than ground breaking technology. I'd still go for a 1DX MII this fall. I'm not getting any younger and patience is not one of my virtues.


----------



## jrista (Jan 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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



In the article, the image WAS scaled up, a LOT. The original image was 44x46 pixels, the image in the article is probably eight to ten times that large.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Jan 25, 2014)

> Don't expect "eventually" to be tomorrow, though. The big name DSLR cameras are the high end ones. They don't sell as much as the Canon Rebels and Nikon Dxxxx models, but they are usually where significant leaps in larger format technologies are made. We already had major new DSLRs released over the last couple of years, and major new mirrorless cameras just over the last year. It'll be a couple years at least before we see any significant innovations trickle down to the DSLR and Mirrorless arena.




I gave some extreme examples sure, but my point is still quantified. The primary difference in our expression is verbiage that attempts to assert knowledge and understanding of physics... (no offense, just an observation)
I work for a medical equipment manufacturer specializing in imaging technology, and if no comparison were made beyond the technology we work with I can assure you that consumer digital imaging products are not implementing the latest imaging technology. If one were to then compare other industries that develop and implement imaging technology outside the realm of consumer photography products, dslrs might as well have a little chimp inside with a tablet and chisel... The physical size of a $2.5billion device has little to do with researching the concepts of that technology for other applications, especially when the $2.5billion device contains many more elements than the digital sensor, and provides ample room for design and implementation to meet other criteria such as serviceability and maintenance - not how small the packaging could be.
However if you are prepared to offer higher megapixels, improved noise algorithms, marginally improved read noise, and the absence of a mirror (all within the concepts of traditional sensor design) as examples of 'new technology' then we have little to discuss given the discrepancy in perspective and definition.



This if funny as hell btw: Fstoppers Nikon DF Digital Camera Hipster Review
Fstoppers Nikon DF Digital Camera Hipster Review


----------



## Arctic Photo (Jan 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...


I don't get your remark about the 5D. It hasn't been around even two years and still has no real competition in the market.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 26, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Was thinking the same thing Re:5d4. The 5d series seems to be following a similar upgrade path as the 1 series - so, if history repeats we'll see a spec list for the 1dx, followed by silence, followed by spec sheet for a 5d4 in late 2015, then the 5d4 will hit the shelves in the spring of 2016..if we see it in 2015 it will be at the tail end of 2015..

I for one would rather them wait till 2016 - if that means totally new sensor, new digic, better DR...more MP's aren't what I NEED, but, I wouldn't say no to that as long as more MP's don't gimp any of the current features and capabilities of the 5d3. 

either way, this is where I like that canon can do what they are doing from a strength position - they can hold steady, make the 5d4 and 1dx2 what it needs to be, not a rushed product that amazes on one end but falls short on many others...


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



The 1DX was "introduced" before the 5D3, so I suppose a 1DX replacement might get released before a 5D4. However, the 5D3 was delayed a bit longer than it should have been...likely because it got essentially the same AF sensor as the 1DX (but they wanted the 1DX to have it first...also there was the earthquake and nuclear meltdown...). 

Remember the 5D2 came out in 2008, where the 1D4 came out a year later, late 2009...yet got replaced by the 1DX first. The first 5D was released in 2005, was it not? That was a 3 year replacement cycle...

In my speculation, I feel that a 5D4 will not be getting some ground breaking AF sensor inherited from a 1DX2 (and thus might not need to be released afterward), so I was assuming a 5D3 replacement might happen before a 1DX replacement.

Anything is possible...it just seems to me the 5D3 might get replaced first this time...especially if Canon actually do introduce a new 1 series body soon, such as 2014.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 29, 2014)

FWIW, I saw an active photographer with a 1D-type body neatly anonymized in black tape, with a 400/2.8L IS II, covered in black lens coat neoprene during the Kitzbuhel downhill race. Fingers crossed!


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 29, 2014)

Eldar said:


> FWIW, I saw an active photographer with a 1D-type body neatly anonymized in black tape, with a 400/2.8L IS II, covered in black lens coat neoprene during the Kitzbuhel downhill race. Fingers crossed!


Wow ok that's postive...!!! It would be nice to see some of those shots too!!!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 29, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Photo said:
> ...



The 1Dx doesn't need replacing yet. It's still as fresh as the day it was anounced. The 5DIII is in the same situation really, it has no direct rival. I think that Canon could easily build a high mega pixel camera around a 5DIII body and call it something like a 5Dx and I'm sure it'll sell and sell. There really is no need in putting this sensor into a 1D series camera body.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 29, 2014)

But a camera isn't judged by IQ alone...it's just one feature. The 5DIII is a very rounded camera and probably the most versatile currently available. But there's a die hard group who only want the very top tier IQ, with the rest of the camera lacking...ie 5D / 5DII.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2014)

The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution. Blatant lack of connectivity (not even wifi which canon manages to put into any 200 dollar powershot). It should really have been called 5D 2N.

The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.

By now i've lost interest in the 5d line and bulky dslrs. Just waiting until a really good ff milc comes to market. Af issues in mirrorless are getting ironed out. The fuji xt1 seems to be tracking moving subjects @ 8 fps. Soon enough decent af performance will also be available in ff-sensored mirrorless cams. Looking forward to it. Sony A8R could already be the real winner.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution.



The 5DII delivered excellent IQ and resolution, the only real lacking features were AF performance and perhaps frame rate. The 5DIII dramatically improved AF and also improved fps, weather sealing, etc. 



AvTvM said:


> The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.



Sure, that's why it's selling so poorly, and all those 'modern' cameras in that class are outselling it. Except...they're not.


----------



## jrista (Jan 31, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution. Blatant lack of connectivity (not even wifi which canon manages to put into any 200 dollar powershot). It should really have been called 5D 2N.
> 
> The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.



You REALLY don't know what the 5D III is, man. The 5D III was a complete and total overhaul of the 5D II. New body, better sealing, RADICALLY improved AF, improved metering, significantly bumped frame rate, improved ergonomics, etc. etc.

Use of wireless options like WiFi and GPS requires punching holes in the magnesium body...something that compromises ruggedness and sealing. So it isn't a cut and dry point there, and I would suspect that currently, more pros prefer to have the rugged body and sealing rather than the WiFi (otherwise, Canon would have stuffed a WiFi chip in it already.)

The 5D III is current and advanced in EVERY respect EXCEPT the image sensor. Get your facts strait, bub!


----------



## mkabi (Feb 1, 2014)

Out of curiosity, what constitutes IQ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Get your facts strait, bub!



Facts, meet dilbert and AvTvM. AvTvM and dilbert, this is Facts. 

There, I've made the introductions. Maybe they'll get to know each other, and even become friends.


----------



## 100 (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Soon enough decent af performance will also be available in ff-sensored mirrorless cams. Looking forward to it. Sony A8R could already be the real winner.



So a 2012 camera is dated in every respect because some non-existing future camera might have decent autofocus performance? 
With that kind of logic your opinion is irrelevant in every way because some non-existing future opinion might have decent intellectual performance. 
I'm looking forward to it. ;-P


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Get your facts strait, bub!
> ...


Love it!

Fun thing is the fact that some now have started to bash the 5DIII for its lack of connectivity. That's a new one. It used to be the other stuff that I don't care to mention as we all know what they are.

I have my 5DIII almost since introduction and it's still awesome.


----------



## flowers (Feb 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution. Blatant lack of connectivity (not even wifi which canon manages to put into any 200 dollar powershot). It should really have been called 5D 2N.
> ...



Exactly. Only facebook-loving amateurs want Wi-Fi, it's only really useful for reporters and guess what? No reporter wants their camera to have Wi-Fi if the weathersealing gives out before they can even send out the pictures.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2014)

Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off. 
And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.

Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ... 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new


----------



## flowers (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
> And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.
> 
> Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new



Maybe because there are Canon shooters that would rather pay the $300 extra to NOT have wi-fi than to have it? You can count me as one! If you need wi-fi just transfer the images onto your laptop or tablet in the field and use the wi-fi of those devices!


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
> And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.
> 
> Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new



I think you are gravely underestimating the cost of adding WiFi. It isn't simply some chip you just buy and stuff into the camera. It has to be _*integrated*_ into the camera! It requires changes to the body design to ensure the signal can get through without requiring that the user point a specific part of the body directly at a wifi access point and without encountering interference issues (all while still complying with FCC regulations regarding RF and all that!), it requires specific design changes to integrate it into the main boards along with all the other far more critical electronics, it requires updates to firmware to ensure it can be controlled and configured appropriately, etc. Adding WiFi to a camera isn't just a "simple" $5 cost...there is the part cost, as well as the increase in manufacturing cost of the whole camera, as well as increases to firmware development and testing costs, as well as increases to testing costs (testing WiFi would be somewhat time consuming...having to enter in access point information, let it connect (and twiddle your thumbs while it does), make sure information can be transferred reliably, rinse & repeat for verification, then finally ship it. All that stuff, all those various stages of a lengthy design, manufacture, assembly and testing pipeline, add cost! Adding WiFi costs more than $5.

This is a common mistake with people asking for new features in software & web development: "Oh, but it's 'just' an extra menu item!" or "Oh, but it's 'just' an extra button!" * No!* It's NEVER just an extra menu item or an extra button! You have to _plan _for the new menu item, make _sure _it fits into the design of the application or web site, you have to add the additional UI code and styling, then you have to add code to make it function, then you have to _*TEST *_that code, then you have to redeploy the application. Nothing is _ever_ "just" as simple as a clever individual can whittle things down and make them *seem*. (As a software developer of over 15 years, I swear that every company I've _ever _worked for carefully hired people who had *special training in the art of VASTLY OVERSIMPLIFYING* to decide what features were necessary for the ridiculously overcomplicated products they wanted to develop... :)

NOTHING is as simple as it "sounds". EVERYTHING is more complex when you factor in the reality of its design, development, and integration into a complete product. 

You also seem to forget that TODAY, wifi and gps are becoming more common in most portable consumer devices...but that research and design on the 5D III probably started not long after the 5D II was released! That was a long time ago. It takes a long time to design new technology, and design it as well as Canon designed the 5D III and 1D X. As subtle as some of it may seem (and really, that's to Canon's credit!), there was quite a lot of new technology in those two cameras. It was probably in prototype stage a good year or so before it was released, and it was released a couple of years ago now. The 5D III is older than the 6D, which really did not need all that much R&D in the first place, as it is basically a glorified 5D II with a newer sensor, and GPS & WiFi.

It's naive to bash on the 5D III, which required some _significant _redesign, much of which was probably done alongside design for the 1D X (as it inherited much of the 1D X's functionality), as some radically inferior product just because it doesn't have WiFi. In all the years I've done photography and moderated photo.stackexchange.com, or for that matter all the years I've been reading CR...WiFi NEVER even came up as the most important thing that Canon just HAD to add to the 5D III. I don't even think it was on anyone's radar to even request in the first place...certainly not before the 6D anyway. The things people were asking for with the 5D III were less noise, and better AF. Well, we got a hell of a lot less noise at high ISO with the 5D III, and the AF is mindblowingly good when compared to the 5D II AF system. Given that, Canon delivered exactly what their customers asked them to deliver...


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
> And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.
> 
> Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new



And how many DSLRs that came out before the 5D 3 had wifi? Into a bit of revisionist history, aren't you?


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement
> ...



JRista, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you may be overstating the complexity. The reason it needs so much advance planning is likely due to the internal space constraints of SLRs. We know it's not "hard" because P&S and lower-end SLRs have it. The magnesium body, even on a 1DX is not 100% coverage: you could sneak a wire through that and put the antenna outside the magnesium, e.g. under the rubber grip material or on the prism bump. Hey, why not shoot for the moon and integrate WiFi, GPS and radio flash control in all future xD and xxD models! Of course it must be integrated, and it's probably more than $5 total cost per unit, but I'd have a hard time believing it's more than $25 per unit. Seriously, if Eye-Fi can put WiFi in an SD card, it shouldn't be that difficult. Any future SLR, even the next 1-series, really ought to have WiFi and GPS, even though they're not features I crave.





​


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 1, 2014)

Orangutan said:


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


Jrista is big enough to answer on his own, but I still like to fill in. Obviously it's not too complicated for Canon as they've done it in several models already. But not until after the 5DIII which was probably delayed so it was probably never planned for that. I think there's a parallell here to when first network cards and then wifi cards started to make their way into PCs. It took a few years before it was considered to be standard. Eventually it will be considered standard in all cameras too.

But the new argument against the 5DIII not having wifi is simply desperate. Why spend years on an internet forum taking aim at one of the obviously greatest cameras ever produced?


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2014)

Orangutan said:


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



In terms of per-unit manufacturing cost, sure, I wouldn't expect it to be much more than that either. My point is you don't just drop in a wifi chip and be done with it. You have to design the camera with all these various factors in mind from the getgo, and for each additional feature you add, like WiFi, and GPS, etc. you increase the overall complexity of the product as a whole. The up-front R&D cost increases, the prototyping/testing phase increases, and the extra money spent on R&D has to be recouped somehow. So, maybe you do only have $25 in additional manufacturing costs...but the extra costs in R&D ultimately weigh on the final product price. Everyone complained about the $3400 list price of the 5D III when it first hit...but it really isn't surprising. A hell of a lot of thought and engineering went into making it (more so than the D800...Nikon farmed out the sensor to a third party, and based on the rash of complaints about ergos/button layout apparently really didn't put as much thought or money into layout as Canon did), and the price reflected that. 

All I am saying is, the design and construction of complex devices like the 5D III tend to be much more complex than people inevitably reduce them to. Maybe it is just a natural trait of humanity, to greatly simplify things in their minds. Regardless, there is more to including WiFi in a new camera design like the 5D III than simply slapping a chip on a board somewhere and threading an antenna through a hole somewhere. It isn't just $5, it isn't just $25...it's part of a much more complex process involving years and dozens if not hundreds of people working thousands of man hours to research, design, and build the whole entire camera...and every single feature adds another order of complexity.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
> And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.
> 
> Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new



Owner of a 6d and a 5d3 here. In regards to wifi ---when i got the 6d I thought the wifi was kind of neat. I used it here and there (via the remote app). It took taking selfies to a new level! that, and every once in a while, like on vacation or something I'd use the remote transfer app to upload something to facebook. LOL...other than that, I have barely used the wifi. It has stayed in the off mode for like 98% of the time I have had the body.


----------



## Niki (Feb 1, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


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



+1

5d m3 is a great camera…best purchase


----------



## Eldar (Feb 1, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
> ...


That sounds like what my use would have been also. Almost everything possible in my house is wifi and it makes life simple, but I don´t see how it would help me if I had it on a camera, unless it was so fast it made image transfer faster or if I was into very advanced remote control operations (which I´m not).


----------



## flowers (Feb 1, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
> ...



Well said. It's a great camera and far, far more than just a "minor update" to mkII!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution. Blatant lack of connectivity (not even wifi which canon manages to put into any 200 dollar powershot). It should really have been called 5D 2N.
> 
> The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.
> 
> By now i've lost interest in the 5d line and bulky dslrs. Just waiting until a really good ff milc comes to market. Af issues in mirrorless are getting ironed out. The fuji xt1 seems to be tracking moving subjects @ 8 fps. Soon enough decent af performance will also be available in ff-sensored mirrorless cams. Looking forward to it. Sony A8R could already be the real winner.



I have often wondered what your smoking before you write posts like t his, it clearly isn't what I am smoking. 5d2-5d3 is one hell of an upgrade. Others here have already listed the features so I won't bother to repeat them. You claim that it is - "a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it"...well then we're looking at different cameras. It's not like it was a little bump in AF. I mean, they could have slapped the 7d AF system in it. Even if they did that, way improved over 9 points. But, to go from 9 points (and with the mk2 the center point was the only one worth anything) to 61 points plus all the servo stuff they added - that's a hell of a lot of improvement in AF. And we haven't even gotten to the benefits of high ISO work!!!!

They did not just put a decent AF system in it. They put one of the best AF systems to date in a dslr in it!!!! If it was as you claimed the 5d3 would have 9 points again but all cross points and none of the servo modes. But hey, live in your dreamworld where no camera to date is capable of taking a good picture because a mirror gets in the way...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> But hey, live in your dreamworld where no camera to date is capable of taking a good picture because a mirror gets in the way...



+1

I like how, "AF issues in mirrorless are getting ironed out," while the 5DIII's AF (same sensor as the 1D X) is merely 'decent'. I wonder if this sort of bias results from one to many mirrorslaps to the head?


----------



## flowers (Feb 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > But hey, live in your dreamworld where no camera to date is capable of taking a good picture because a mirror gets in the way...
> ...



Haha. Maybe all mirrorless owners were bullied and called ugly when they were young and they now have a fear of mirrors which is reflected (pun intended) in their choice of camera systems.


----------



## AE1Pguy (Feb 1, 2014)

flowers said:


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



Nonsense. I have no use for Facebook whatsoever. I bought a 6D so I could use WiFi to control HDR shot sequences and so forth with my iPhone or iPad. It's the best remote control ever. 

On the other hand, I didn't need a 5D III, and even if it had WiFi, I still would have been happy with the 6D.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 1, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Owner of a 6d and a 5d3 here. In regards to wifi ---when i got the 6d I thought the wifi was kind of neat. I used it here and there (via the remote app). It took taking selfies to a new level! that, and every once in a while, like on vacation or something I'd use the remote transfer app to upload something to facebook. LOL...other than that, I have barely used the wifi. It has stayed in the off mode for like 98% of the time I have had the body.



I used to think wifi on an SLR was a dumb gimmick, but I now wish I had it on my 5D3. Some of my editorial clients now want to art direct shoots in real time. Fortunately, this isn't for every shot, but just for the more important ones that may be used as cover images. Without wifi, my ghetto solution is taking a pic of my camera's LCD screen with my smartphone, then texting in to the client. Wifi would sure make this agonizing process less painful. 

Being able to trigger the camera remotely and seeing the images on my phone would also save tons of time when I have to rig the tripod up someplace that's difficult to access (like the top of my van ) I'll probably just have to suck it up and get a Cam Ranger.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 1, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Out of curiosity, what constitutes IQ?



A sharp, in-focus image would top my list ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> In terms of per-unit manufacturing cost, sure, I wouldn't expect it to be much more than that either. My point is you don't just drop in a wifi chip and be done with it. You have to design the camera with all these various factors in mind from the getgo, and for each additional feature you add, like WiFi, and GPS, etc. you increase the overall complexity of the product as a whole. The up-front R&D cost increases, the prototyping/testing phase increases, and the extra money spent on R&D has to be recouped somehow.


I agree in principle, particularly as relates to current and previous camera models. However, I think you're looking backward rather than forward. Let's take Eye-Fi as an example: this is a card that plugs-in and works. Canon did not have to do any specific engineering to make it work...I think it was essentially a kluge, and it costs around $50, including a bit of flash. Why is this easy? Because it's using an existing internal bus. Think of laptops after the standardization of PCMCIA and the wide array of cards that became available. Once you have a standard bus design everything gets much easier. A well-designed internal bus would connect the memory card slot(s) and the WiFi and the GPS and the digital external mic and 4G and 5G and.... This is not to say that all design and integration issues will dissipate, but they will become vastly simpler than if you have to engineer a system where all components connect directly to each other.

I don't agree with AvTvM's simplistic expectation that any new feature that appears in any new camera should necessarily be available in all cameras released 6 months later. On the other hand, I'd prefer to phrase the question as "how can we make this easy" rather than "why isn't this easy."


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> I used to think wifi on an SLR was a dumb gimmick, but I now wish I had it on my 5D3. Some of my editorial clients now want to art direct shoots in real time. Fortunately, this isn't for every shot, but just for the more important ones that may be used as cover images. Without wifi, my ghetto solution is taking a pic of my camera's LCD screen with my smartphone, then texting in to the client. Wifi would sure make this agonizing process less painful.
> 
> Being able to trigger the camera remotely and seeing the images on my phone would also save tons of time when I have to rig the tripod up someplace that's difficult to access (like the top of my vanI'll probably just have to suck it up and get a Cam Ranger.



I believe there are SD to CF adapters that will work with WiFi SD cards. It might work on your 5D3...or not. It could be worth the time to scan the boards, or just pony up the $$ to try it out.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think you are gravely underestimating the cost of adding WiFi. It isn't simply some chip you just buy and stuff into the camera. It has to be _*integrated*_ into the camera! It requires changes to the body design to ensure the signal can get through without requiring that the user point a specific part of the body directly at a wifi access point and without encountering interference issues (all while still complying with FCC regulations regarding RF and all that!), it requires specific design changes to integrate it into the main boards along with all the other far more critical electronics, it requires updates to firmware to ensure it can be controlled and configured appropriately, etc.




Wi-Fi is *not* particularly directional. A pair of strip antennas glued to the inside of the bezel around the rear display should do the job nicely. That's how metal laptops get their signal out, and you don't have to point them towards the base station. 

On the software side, the 5DMk3 cameras already have built-in support for Wi-Fi when used with their wireless grips. If anything, integrating the hardware into the body makes the software easier, because they don't have to do as much testing to make sure it correctly detects the absence of Wi-Fi hardware.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2014)

Meet the facts. 
Wifi in a camera is easy and dirt cheap. Evidenced by the fact that even canon manages integrate wifi into dirt cheap cameras like the powershot a 3500 that retails at euro 90 [usd 120] including 20% sales tax.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Meet the facts.
> Wifi in a camera is easy and dirt cheap. Evidenced by the fact that even canon manages integrate wifi into dirt cheap cameras like the powershot a 3500 that retails at euro 90 [usd 120] including 20% sales tax.


However, the 5DIII was designed before wifi made its entrance. It makes sense that Canon introducwd it in the 6D which is in the FF low and and also a new model to see how the market would react.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> ...I'd prefer to phrase the question as "how can we make this easy"



Ok, but then why complicate things?



Orangutan said:


> I believe there are SD to CF adapters that will work with WiFi SD cards. It might work on your 5D3...or not.



I'd just stick the Eye-Fi card in the 5DIII's SD slot, rather than mucking about with adapters.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'd prefer to phrase the question as "how can we make this easy"
> ...



Cuz I forgot it has an SD slot. Silly me, I thought it was two CF's.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> However, the 5DIII was designed before wifi made its entrance. It makes sense that Canon introducwd it in the 6D which is in the FF low and and also a new model to see how the market would react.



Sorry to disappoint you. Wifi in cameras was already invented in 2012. canon just believed they would get away forcing customers to buy their oem-wifi-grip-bricks for their mirrorslappers. As in the past. At 1000% gross margin. 
They were right. A few of their customers don't mind. 

Lack of onboard wifi does not make the 5d iii a bad camera. It just demonstrates that it is ... dated. A bit like a car without AC or a tube tv.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Lack of onboard wifi does not make the 5d iii a bad camera. It just demonstrates that it is ... dated. A bit like a car without AC or a tube tv.



In 2014, I bet there will be far more 'dated' 5DIIIs sold than a7Rs. Also, there will likely be about 10 times as many CRT TVs sold worldwide as *all* MILC cameras combined.


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of per-unit manufacturing cost, sure, I wouldn't expect it to be much more than that either. My point is you don't just drop in a wifi chip and be done with it. You have to design the camera with all these various factors in mind from the getgo, and for each additional feature you add, like WiFi, and GPS, etc. you increase the overall complexity of the product as a whole. The up-front R&D cost increases, the prototyping/testing phase increases, and the extra money spent on R&D has to be recouped somehow.
> ...



Well, I can't disagree with anything you've said. I was looking backwards, thinking about the 5D III's design and the time and timeframe within which it was designed. Looking forward from now, I totally agree.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > However, the 5DIII was designed before wifi made its entrance. It makes sense that Canon introducwd it in the 6D which is in the FF low and and also a new model to see how the market would react.
> ...



"Invented" is not the same thing as "robust." P&S cameras are, unfortunately, disposable items. People don't keep them long, and they buy cheaper, better replacements rather than get them repaired. A DSLR, on the other hand, must be designed to be used and repaired for up to 10 years. Even if the warranty is much shorter, you don't want to annoy your upscale customers with a flimsy product.



> canon just believed they would get away forcing customers to buy their oem-wifi-grip-bricks


That wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > However, the 5DIII was designed before wifi made its entrance. It makes sense that Canon introducwd it in the 6D which is in the FF low and and also a new model to see how the market would react.
> ...



_**!SIGH!**_







I'm so sick and tired of trolls... blah.


----------



## 100 (Feb 1, 2014)

No Wi-Fi, no GPS, no USB-3, no built in radio control for speed lights… 
The 5D3 is so dated, if we transport it back in time to the stone age with the future Sony A9R (time travel capability will be the new Wi-Fi) even cavemen will think it’s a relic from the age of the dinosaurs. 
The people who are still using 5D3’s today and manage to get great pictures out of them must be world-class photographers.


----------



## bornshooter (Feb 1, 2014)

the d4s still wont compete with the 1dx.


----------



## flowers (Feb 1, 2014)

100 said:


> No Wi-Fi, no GPS, no USB-3, no built in radio control for speed lights…
> The 5D3 is so dated, if we transport it back in time to the stone age with the future Sony A9R (time travel capability will be the new Wi-Fi) even cavemen will think it’s a relic from the age of the dinosaurs.
> The people who are still using 5D3’s today and manage to get great pictures out of them must be world-class photographers.



You can't get great pictures without all that? And I've managed without exposure metering and flash synching with manual exposure and manually fired flash during a 1/4 exposure that produced a correct exposure for the flash power I used without mixing in ambient light! I've also done it _with_ ambient light mixed in, you can get any kind of results you like. I have radio transceivers for my flashes, but I also took off-camera flash pictures at a point when I didn't have the radio transceivers and that's how I did it! The quickest I've managed to manually sync to was 1/5s (0.2s). 2sec self-timer is almost as handy as remote controlled camera and flashes in a pinch!

Nobody will take the idea seriously that you can't take great pictures without all that extra stuff! It's great to have and it allows you to take some pictures that would otherwise be impossible but if you lose all your photographic ability when you don't have a camera that measures exposure for you and wi-fi this and radio that, I don't think you had that much to begin with! Back to basics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2014)

flowers said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > No Wi-Fi, no GPS, no USB-3, no built in radio control for speed lights…
> ...



@ 100 - You're welcome to borrow my *<sarcasm>* tag. It comes in handy sometimes.


----------



## flowers (Feb 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ 100 - You're welcome to borrow my *<sarcasm>* tag. It comes in handy sometimes.


I missed 100's previous post... Sarcasm is not easy to read in a forum! Discussions are more polite without sarcasm and easier to read.  I apologize for my mistake.


----------



## bornshooter (Feb 1, 2014)

They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... i say f**k it


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ 100 - You're welcome to borrow my *<sarcasm>* tag. It comes in handy sometimes.



 I had assumed you bought them in bulk at Costco.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ 100 - You're welcome to borrow my *<sarcasm>* tag. It comes in handy sometimes.
> ...



No, but now that you mention it, I really should pick up a value pack. 

Might not help though, as I'd probably still forget to use them...


----------



## 100 (Feb 2, 2014)

I hoped the time travel capability of the future Sony A9R would function as a sarcasm tag.

But I agree sarcasm is not always easy to read (or write, English is not my mother tongue, which makes it even harder). 
Page after page of "discussion" over a largely irrelevant feature like built in Wi-Fi lures me into sarcasm and I’m too weak to resist. 

Anyway, on a more serious note; I think the future is more about software than hardware.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 2, 2014)

100 said:


> But I agree sarcasm is not always easy to read (or write, English is not my mother tongue, which makes it even harder).



It's sometimes spelled sar-chasm for just that reason. ;D


----------



## flowers (Feb 2, 2014)

100 said:


> I hoped the time travel capability of the future Sony A9R would function as a sarcasm tag.
> 
> But I agree sarcasm is not always easy to read (or write, English is not my mother tongue, which makes it even harder).
> Page after page of "discussion" over a largely irrelevant feature like built in Wi-Fi lures me into sarcasm and I’m too weak to resist.
> ...



I think you are right but I don't know if it's a good thing. Earlier lenses like 300/2, 200/2, 200/1.8, 135/2, 135/1.8, 135/1.5 were being designed and made. Now many lenses are just mk II III IV with no changes to lens design but only to coatings. Fastest lenses made today over 100mm (and sometimes even under) are f/2.8. The idea is to use a high ISO. "Nobody needs fast lenses" is the mentality. I think if this trend continues, more things will be delegated to software instead of hardware. Maybe tomorrow's fast lenses are compact f/4. Who knows.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 2, 2014)

flowers said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, on a more serious note; I think the future is more about software than hardware.
> ...



Software can only go so far. You can do massive DNR, but at the end of the day, you're losing a lot of detail, too. We're to the point where in most typical lighting conditions, you can get away with f/4 lenses and IS, but only if you aren't looking at the pixels. You can usually get away with f/2.8 lenses and no IS, but again, only if you aren't looking at the pixels.

As pixel density increases, the light gathering decreases proportionally. That's one big reason why FF cameras have such a low-light advantage over crops. The pixel density is so much lower that you can get away with slow lenses in crappy light. Unfortunately, cameras are rapidly approaching the limit of what you can do in terms of sensor quantum efficiency (at best, it can improve by no more than about a factor of two—only one more stop), so most of that extra light gathering isn't going to come from better sensors beyond this point. Therefore, any future improvements in pixel density will require faster lenses just to break even. When we finally see a high-pixel-density full-frame camera, those f/1.2 and even f/1.0 lenses are going to start looking mighty tempting again, because the FF cameras are going to have the same terrible low-light performance as crop bodies unless you downscale at the end of your processing.

Now that's not to say that we won't eventually see hardware with electronic shutters that take thousands of images per second and use bats**t crazy advanced image processing to smart-merge the images and individually stabilize each part, compensating for motion, etc., but I'd imagine the compute power to do that in-camera is at least a decade out, and the storage requirements might push it even further out. So at least in the near term, fast lenses are going to continue to be crucial, IMO. And even in a decade, when we have such software capabilities, a fast lens will still be useful for obtaining shallow depth-of-field for artistic effect. Short of taking advantage of parallax in combination with light-field sensor tech, I don't see that being readily emulated in software.


----------



## flowers (Feb 2, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



I hope you are right! I would really like to see more modern lenses faster than f/2. MF is fine when your subject isn't moving a lot but the old lenses would benefit a lot from AF and redesign with modern coatings and modern knowledge of optics! In the future it would also be easier to design fast TS lenses, as an example of lenses that don't exist today. I like lenses that are multi-purpose. Sharp and fast macro wide-angle tilt shift lens would be a super powerful lens! If only it existed.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 2, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Owner of a 6d and a 5d3 here. In regards to wifi ---when i got the 6d I thought the wifi was kind of neat. I used it here and there (via the remote app). It took taking selfies to a new level! that, and every once in a while, like on vacation or something I'd use the remote transfer app to upload something to facebook. LOL...other than that, I have barely used the wifi. It has stayed in the off mode for like 98% of the time I have had the body.
> ...



I actually had a lot higher hopes for it! I am mainly a wedding shooter, but i do shoot landscapes and other stuff for fun. Things I didn't like about it that have made me go from psyched on it to meh...

Part of me thought that for weddings I could set the 6d on a tripod and use the remote to snag shots from a second angle so i didn't have to do as much running around (on days i don't have a second shooter) - or, for venues that don't let you go into the sanctuary, they may allow a remote cam there. But, the wifi times out after a while and you need to accesss the camera and phone together to re-establish connection (even if you set your cam to never go to sleep, the phone itself cuts the connection and won't just reconnect without going to the camera!

So that plan = fail.

for fun i like to do stuff like time lapse...but the remote doesn't act like an intervelometer.

and -- long exposures. I thought this would be a good way to not have to use the intervelometer for long exposures. But, the phone settings need to be changed because once the screen goes to blank the camera says i'm done...so for a 30 second exposure your phone has to be active the whole time. 

Add to it that it doesn't let you program in...longer expores...shooting at night...i want a 7 minutes exposure...these are things that remote needs to do!!!!

Another drawback...for some reason the live view with wifi remote disables the hotshoe...I think there is a way to use the live view to gain focus, then disable it then you can trigger off camera light...but...that kind of bites that live view via remote app cuts the hotshoe.... Ok, this is selfie...but...i would be out there trying a ton of different techniques with lighting that worked right. yes i would be the model...and it wouldn't ever be posted...but that would be great...i can try oput new ideas on me rather than having to go ask a friend...

so it's not that i didn't give the wifi a chance. If I was doing things that required instant upload more...then hell yeah. But, for most of what i was psyched on about it is a fail. 

These are things that will most likely get sorted out...if not by canon then by 3rd party aps. Either way...it's not like there isn't a way top make a 5d (or 1d) series wifi capable if needed. What i hoped for would have been kick ass...but it isn't...so that's why the wifi sits unuesed on my 6d....hope that adds context.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > However, the 5DIII was designed before wifi made its entrance. It makes sense that Canon introducwd it in the 6D which is in the FF low and and also a new model to see how the market would react.
> ...



again...what was the 5d3 designed for???? I don't think its far off to say wedding photographers because wedding togs need to shoot product, portraits, art, action, people, event work....its a little bit o everything...hence why the 5d3 is a jack of all trades camera...good for about everything!!! To a wedding photog lack of wifi on a 5d3 is kind of more like - a car without a spoiler on the trunk, or a TV without a build in DVD player. It's really an un-needed add on that may come in handy at times ...but needed...nope


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 2, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Photo said:
> ...



I would actually tend to disagree with this " A DSLR, on the other hand, must be designed to be used and repaired for up to 10 years." I say this only because the tech in bodies keeps progressing. Even the evolutionary upgrades are still handy. Lenses, yes, you buy them and they last. But bodies, I do kind of feel that the life cycle of bodies for pros currently matches the update cycle for pro bodies which is 3-4 years. 10 years misses a lot of updates...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2014)

It seems like the WFT accessories are more robust than the 6D's built in WiFi, using HTTP mode it doesn't matter if the connection is lost, or even if you switch your phone off, when you switch it back on it will reconnect without goig near the camera. I picked up a WFT-E2 on Craigs List for $150 and really like it.


----------



## 100 (Feb 2, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



A Bayer sensor throws away 2/3 of the light due to the color filters (RGBG) so in theory you could gain another stop and a half on top of the QE improvement. 

If there is a market for “fast” lenses, they will be made. At best the market for Full Frame lenses between f/0.8 and f/1.4 will be small which makes theme even more expensive. Most (professional) photographer don’t care all that much about pixel performance, they care about the overall result. Even a 4k screen is only about 8mp (the resolution of Rebels almost a decade ago). 
If you want to print wallpaper size and view it from half a meter away, or if you use tiny crops, pixel performance might be of great importance but these are all exceptions, or should be. 

On the software part, look at what Magic Lantern has been able to accomplish. With all the connectivity added to anything with software I think it’s just a matter of time before camera manufactures will allow apps to control their devices to some extent because apps will add value for free.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2014)

100 said:


> ... With all the connectivity added to anything with software I think it’s just a matter of time before camera manufactures will allow apps to control their devices to some extent because apps will add value for free.



Exactly. canon will likely continue to hold back as much as they can in order to preserve their strictly proprietary ecosystem. Meanwhile other makers are offering cameras today already that allow their owners to configure and expand their functionality by using apps ... E.g. sony a7/R. 

While many shooters will not need this, having the opportunity would still come in handy for many.

It's not so much technical challenges, but rather canon GREED that dictates, what their customers can possibly get. That's what i am calling them out for.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 2, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > "Invented" is not the same thing as "robust." P&S cameras are, unfortunately, disposable items. People don't keep them long, and they buy cheaper, better replacements rather than get them repaired. A DSLR, on the other hand, must be designed to be used and repaired for up to 10 years. Even if the warranty is much shorter, you don't want to annoy your upscale customers with a flimsy product.
> ...



I take your point, but there are still people shooting 1DsMkIIs out there (we have some on this site). That's getting very close to 10 years. Maybe 8 years would have been a better number, but the point remains: P&S are, essentially, disposable. DSLRs, especially pro-oriented models, are intended to be repairable for a number of years. That requirement affects the ability to add features as soon as they come out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> It's not so much technical challenges, but rather canon GREED that dictates, what their customers can possibly get. That's what i am calling them out for.



So, Canon wants *more* money *for less* features, and they are GREEDY. Whereas you want *more* features *for less* money, and that makes you...?? :


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > It's not so much technical challenges, but rather canon GREED that dictates, what their customers can possibly get. That's what i am calling them out for.
> ...



Buried within AvTvM's trollish language I think his point is that each major brand has a near monopoly, so the basic features of free-market competition don't hold. There's a small amount of truth to that: even the availability of third-party alternatives doesn't seem to have a significant impact on Canon's design and pricing choices, only the products of the other major brand seem to do so. I disagree with him, however, because for amateurs it's all optional -- I don't have to spend a penny on photo gear to live my life. And for full-time, established pros the cost is justifiable for the added (perception of) reliability.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2014)

Let me be more precise: i dont' consider canon to be greedier than other corporations. I perceive them to be more shortsighted with greed. All they only offer is what is absolutely required to not loose out to competitor's products immediately. Sometimes they undershoot that threshold. E.g. Eos-m.

And even when canon comes up with a new feature like switching from line-of-sight-triggering to radio-wireless that is hugely useful to many customers and leapfrogs the entire competion, they are held back by shortsighted greed. Only offering rt in one expensive top of the line speedlite and one commander that lacks in other features. And they design the system to deliver the goods in combination with the latest cameras only. Rather than really pushing the feature unto rheir huge installed base (of pre 2012 eos models and 580/430 speedlites) by offering a 450ex-rt and a cheap little transceiver for existing canon speedlites. Of course canon gets punished for this behaviour by amateurs like me who do not need to have the rt system to earn money. 

So many amateurs like myself have held off totally from paying canon 1.5k for 3 600ex-rt and an st-e3. Any day now i will be able to pick up a yongnuo ste of rt-commander plus rt-flashes and transceivers offering more functionality for about 1/4 of the money. And it will work nicely even with our pre-2012 cameras - even across makes. 

Now who is the winner here? Certainly not canon, who have invited 3rd party competitors in and have not leveraged their technological improvement to really create a full-sized USP against their direct competition. Nikon or sony have gained valuable time. Canon has no killer instinct. They may lead in sales at the moment, but they dont lead the market. They don't ever try to exceed their customers expectations the way nikon or sony do ... On occasion. Canon really is a follower company. They will not win the game long-term with the attitude they have been showing over the last 5 years. They are trying to nickel and dime their customers exactly in the same way gm and ford have tries to. Withholding even small and cheap pieces of technical progress like give me a break - wifi connectivity in a digital camera. The strategy will not work for much longer. 

Due to canons decisions i have also held off buying a 5d 3. and the 24-70 ii that i would take to go with it. I am continueing with my 7 d for the time being, and will sell the 10k canon glass selection (ef, l, ef-s) as soon as i get a 5d 4 type camera as a solid state milc. By whomever. 

And no, its not just me. Its many other "enthusiast/amateurs" too.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2014)

You need to check your prices dude,

ST-E3-RT - $286
YN-E3-RT - $148

The YN costs 52% not 25%.

600-EX-RT - $469
Do you really believe Yongnuo are going to come out with the YN-600-RT at $117?

Canon is not over charging for the 600 going by market forces, the Nikon equivalent, the SB910, *that does not have radio*, is $547, add well over $100 per flash to get you into the PW Flex system that still doesn't have the functionality of the Canon RT system, and Canon have a good argument for raising the price! If you are not in the pro equipment market then stop bitching about the prices.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Let me be more precise: i dont' consider canon to be greedier than other corporations. I perceive them to be more shortsighted with greed.



I think you're being very selective about your evidence. Sony has been so shortsighted that they're possibly a year or two from bankruptcy. Nikon has been so shortsighted that they've neglected to maintain their lens line-up, and have had serious QA problems that resulted in major loss of market share. I've read posts from a number of people who would like to have a D800, but don't want to be required to deal with 36MP files _always_. Nikon could have made sraw and mraw modes to make it more convenient for less demanding needs, while having full res available for high-end/high-value work.




> So many amateurs like myself have held off totally from paying canon 1.5k for 3 600ex-rt and an st-e3. Any day now i will be able to pick up a yongnuo ste of rt-commander plus rt-flashes and transceivers offering more functionality for about 1/4 of the money. And it will work nicely even with our pre-2012 cameras - even across makes.



I'm sure Canon has marketing people using spreadsheets who decide where to get the best profit. Apparently, they're willing to let go of purchases by people like you to make more profit from others. So far it has not hurt them. It doesn't hurt Canon much at all if you don't buy their flashes, so long as lots of other people do.



> Now who is the winner here? Certainly not canon, who have invited 3rd party competitors in and have not leveraged their technological improvement



If they feel the market pressure, maybe they'll change strategies.



> Nikon or sony have gained valuable time.


Sorry, but this is laughable when considering the financial challenges that both Sony and Nikon have.



> Canon has no killer instinct.


Better for us: if Canon were to dominate the marketplace, they would then be free to manipulate their product lines still more. The best thing for customers is to have multiple vendors will full, strong product lines.



> They may lead in sales at the moment, but they dont lead the market. They don't ever try to exceed their customers expectations the way nikon or sony do ...


Again, Sony and Nikon have financial problems. (Sony much more so)



> They will not win the game long-term


As Keynes famously said, "in the long run we are all dead." The long term never matters, what matters in this particular market is probably 2-4 years. Canon is probably in the best financial position at this point.



> They are trying to nickel and dime their customers


And it seems to be working.



> And no, its not just me. Its many other "enthusiast/amateurs" too.


How many? A few hundred, or even a few thousand probably don't matter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> They don't ever try to exceed their customers expectations the way nikon or sony do ...



Yes, the SB910 and D610 show how well Nikon exceeded their customers' expectations of how fast replacement models should be released to fix design flaws in their predecessors. 



AvTvM said:


> I perceive them to be more shortsighted with greed. All they only offer is what is absolutely required to not loose out to competitor's products immediately...
> 
> They may lead in sales at the moment, but they dont lead the market. They don't ever try to exceed their customers expectations the way nikon or sony do ... On occasion. Canon really is a follower company. They will not win the game long-term with the attitude they have been showing over the last 5 years. ... The strategy will not work for much longer.



Check back in 5 more years when Canon will have been the dSLR market leader for >15 years. You can bitch about the lack of WiFi in a pro/semipro camera, fine. It's in the newer 6D, it's in the M2, and I'm almost certain it'll be in the T6i. The xxxD line is the bread-and-butter of Canon's market share. Articulating screen, touch screen, etc., the 'consumer gimmicks' show up there sooner or later. 



AvTvM said:


> And no, its not just me. Its many other "enthusiast/amateurs" too.



Yes, but that 'many' is still a small minority, an insignificant not-quite-even-a-blip in Canon's bottom line.


----------



## jrista (Feb 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > ... With all the connectivity added to anything with software I think it’s just a matter of time before camera manufactures will allow apps to control their devices to some extent because apps will add value for free.
> ...



Are you actually "calling Canon out", or are you really just trolling? Because you have absolutely zero factual evidence that Canon "greed" is dictating anything as far as that company is concerned. Canon, for longer than I've been alive I figure, has been a very conservative company. Being conservative and being baselessly greedy are two very different things. The former is a means of preserving a company and it's brands in the face of diverse competition and economic hardship (and Canon as a company has been through both on many occasions, not the least of which it is facing both simultaneously now.)

If history tells us anything, it's that nothing guarantees the "first" to have something is always the best. Canon is not the first to have mirrorless cameras...but that does not mean when they finally do start pushing mirrorless consistently, that the offerings won't be superior to the competitions. Canon was not the first to improve low ISO DR...however that does not mean that when they finally do improve low ISO DR, that it won't be superior to the competitions. Canon's conservative attitude, which certainly appears to have been exaggerated in recent years, what between economic issues, competitive issues, and even natural disasters (in other words, their heightened conservative business approach is more justified!), has always served them well in that it makes them stop and evaluate new options and technology before they charge headlong into it, potentially burning resources on products that may or may not actually capture the _*majority*_ of the potential customers in a market.

Sony is a reckless company. In many ways, Nikon is also a reckless company. They rush products to market, damn the market or demographic statistics, they rush a whole bunch of products to market, and hope some of them stick. That is an exceptionally wasteful approach. It's an approach that has bitten Sony in the ass a few times, not the least of which was very recently with their bond status being reduced to junk. Nikon spitfires products into existence that were seemingly pulled from someone's butt, like the Df...brilliant concept fundamentally, radically botched implementation. The interesting thing about both Sony and Nikon is they have a knack for creating niche products that rapidly gain intense cult followings by minor groups who are particularly vocal about how and why they love that one particular product. There are some few who love the Df, despite the fact that it is a kludgey amalgamation of modern technology and a piss-poor attempt at emulating vintage camera technology in an attempt to woo the nostalgic side of aging generations who loved "<insertancientnikoncameramodelhere>".

Cult followings, however, won't pay the bills in the long run. You can call it greed if you insist, but having a BUSINESS eye on the bottom line is what keeps a company healthy, and keeps them around for the long term. Would you rather buy some fancy shmancy high end super-modern camera with radically cutting edge technology that may have zero support and no long-term lens production plan because the company runs a high risk of going bankrupt? Or would you rather buy a really good, but not technologically bleeding edge camera that is sure to have continued lens manufacture and customer service for years, if not decades?

Canon is not "greedy". They are business savvy. There is a difference, and it is a meaningful difference. The raging hate that successful companies get these days from the uneducated underclass simultaneously baffles me and infuriates me. Successful companies are what fuel successful economies. They provides jobs, salaries, and fund the prospect of more jobs with future growth. They are the engine of prosperity. The fact that a vanishingly small percentage of large corporations over the _decades _have "gone bad", like Enron (an example of a very rare breed of company, _not _an example of every company), does not mean all companies are "bad" and "evil" and "greedy". The simple fact of the matter is the vast majority if companies in existence are in business to make money, because that's what fuels business. 

Money PAYS SALARIES! Money FUELS GROWTH! Money FUNDS RESEARCH! Money BUILDS PRODUCTS!

OF COURSE CANON WANTS TO MAKE MONEY!! 

If Canon didn't want to make money, there wouldn't be a Canon...and neither would there be Canon L-series glass, or the 5D III and 1D X, or Canon PIXMA printers, or any of the other wonderful products Canon has produced over the years, not just for photography, but for many other industries such as medical (where many of their products literally save lives.)

Enough with the Canon is _*greedy *_crap. It is so exceptionally naive. Not to mention pure hearsay and imaginative concoction. Canon is a _*business*_. _*Just like all their competitors!*_ They employ tens of thousands of people. They fund one of the worlds largest sources of innovation. They design and build some of the best photographic and printing products in the world. 

Ohh...but they don't have DR...they must be GREEEEEDDYYYYYYY!! Dear god.... shoot me now.  :


----------



## 100 (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> It's not so much technical challenges, but rather canon GREED that dictates, what their customers can possibly get. That's what i am calling them out for.



Who is Canon exactly? 
The people working there? The people in charge? The shareholders? 
The people in charge will probably also have shares or options, so let’s assume the shareholders are the greedy ones. 
If you are a Canon shareholder, you’d lost about half your money in the last 7 years. For greedy people that should be enough to commit seppuku (a.k.a. hara-kiri). 

It helps if you look at the facts first before you draw conclusions.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2014)

With Canon I mean the corporation, run by its executives. 

Just to stick with the example of radio wireless ETTL speedlite triggering for one more moment:
Canon could technically crack the Pocketwizard stronghold and some technical challenges to inmplement the RT system. Against what many naysayers her said before, Canon could do it on the 2.4 GHz band [fast enough for 2 way communication flash-triggering] and they can market it globally with only 2 product variants in all important and civilized markets on earth, despite differing radio communications regulations and standards. Yes, there are some markets with such absurd regulations, that the only get 600-EX without RT. I am sure fanbois there will be also to happy to buy those. ;D 

I am convinced, Nikon and Sony were not ABLE to get wireless ETTL speedlite triggering implemented. If they had been able to, they would have done so by now. I am quite certain, that they are working on the issue and will eventually bring it to market. Canon is squandering precious lead-time to get their system universally established. Becaue their short-sighted greed only lets them think of "potentially lost 600EX-RT sales" for any 100 successful 450EX-Rt sales and for any 1000 successfull RT-transceiver sales that would expand the RT-ecosystem to all existing and still "semi-current" 580/430 speedlites. And possibly even allow their customers to radio-trigger monolights mixed with (ETTL-) speedlites ... all from one and the same RT-master. 

To me that is shortsighted with greed.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> With Canon I mean the corporation, run by its executives.
> 
> Just to stick with the example of radio wireless ETTL speedlite triggering for one more moment:
> Canon could technically crack the Pocketwizard stronghold and some technical challenges to inmplement the RT system. Against what many naysayers her said before, Canon could do it on the 2.4 GHz band [fast enough for 2 way communication flash-triggering] and they can market it globally with only 2 product variants in all important and civilized markets on earth, despite differing radio communications regulations and standards. Yes, there are some markets with such absurd regulations, that the only get 600-EX without RT. I am sure fanbois there will be also to happy to buy those. ;D
> ...


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I am convinced, Nikon and Sony were not ABLE to get wireless ETTL speedlite triggering implemented. If they had been able to, they would have done so by now. I am quite certain, that they are working on the issue and will eventually bring it to market. Canon is squandering precious lead-time to get their system universally established. Becaue their short-sighted greed only lets them think of "potentially lost 600EX-RT sales" for any 100 successful 450EX-Rt sales and for any 1000 successfull RT-transceiver sales that would expand the RT-ecosystem to all existing and still "semi-current" 580/430 speedlites. And possibly even allow their customers to radio-trigger monolights mixed with (ETTL-) speedlites ... all from one and the same RT-master.


Do you rqlly mean what you're saying? I mean really?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> With Canon I mean the corporation, run by its executives.
> 
> Just to stick with the example of radio wireless ETTL speedlite triggering for one more moment:
> Canon could technically crack the Pocketwizard stronghold and some technical challenges to inmplement the RT system. Against what many naysayers her said before, Canon could do it on the 2.4 GHz band [fast enough for 2 way communication flash-triggering] and they can market it globally with only 2 product variants in all important and civilized markets on earth, despite differing radio communications regulations and standards. Yes, there are some markets with such absurd regulations, that the only get 600-EX without RT. I am sure fanbois there will be also to happy to buy those. ;D
> ...



And that is why you are a forum nobody and not a high level executive in a global corporation.

I would hazard a guess that the 600-EX-RT has far outsold any previous top level flash since the 550EX because it introduced a truly new and innovative feature. I am in the process of selling my last 550EX's, I never saw any practical advantage to the 580EX/II, and have replaced them all with 600's. I don't care about 460-EX-RT's, I don't care about monolights (though I know some do), I suspect Canon are more interested in my speedlite opinion than yours because I am a purchaser, you are not. I don't care if they don't do anything else with the RT system for another ten years, the 550's lasted me that, I bought it for what it can do, not refuse to to buy it because of what I think it could do.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I would hazard a guess that the 600-EX-RT has far outsold any previous top level flash since the 550EX because it introduced a truly new and innovative feature. I am in the process of selling my last 550EX's, I never saw any practical advantage to the 580EX/II, and have replaced them all with 600's. I don't care about 460-EX-RT's, I don't care about monolights (though I know some do), I suspect Canon are more interested in my speedlite opinion than yours because I am a purchaser, you are not. I don't care if they don't do anything else with the RT system for another ten years, the 550's lasted me that, I bought it for what it can do, not refuse to to buy it because of what I think it could do.



that's all fine and dandy. It would have still been in Canon's better interest to push the RT system out as vehemently and quickly as possibly. You could still have purchased any number 600EX-RTs at any given price. No damage done. And in addition other pros and amatuers would have purchased millions of 450EX-RTs and RT-tranceivers Millions of them. And the Canon RT wireless ETTTl-System would be ubiquitzuos throughout the Canon-ecosystem by now. More "tie-in" of existing customers (in addition to invstments in glass) and mor lure for potential new customers. Much larger and longer-lasting comparative advantage against competitors without radio-wireless ETTL-system. Win-Win-Win. 

Under almost any market condition, if a company sells 2 or 3 "similar" products they will sell more in TOTAL compared to selling 1 product only. Even Canon does not only sell 1D-X. And 4 versions of white 70-200 lenses. Same applies to speedlites.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> And in addition other pros and amatuers would have purchased millions of 450EX-RTs and RT-tranceivers Millions of them.



Sure, but last time I checked, Canon was selling five Speedlites in their lineup (not counting the macro flashes) - 90EX, 270EX II, 320EX, 430EX II, and 600EX-RT. Plenty of choices for amateurs.

Canon sells far more Rebel/xxxD cameras than the higher end models, and more xxD models than xD models. The vast majority of dSLR buyers are getting a camera that already has a flash, and see no need to buy another one. Of those that do see a need to buy a Speedlite flash, only a very tiny minority will do anything other than use it in the camera's hotshoe. If you're going to use the flash in the hotshoe, the RT system is useless to you.

OTOH, if you're going to get the flash off the camera, you're probably using modifiers too, and need more power from your flash. Therefore, the 600 will be a better choice.

I'm sure Canon will add RT capability to the lower flashes, eventually…but as part of an overall refresh. Canon knows their market quite well, which is a big part of the reason they've sold more dSLRs than anyone else for over 10 years.



privatebydesign said:


> And that is why you are a forum nobody and not a high level executive in a global corporation.



That pretty much hits the nail on the head.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > And in addition other pros and amatuers would have purchased millions of 450EX-RTs and RT-tranceivers Millions of them.
> ...



Yes, main reason why I am willing to purchase radio wireless is use with light modifiers, which is cumbersome and limiting with line-of-sight triggering. Canon has been selling only one speedlite for close to 1,5 years now, that has wireless RT-triggering. In terms of power ... my 580EX II and my 430EX IIs have delivered enough output for what I've been doing up to now, so I don't really need a setup of all 600EX-RTs. 

But who knows, when the Yongnuo YN-600RT becomes available (a matter of weeks now, hopefully 8) and is tested as "good enough" by early adopters, I may just pick up three of those, unless they also announce dirt-cheap RT-transceivers ;D - which would of course be my preferred option, since it would not require having to sell perfectly fine existing Canon speedlites. 

The Yongnuo solution also gives me AF-assist light on the controller (which would have been very handy in at least a few of my shootings) and much more importantly: it gives me group-mode even on my pre-2012 Canon camera model (7D). 

So no more money to be made by Canon on me regarding speedlites. And quite some people I know will be doing exactly the same thing. Again, I really consider this state of affairs a shame for Canon and it is definitely not in their own best (commercial) interest. 

----
btw: may I kindly ask everybody here to refrain from *personal attacks* on me and wild guesses at what I do or don't do outside of this forum? Even when I hold different opinions than you do? Thanks! 8)


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I would hazard a guess that the 600-EX-RT has far outsold any previous top level flash since the 550EX because it introduced a truly new and innovative feature. I am in the process of selling my last 550EX's, I never saw any practical advantage to the 580EX/II, and have replaced them all with 600's. I don't care about 460-EX-RT's, I don't care about monolights (though I know some do), I suspect Canon are more interested in my speedlite opinion than yours because I am a purchaser, you are not. I don't care if they don't do anything else with the RT system for another ten years, the 550's lasted me that, I bought it for what it can do, not refuse to to buy it because of what I think it could do.
> ...



That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.

If I had been given the option of getting a $50 Canon made RT compatible trigger to work with my 550EX's instead of getting $450 600-EX-RT's I'd have done that, I wouldn't have got as integrated a system as I have, and Canon would have made $200 off me rather than $2,000. This way we are both happy. I am no Canon whore either, I have been running the 550's via Yongnuo RF 602's for years.

I paid $220 for most of my 550EX's new, I am getting around $150 for them now nearly ten years later secondhand, I wrote them down to nothing by 2008, they own me nothing yet they have given me ten years faultless service for $70. I expect similar figures from the 600's.

The choices in flashes have never been greater, you can buy whatever you want or feel is fair. Go Phottix Odin, Mitros+, Yongnuo 622C, 580EXII + PW Flex etc etc, each has it's stand alone features. The Canon RT system is one of only a few systems that offer built in ETTL radio, it is the only speedlite system to give five groups.

Choose by features or price, I don't care, I did and my money, after much consideration, went on the Canon RT system and so far I am very pleased it did. But don't try and tell me Canon is making some huge mistake by not pampering to your childish outbursts for $10 triggers to make their headline radio flash system work on your $80 clone flashes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> So no more money to be made by Canon on me regarding speedlites. And quite some people I know will be doing exactly the same thing.



Nice, invoke the 'lots of people feel the same way that I do,' argument. Unless you personally know a *few million* people who told you that they wouldn't be buying any more Canon Speedlites, Canon couldn't care less. 



AvTvM said:


> Again, I really consider this state of affairs a shame for Canon and it is definitely not in their own best (commercial) interest.



Yes, it's a shame they're the market leader, and have been for >10 years. Clearly, you know far more than Canon about what sort of strategy would be best for them. Why don't you call them up and tell them - the number for their headquarters is (81)3-3758-2111. Please do let us know when they've acknowledged your superior wisdom regarding their corporate strategy and named you their new CEO.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 3, 2014)

I visit this thread every now and then, just to be entertained 

But it´s been a while since the D4s was announced and I have not seen an official Nikon specifications yet. Have any of you? 

What I found on Nikon rumors was:
- the same 16MP sensor
- higher fps rate
- improved AF
- better low light performance
- improved video
- XQD and CF memory cards

Ken Rockwell (don´t mention his name) said a couple of weeks back: "The Nikon D4s is simply a mid-model refresh of the Nikon D4 of 2012. The D4S is a minor update, as Nikon has been doing since at least the 1980s when the N8008 became the N8008s. The D4S is even less significant than other S models because Nikon isn't even selling it yet as of January 2014; Nikon is still "developing" it."

And there are a few more like that, where one refers to the other.

Doesn´t sound like the killer of anything to me ...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2014)

Okay, we've been round this bend before. Still, I can't help myself. 

I think AvTvM has a point about the 600RT eco-system. No secret, I have complained that Canon did a disservice to its customers by refusing to release a simple receiver or transceiver that would allow customers to use the 580EX II with a radio receiver. 

On the surface, it appears to be a cheap and readily available technology that Canon could easily have sold to 580EX II users at some grossly inflated price and many of us would have happily snapped them up. 

As it stands, instead, buyers who want to use the radio trigger system either have to go the third-party route or sell off existing strobes and buy 600 RTs. 

Some say that's understandable, because it allows Canon to sell new strobes. But, generally good business practice does not include screwing over your best customers. I strongly suspect that 600 RT sales have been eroded by persons turning to third party solutions such as the fantastic Yongnuo 622-C. 

Plus, without knowing what Canon's costs are, we can't know which would have generated more profit – sales of 600RTs or sales of a transceiver/receiver. It's entirely possible that a larger profit margin might be available with a receiver than with a complete strobe. 

Additionally, we will never know how many more 600 RTs Canon could have sold if they had offered a receiver for 580EXIIs.

I have invested in the 600 RT system and I love it. I was able to sell my 580 EXIIs for a decent amount, so I didn't take too big of a hit and I've been able to score several refurbished and new-on-sale strobes, so no big complaints, except this:

It left a bad taste in my mouth and made me wonder what the next top-of-the line product will be that Canon will unveil without making even the simplest provisions for making the previous top-of-the-line product compatible. I'll continue to invest in the RT system, but there will always be that nagging concern that as far as speedlites are concerned, Canon is likely to put short-term sales ahead of building long-term customer loyalty. 

Now, I would be the first to admit that I know little to nothing about technology, so there may be solid, technical reasons that Canon could not release a receiver or transceiver compatible with the 580EXII, but I sincerely doubt it. The test will come as we watch Yongnuo over the coming months. If they produce a transceiver or receiver, we will have the answer. 

I seldom agree with AvTvM on issues, but on this one, he/she has a point.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I seldom agree with AvTvM on issues, but on this one, he/she has a point.



Only if you think that if somebody sells you something (including warranty and service) they owe you more than that thing.

Canon are giving us all a choice, buy into the RT system as it is, or not; buy it for what it currently does, or not. The 600-EX-RT does not render the 580 EXII or any other EX going back to my 550's, obsolete, it integrates with them flawlessly with the complete compatibility of the older optical wireless system. You would only have a point if Canon came out with a 650 EX-WT next year that didn't work with either the optical or current wireless system.

Canon have done that in the past, when they went from the FD system to the EF system, that was cause for genuine anguish, the systems were totally incompatible, but that is not what was done with the RT system, it retains all the functionality and integration with your 580EX/II/550EX/430/II/90/120/220/320/II 430/II but it also has more stuff. if we had been able to use our FD lenses on our new EOS bodies we could have made the switchover easier, we couldn't have thrown our toys out of the pram because Canon didn't make a $50 thing that made our manual focus lenses auto focus lenses, that is a farcical standpoint.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.
> 
> If I had been given the option of getting a $50 Canon made RT compatible trigger to work with my 550EX's instead of getting $450 600-EX-RT's I'd have done that, I wouldn't have got as integrated a system as I have, and Canon would have made $200 off me rather than $2,000. This way we are both happy. I am no Canon whore either, I have been running the 550's via Yongnuo RF 602's for years.
> 
> I paid $220 for most of my 550EX's new, I am getting around $150 for them now nearly ten years later secondhand, I wrote them down to nothing by 2008, they own me nothing yet they have given me ten years faultless service for $70. I expect similar figures from the 600's.



well, if I'd be coming from 10 years old written-off 550EXes, I'd also see much more sense to upgrade them to 600EXes. But in my case I got a pre-2012 camera model and Canon speedlites that are either still current (430EX II) or were current (580EX II) when I purchased them only about 2 years ago. Plus a 430EX which is maybe 5 years old. All of them used rather sparingly. Would you jump to an all 600EX-RT setup? btw. where I live, the ST-E3 retails from 270 € (=USD 365) and 600EX-RT runs from € 485 (=USD 650) a piece. The Yongnuo trigger is € 100 and I expect their YN-600EX to come in at maybe € 200 ... just to give you an idea, what I am looking at. 

Anyway to me its a very minor problem: a few more weeks of occasional optical triggering until the Yongnuos become available. 

Canon however has a bigger problem ... they spent R&D money and managed to create a highly beneficial technical advantage for many (potentially all) users of their ecosystem ... and then they don't distribute the goodness (against reasonable charge of course) to as many of their users as possible, but only to some ... 2012-Camera-model owners and 600EX-purchasers - rather than fully leveraging that USP against all their competitors. And driving nice synergies of scale. That's all I am saying.


----------



## Roo (Feb 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I visit this thread every now and then, just to be entertained
> 
> But it´s been a while since the D4s was announced and I have not seen an official Nikon specifications yet. Have any of you?
> 
> ...



Good to see that someone still remembers what the topic is


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon are giving us all a choice, buy into the RT system as it is, or not; buy it for what it currently does, or not. The 600-EX-RT does not render the 580 EXII or any other EX going back to my 550's, obsolete, it integrates with them flawlessly with the complete compatibility of the older optical wireless system. You would only have a point if Canon came out with a 650 EX-WT next year that didn't work with either the optical or current wireless system.



Yes, there is minimal backwards compatibility in the 600EX-RT (not in the ST-E3-RT). 

But if 
* no mixing of radio-wireless (600EX-RTs) and optical triggering (other Canon speedlites) is possible?
* group mode (mixing ETTL & manual mode flashes) only available on camera models brought out after 2012?
means "integrates flawlessly" to you ... well, my idea of that is certainly rather different.


PS: FD to EF transition is no valid comparison, since broken backwards compatibility back then was technically inevitable. Even though Canon could have eased the pain inflicted by offering really advantageous trade-in offers to their FD-customers (maybe they did, I was not affected in 1987).


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.
> ...



So basically, your bitching about the fact that Canon created this really kick-ass new technology that *you *really really want, but you can't afford it, so you go off on a name-calling binge and try to paint Canon as some greedy company run by a bunch of idiot-buffoons who apparently wouldn't know a gold mine if it collapsed around them...because they aren't selling the 600-RT at a price point *you *can afford to refurnish your entire collection of flash right now. 

Can you really get more childish than that? Seriously.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Oh, don't worry. I could afford more speedlites than I could carry, even at Euro prices. ;D
I just refuse to throw money at Canon without getting *exactly what I want*. 
And I do point out that some of Canon's business decisions don't seem to make a lot of business sense. Even though they manage to sell more cameras than other makers. Today. ;-)


btw: I would again ask you to please watch your wording and refrain from personal attacks on me. I do respect you and your profound technical knowledge you share in many of your posts. Feel free to criticize my opinions/posts, but please do so in a civilized manner, Thanks! After all, we are only discussing Canon stuff and economics 101, not even world politics or religious topics [heaven forbid!].


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is farcically ridiculous and failed logic.
> ...



I have two $7,000 pre 2012 camera bodies, my only post 2012 body is an EOS-M, so what? Canon is offering the RT system with the functionality it has, buy it on that basis or don't, they don't care which you choose, it is their sandbox and they have drawn the line in it, we can play if we want but only up to the line, don't cry that the line isn't further away as they never said it was. I was happy with the RT performance on my pre 2012 bodies, it gave me everything the optical system did but it did it much more reliably via radio. Subsequently I have also bought the YN-E3-RT and like that, but it is not without its own issues, besides, by your logic are not Yongnuo overcharging for the YN seeing as how all they have done is copy Canon's work, put it in $20 worth of parts and then rip us off for $150?

In your situation I'd get either the Phottix Mitros+/Odin or the 600's, because they are the two "best" systems you can buy today, but then I take photos today, and yesterday, and tomorrow, I don't care what Yongnuo might do in a month, or two........, or when the firmware that actually allows it to work on my camera will be available, another month, or two. You pay more for your gear, so what? You get more for it secondhand, look at the total cost to upgrade, that is what we did in the FD to EOS debacle, such that I didn't buy any new Canon products for over ten years (1994-2004). Or wait quietly for six months, see if the YN-600-RT is any good and get that, but if you can wait six months then I don't understand your anxiety now.

Get what you need from what is available when you need it. If you are just out to bitch about life in general fine, but there are plenty more worthy things to bitch about than Canon's implementation of the RT system.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


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



I'm sorry. It's just that your arguments have gone so far into the realm of...absurd...I'm honestly having a hard time comprehending. A lot of what you've said over the last 8 posts or so honestly sounds a little insane to me. It sounds like a LOT of assumption about the inner workings of a company you do not work for, and have no internal insight into. It sounds like your somehow turning what you think might possibly be true about Canon's inner business workings into fact in your head, then, with the assumption that your assumptions are actually indeed fact, you proceed to fabricate these wild stories... (At least...thats what it looks like from the outside...)

It's all well and good to not want to give Canon your hard earned money until they produce a product you want to spend that money on. That's entirely your prerogative, can't fault you for that. 

It's another thing to concoct a rather cockamamie idea about how Canon is greedy and stupid and missing out on a supposed goldmine. I'm not a billionaire CEO, however I've spent more than enough time reading C-level management profiles for companies as a stock investor to know that you don't get to be a head honcho at a corporation like Canon unless you have incredible credentials and a ridiculously friggin CLEAR picture of what the markets your company caters to are, exactly what they want, exactly what kind of price burden they can bear, and exactly how to leverage the balance between product diversity, flexibility, technology, service and price in order to keep the vast majority of your customers happy while sustaining the bottom line. 

I'm a reasonably intelligent guy. I know a some stuff about photography, some stuff about astronomy, a whole hell of a lot of stuff about software engineering, and a bit about a bunch of various things here and there. I would bet really good money, however, that every single C-level honcho and all the presidents and vice presidents and what have you of the various departments at Canon could RUN CIRCLES around me. They all tend to have rich, classical educations, so their knowledge is deep and wide (kind of a necessity in their business.) I've listened on financial report calls of a number of corporations I've been interested in buying stock for, in sectors ranging from energy (oil and gas drilling) to precious and rare earth metals mining to tech to finance. I don't even need to bet, I'll just pay up, the CEOs of all those companies are far smarter than I am.

A lot of people complain about the wealthy being wealthy, how unfair it is, how greedy they are. Man, if you spend just five minutes talking (or even just listening to) to a good, creative CEO, you'll understand why they are all millionaires and billionaires. You'll think they deserve their riches too...most are unbelievably hard working individuals who spend far more time than the average joe working, wheeling, dealing, funding and building economies. Most of the good CEOs are empowering and enabling individuals (although yes, there are some CEOs who just don't get the job, but I'd say they are a small minority). They are incredibly smart people, and they surround themselves with people just as smart and in many cases even a hell of a lot smarter (usually the case with engineers and the like...creme of the crop there.)

I'm just sayin...it's all well and good to wish for and rumormonger about a potential flash product you hope Canon will make in the future. As a matter of fact, its about the most encouraged thine here on CR. But your just digging yourself a hole calling them greedy and stupid and missing the ball (and otherwise, yes, sounding childish...it isn't really an insult, more an observation) on what you personally believe is a gold mine. Trust me, if Canon thought your idea would turn into a pile of gold for them, they would have already been all over it. They are already 15, 20 moves ahead of you. If the idea has merit, and will make a giant pile of silver, they are already working on it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

Roo said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I visit this thread every now and then, just to be entertained
> ...



Anybody that has used a 1DX and D4 will know the thread is a false question, the D4s is the belated answer to the 1DX.

The more interesting question is what that does to the time frame of the 1DX replacement, I suspect it will delay it as it puts a Nikon 1DX beating camera several years off.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon are giving us all a choice, buy into the RT system as it is, or not; buy it for what it currently does, or not. The 600-EX-RT does not render the 580 EXII or any other EX going back to my 550's, obsolete, it integrates with them flawlessly with the complete compatibility of the older optical wireless system. You would only have a point if Canon came out with a 650 EX-WT next year that didn't work with either the optical or current wireless system.
> ...



How is complete 100% backwards compatible functionality "minimal"? It is complete! Your 580's can do everything your 580's could ever do with your 600's.

Even your mighty Yongnuo can't make optical and radio work together (probably because they haven't got Canon's work to copy) but that is exactly the same situation as the FD and EOS scenario, old tech, new tech, but what Canon did with the 600 was give it all the old tech too, they made an EOS body you could use your FD lenses on, but they don't AF! But why would they? We didn't buy the FD lenses thinking they might be AF at some point in the future, we bought them for what they did that day, and in my case kept doing until 2004.

The 2012 Group Mode limitation was clearly stated by Canon, as were the one stop lose of sync speed, buy it for what it does, or not. Their decision was if your camera didn't have the full RT flash menu then it didn't get Gp Mode, their sandpit, their line. They could have updated countless cameras firmware, but for what? More issues that they felt wouldn't impact sales enough by not doing, hundreds of hours of coding and testing, bug reporting and fixing, for what, a few hundred 600 sales.

Open your eyes, see why they do what they do, don't take it personally, buy what does what you want when you want it, don't give a seconds thought to how something could be better, it isn't, it doesn't matter.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 3, 2014)

Private and Jon,

I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, experience and opinions. I just happen to agree with AvTvM on this one issue and I don't get why it is so hard to accept that he may have a point or at least a fair perspective on one issue.

This is not a lens. This is not a camera body. This is a case where the top-of-the-line accessory was replaced by another top-of-the-line accessory and Canon made a business decision not to offer a simple and inexpensive component that would have allowed buyers of their previous generation of top of the line Speedlites to have full or partial functionality of this new feature (radio triggering). 

I simply think that was a bad business decision. 

I'm not mad. I'm not pouting. I like Canon. I have been a loyal Canon customer since the days of the F1. I would never consider buying another brand of interchangeable lens camera. (I do own a Fuji X20). 

But, in this one instance, it seems that Canon had a very inexpensive option available that would have offered the buyers of its top-of-the-line strobe an upgrade path. Ironically, they could have done so in a way that I believe would have increased their profits. The ST-E3-RT sells for $300. Yongnuo 622-C transceivers sell for about $45 each. It's certainly rational to believe that Canon could offer a Canon brand receiver or transceiver for two, three or even four times that amount and still make a healthy profit. It's also very likely that offering such a receiver would have actually boosted sales of the 600 RT.

You like to use the example of FD lenses. But in that case, Canon did everything they possibly could have until they finally and reluctantly came to the conclusion that they had to change to mount in order to remain technologically competitive. This would only be an analogous situation if Canon had available at the time a $35 adapter that would have allowed all FD lenses to autofocus and access the full functionality of new bodies and then made a conscious decision not to implement it.

Canon is a great company. But, sometimes even great companies make shortsighted decisions. Unfortunately, they've done this before with their speedlites (crippling the 5D3 so that it cannot work with the Yongnuo ST-E2).

Now, I don't demand that you agree. I simply suggest that you might want to at least acknowledge that there can be a valid perspective different from your own, even if it comes from AvTvM.


----------



## Niki (Feb 3, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15482\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>Nikon’s extremely vague development announcement of the <a href=\"http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/06/nikon-announces-the-development-of-the-nikon-d4s-camera.aspx/\" target=\"_blank\">D4s body at CES 2014</a> has sparked the wrath of Canonites wondering when Canon is going to move beyond <a href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/canon-powershot-n100-official/\" target=\"_blank\">selfie technology based cameras</a>.</p>
> <p>Lets be clear first, Nikon hasn’t actually released any solid specs or descriptions of the technology in the new body.</p>
> <p>We’re told by a longtime source that Canon is indeed still in the game and has some “groundbreaking” camera bodies coming in 2014. Canon will take a different approach at the Sochi games and have test bodies out there without the development announcement. Canon plans to make a “big splash” at the World Cup in Brazil in the spring.</p>
> ...




they already answered the d4s it's called the 1dx


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Private and Jon,
> 
> I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, experience and opinions. I just happen to agree with AvTvM on this one issue and I don't get why it is so hard to accept that he may have a point or at least a fair perspective on one issue.



I don't necessarily disagree with the core kernel of real-world issue AvTvM brought up. It's all the extra...junk...that he wrapped around that core kernel that comes off as a bit childish...the dumb, greedy Canon "evil corporation" kind of stuff. That really just muddies up the issue, clearly, as it's what people (including myself) have been noticing most.

As I said, if you don't want to spend money on Canon's new 600-RT flash for a legitimate reason, and wish they would add another product, more power to you. Be vocal about it. But being vocal while badmouthing Canon as a dumb greedy corporation that just simply doesn't get it...well that's no help to anyone. Including yourselves. 



> This is not a lens. This is not a camera body. This is a case where the top-of-the-line accessory was replaced by another top-of-the-line accessory and Canon made a business decision not to offer a simple and inexpensive component that would have allowed buyers of their previous generation of top of the line Speedlites to have full or partial functionality of this new feature (radio triggering).



Aye. I understand that part.



> I simply think that was a bad business decision.



*Assuming such a business decision was made.* _That's not necessarily the case._

Sometimes it takes more time to develop a complete ecosystem when you develop something new. Especially when you first release it...you don't necessarily know if people will actually latch onto it and love it, or whether they will stick with what they already have. I guess I see the 600-RT as sort of Canon testing the waters. Remember, they are a conservative company. They don't just go balls to the walls and crank out any and every crazy-ass idea they have (like, *cough*Nikon*cough*Df*ahem*).

I bet if you give Canon the benefit of the doubt, rather than trolling through CR calling them greedy and just another dumb corporation, you might be surprised. If you guys have thought of it, and think it would be a goldmine for Canon to create radio transmitters that can be used with their older flash gear...you have to figure the innovative machine that Canon is has thought of it as well. Even if they have thought of it and are not sure whether to release it, you could be CONSTRUCTIVE about it all...contact them, officially, and let them know that you guys want such a thing. Demonizing Canon here on a forum is unlikely to really attract their attention, at least not in the way you guys want to attract it. (I can see it now...Canon's R&D team for flash: "Good grief! Those two guys over on CR forums are at it again. Callin us a bunch of greedy nitwits. Let's sit on this technology for juuust a little longer, see how long they last. *chuckle*" Would YOU want to deliver a new product to a bunch of guys who think your just a greedy idiot? I wouldn't! I'd have just a little spiteful fun at first, before I finally took your money. ;P)

Having some long years of experience with product planing for software projects, when you go into a big fishbowl of a meeting room to start talking about the potential features of a brand new product, you initially throw out ideas like ideas themselves are pure gold. You hash them out, refine them, log it all, sort it all, filter it all, and rank each idea according to feasibility, applicability, market demographics, and project phase. Not every idea makes it, and certainly not every idea makes the cut for the first phase of product development, testing, and release. Some ideas, even if they are excellent ideas, have to be ranked according to what the company can do within the deadlines they must set for themselves. Even if an excellent idea does make it to the top and ends up originally slated for development and release with the first phase, once the true scope and cost of a project is better understood, many things will bet pushed to the backburner for implementation in a later phase of the project.

To me, it isn't so much a bad business decision, as potentially a business decision _*yet to be made*_, or simply a product feature that didn't quite make the cut for Canon's _first round_ of radio-triggered flash accessories for the EOS line. It's too short sighted to think the concept hasn't even crossed Canon's collective mind, and premature to assume it was a "bad" business decision that has _so far_ prevented it's production and release. 



> I'm not mad. I'm not pouting. I like Canon. I have been a loyal Canon customer since the days of the F1. I would never consider buying another brand of interchangeable lens camera. (I do own a Fuji X20).
> 
> But, in this one instance, it seems that Canon had a very inexpensive option available that would have offered the buyers of its top-of-the-line strobe an upgrade path. Ironically, they could have done so in a way that I believe would have increased their profits. The ST-E3-RT sells for $300. Yongnuo 622-C transceivers sell for about $45 each. It's certainly rational to believe that Canon could offer a Canon brand receiver or transceiver for two, three or even four times that amount and still make a healthy profit. It's also very likely that offering such a receiver would have actually boosted sales of the 600 RT.



Again, you guys talk as though the opportunity has come and gone, never to be an opportunity again. To me, I don't see why Canon couldn't take advantage of this opportunity at any time and rake in the cash from the cow, or cows, as it were, in the event that receivers/transceivers sell like hotcakes and the 600-RT benefits all the more from them as well. I don't see any reason why the window of opportunity has passed, or that it even "can" pass. As has been mentioned, this is a closed system for Canon cameras. Whatever Nikon or Sony might do, they can only do it for Nikon and Sony. Their system would be meaningless for Canon shooters. And as much as people like to talk about switching brands, I think in reality it is a very rare breed of individual who actually dumps one brand to jump ship to another. At worst, some people might add Nikon to their extended kit. In general, I think most people will just stick with Canon and use what they have, and buy what's available. If at some point in the future transceivers for older Canon flash units become available, I'm sure people will jump on them just as enthusiastically then as they would now. Even if third parties swoop in and somehow fill in the gap in the interim, it seems clear that people are more than happy to jump ship to Canon's official gear when it arrives...so I'm not sure third-party alternatives are really a huge concern for Canon.



> You like to use the example of FD lenses. But in that case, Canon did everything they possibly could have until they finally and reluctantly came to the conclusion that they had to change to mount in order to remain technologically competitive. This would only be an analogous situation if Canon had available at the time a $35 adapter that would have allowed all FD lenses to autofocus and access the full functionality of new bodies and then made a conscious decision not to implement it.



However if Canon DID make a conscious decision not to implement it, they had very good technical or business reasons for doing so. The development of EOS and one of the first AF sensors was a pretty massive undertaking back in the 80's. The ultimate outcome of that undertaking was that they needed a whole new mount to support their long term goals. The other outcome of that undertaking was a hefty R&D bill. It isn't surprising that for EOS, Canon NEEDED to push people into the new lens system first and recoup some of those upfront costs, before even thinking about attempting to make an adapter to support focus confirm. (BTW, as far as I know, there are only four FD lenses that actually had autofocus...so were really talking about enabling focus confirm with FD lenses, not autofocus, since most weren't autofocus.)

FD had a 42mm registration distance, where as EOS has a 44mm registration distance. That means any FD to EF adapter would require optics to maintain infinity focus. That means greater potential for a loss in IQ, potential for incompatibilities, etc. It would have been a _bad _technical and business decision to try and support FD focus confirm, and in the case of those four FD AC lenses, full AF, right out the gate with EOS and EF. That would be adding interoperability for a legacy system to a brand spankin new system. The potential for conflicts and other issues would be high. Releasing an FD to EF adapter right out the gate is one of those situations where your potentially just asking for a massive rash of problems that flood your support centers...and for a LEGACY product, no less! 

Sorry, but I don't really agree that your FD example actually supports your argument. LOL, on the contrary, I think it supports my argument. Canon is a conservative company. They bite off what they KNOW they can chew, and they never take really big bites. They are careful, methodical, and ordered to the way they do things. I think FD to EOS/EF is a much more complicated endeavor than bringing radio transceivers to existing EOS flashes. There were hundreds of FD lenses, all of which would have had to have been tested for compatibility before any such adapter could have been released. There are, what, barely more than half a dozen EOS flashes on the market right now? That's a much simpler feat, to create an adapter and test it with all half dozen and some flash units.



> Canon is a great company. But, sometimes even great companies make shortsighted decisions. Unfortunately, they've done this before with their speedlites (crippling the 5D3 so that it cannot work with the Yongnuo ST-E2).



First, again with the assumption that a decision was made. We don't know that a decision _has been made_, at least not anything beyond the fact that legacy flash adapters for RT have not YET been released. Canon could be cooking them up in a back room right now, as we...type. :

As for the Yongnuo ST-E2 incompatibility, again I think your approaching the problem from the wrong angle. Canon updated their internal specifications to support enhanced functionality with the 5D III. The Yongnui ST-E2 did not support the new protocols, hence the incompatibility. Canon has a right to do whatever they deem necessary to progress THEIR technology. If that breaks third party products, and the third party makes the decision to not update their product, that's on the third party. (BTW, I looked, but only found hearsay that Canon supposedly "did not allow Yongnuo to use the new specs"...however there was no actual concrete information that was the case...when there was mention that someone contacted Yongnuo and THAT company *did say* _they_ were choosing not to update their ST-E2 for compatibility.)

When push comes to shove, it's CANON'S ecosystem. Canon has the right to do whatever they feel is necessary to advance *their own technology*. It isn't their prerogative to make sure that every third parties products built to support their ecosystem works every time they need to make changes to support Canon's progress. That would be an impossible task and delay products indefinitely (have you EVER tried to work with the third party guy? I have, as a web service integration guy or public API guy...working with the third party is an endless NIGHTMARE...they are never around, or they don't understand, or they don't have the time and refuse to update, or they decided to make changes that weren't compatible without telling you, they have to get authorization from that guy who is perpetually on vacation in some god forsaken scab of the earth forever out of contact...ugh, NIGHTMARE!!!)

Ever since I first started doing photography with a DSLR, the first piece of advice I was given still rings true:

"Always go with the brand! If you go with a third-party, your never guaranteed those products will work when the brand makes a change!"

I took that to heart. I own only Canon brand equipment for my DSLR, with the exception of my cable release (it's apparently just a pair of control wires for a switch...power on & ground, and it's been that way for decades, and it seems to be a rather universal approach amongst DSLR manufacturers). I don't have any fear that someday, suddenly, my third-party lens or flash will stop working...because I heeded good advice and stayed within the brand's ecosystem. Anyone who choses NOT to heed that advice, and buys outside of the brand, implicitly accepts the potential risks. That's on the customer and the third-party...not on the brand. 



> Now, I don't demand that you agree. I simply suggest that you might want to at least acknowledge that there can be a valid perspective different from your own, even if it comes from AvTvM.



I acknowledge that there can be a valid perspective different from my own. I don't yet conceed that I've found that alternative valid perspective yet. ;D  ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> This is a case where the top-of-the-line accessory was replaced by another top-of-the-line accessory and Canon made a business decision not to offer a simple and inexpensive component that would have allowed buyers of their previous generation of top of the line Speedlites to have full or partial functionality of this new feature (radio triggering).
> 
> I simply think that was a bad business decision.



I think you left a couple of important clauses out of your statement...

This is not a lens. This is not a camera body. This is a case where the top-of-the-line accessory was replaced by another top-of-the-line accessory and Canon made a business decision not to offer a simple and inexpensive component that would have allowed buyers of their previous generation of top of the line Speedlites *as well as buyers of dirt-cheap 3rd party manual flashes* to have full or partial functionality of this new feature (radio triggering). 

I simply think that was *Doing so would have been* a bad business decision. 

:-X

I've stated before that it's possible - even likely - that Canon has both a 4x0EX-RT and a hotshoe RT receiver developed and tested, if not ready for production. That would be a logical and easy way to boost buy-in to the RT system. However, if the 600EX-RT remains a strong seller, there would be less motivation to release the lower-end units. 

Looking at Amazon's sales ranking for shoe-mount flashes the 600EX-RT is #5. In first is a $40 560 Neewer flash, and rounding out the Top 5 are two versions of the Yongnuo 560 flashes ($75 and $61) and a cheap little softbox. So...we have three flashes at <$75 then the >$400 600EX-RT. A few points there - first, the 600 seems to be selling very well; second, the higher GN flashes are more popular; third, the best selling flash costs $40. That last point relates directly to my contention above - for Canon to provide a 'simple and inexpensive component' that would allow a $40 flash to integrate into their RT system would probably be a *really* bad business decision. 

So, will they ever make one? Quite likely... It would make sense (from Canon's perspective) to release an RT receiver along side or after the 4x0EX-RT, and price it $50-100 less than the 4x0 flash. That would likely push people to buy the 4-series flash instead of the receiver + a cheap flash (they'd get E-TTL, remote power adjustment, etc.), while providing an option for people with legacy Canon flashes 5-series to jump on the RT train.


----------



## flowers (Feb 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon's R&D team for flash: "Good grief! Those two guys over on CR forums are at it again. Callin us a bunch of greedy nitwits. Let's sit on this technology for juuust a little longer, see how long they last. *chuckle*" Would YOU want to deliver a new product to a bunch of guys who think your just a greedy idiot? I wouldn't! I'd have just a little spiteful fun at first, before I finally took your money. ;P)



Waste time before taking their money when you could take their money for a long time if you calculate the _best time_ to release a product? Canon is Asian, Asian business decisions aren't so flimsy and emotional. That is a silly idea.


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

flowers said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's R&D team for flash: "Good grief! Those two guys over on CR forums are at it again. Callin us a bunch of greedy nitwits. Let's sit on this technology for juuust a little longer, see how long they last. *chuckle*" Would YOU want to deliver a new product to a bunch of guys who think your just a greedy idiot? I wouldn't! I'd have just a little spiteful fun at first, before I finally took your money. ;P)
> ...



Um, yes...it was meant to be a silly idea. It was a joke! lol :


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Private and Jon,
> 
> I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, experience and opinions. I just happen to agree with AvTvM on this one issue and I don't get why it is so hard to accept that he may have a point or at least a fair perspective on one issue.
> 
> ...



I understand his point, I just don't think it has much validity, is certainly not a fair perspective, and it has no precedent.

I have been trying to think of a suitable analogy and in my thinking realised I don't need to, we have a lot of precedent for this situation. Canon had a pretty bad reputation for Speedlites for the longest time, many of you guys have probably repeated the "Nikon strobes are better" mantra many times without the first thought as to where that reputation actually came from, welcome to the EZ series of flashes and the A-TTL system. 

Well the 540EZ was the 580EX MkII of its day, it was the last in the line of top of the line flashes that used the A-TTL flash metering protocol. When the 550EX came out (damn I seem to time this right) owners of the 540EZ didn't expect Canon to come out with an accessory that would give them the new E-TTL system, they accepted that to get it they had to buy the new top dog, the 550EX. The new EX series brought E-TTL and that morphed into E-TTL II. Now we have the RT system, Canon gave the 600 100% integration with the 550EX to 580EX II, indeed it is still called an EX and will work 100% with all EX's ever made as they were spec'd, they didn't do that with the 540EZ to 550EX, that was a dead end. 

What I don't understand is why you expect Canon to give you a cheap option into their new system, they have never done that, never. Well I understand why you want it, I just don't understand why you think it would be of any benefit to Canon. As I explained to AvTvM, if I had been given the option to get Canon RT triggers for my 550's I would have done so, Canon would have lost thousands of dollars just from me. Add in the many people I know who have several 600's and I can't help but be exasperated by his naivety. That is just not how to recoup R&D budgets.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> I bet if you give Canon the benefit of the doubt, rather than trolling through CR calling them greedy and just another dumb corporation, you might be surprised... Demonizing Canon here on a forum is unlikely to really attract their attention



I have never called Canon greedy. Never will. They are a company. I think it's silly to anthropomorphize companies and assign them human traits. I merely expressed the opinion that I think in this case someone made a bad business decision. You don't think they did. Fair enough. No need to demonize people for having a different opinion and stating the reasons for their opinion. 



privatebydesign said:


> I understand his point, I just don't think it has much validity, is certainly not a fair perspective, and it has no precedent...



Well, Canon has given away valuable firmware upgrades for free. So there is a precedent for Canon to sometimes offer their best customers an enhancement. They do so to build customer loyalty and keep these high-value customers with the brand. No doubt, they do a cost-benefit analysis and determine that the benefits outweigh the cost.



privatebydesign said:


> ...What I don't understand is why you expect Canon to give you a cheap option into their new system, they have never done that, never. Well I understand why you want it, I just don't understand why you think it would be of any benefit to Canon. As I explained to AvTvM, if I had been given the option to get Canon RT triggers for my 550's I would have done so, Canon would have lost thousands of dollars just from me. Add in the many people I know who have several 600's and I can't help but be exasperated by his naivety. That is just not how to recoup R&D budgets.



You may be right. I don't have any inside knowledge as to what went into Canon's decision and they may indeed have done an analysis and determined that it was not beneficial to release a receiver. None of us can know whether or not that is case, but I'm certainly willing to concede that it is possible. 

I've merely suggested that it is also possible that they could have gone another route that would have still protected their bottom line but earned them more loyalty from their best customers. 

I've never suggested that Canon should have, or would have, offered a receiver at a deep discount. In fact, I'm quite certain people would have had to pay a premium for the receiver (or may yet still if Canon decides at some point in the future to offer one). None of us can know the details of any of these decisions.

It's not an unreasonable perspective, although you are free to disagree.

What I find disturbing is that people seem hell-bent on trashing anything that an unpopular forum participant says, without regard as to whether or not he or she might occasionally have a point. I'm probably more loyal to Canon brand products than almost anyone on this forum, and I find much of the whining and self-centered hand wringing childish. But, when people launch personal attacks on anyone who happens to disagree...well...it doesn't do the forum any favors and it tends to bring people down to the same level as the constant critics.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2014)

I think Jrista was referring to AvTvM not you.

I have no problem with differing opinions, it seems I rarely agree with anybody  I also try hard to be civil with people who are civil, though I know I fail sometimes.

What I have kept asking for is a real reason, not a personal wish, why a company would ever undermine or cheapen a route into a serious new protocol when that same company has never done anything of the sort in similar situations in the past.

Firmware updates have been done in the past but very few have been for the sole reason to give customers new features, though it has happened. However, firmware is a different idea, particularly if there isn't a competing product within that manufacturers line but a competitor does have one, it is a good way of lengthening a products lifespan. That is not the same as scavenging your own products, the best example of which comes to mind being the iPhone, it was the iPod killer, Steve Jobs even said so himself. But people who had iPod Touches didn't expect Apple to release a firmware update or plug in box that turned their iPod into an iPhone because the new device did everything the old one did and more. 

That is why I find it so hard to understand why people think it would be a good idea for Canon to release a stand alone RT receiver, it would be a box that turned your iPod into an iPhone, it just isn't going to happen from Canon, at any price.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Let me be more precise: i dont' consider canon to be greedier than other corporations. I perceive them to be more shortsighted with greed. All they only offer is what is absolutely required to not loose out to competitor's products immediately. Sometimes they undershoot that threshold. E.g. Eos-m.
> 
> And even when canon comes up with a new feature like switching from line-of-sight-triggering to radio-wireless that is hugely useful to many customers and leapfrogs the entire competion, they are held back by shortsighted greed. Only offering rt in one expensive top of the line speedlite and one commander that lacks in other features. And they design the system to deliver the goods in combination with the latest cameras only. Rather than really pushing the feature unto rheir huge installed base (of pre 2012 eos models and 580/430 speedlites) by offering a 450ex-rt and a cheap little transceiver for existing canon speedlites. Of course canon gets punished for this behaviour by amateurs like me who do not need to have the rt system to earn money.
> 
> ...



what i don't get about this whole argument here is this ---There IS and HAS been a thriving third party radio trigger business for quite some time now. 

Think about it, what is the industry standard for triggering strobes (not just speedlights, but all forms of strobes) - its Pocket Wizard. That may be why canon isn't pulling out all the stops on this.... 

Also, come on guys, have some patience here. An RT receiver may very well be around the corner. Or, it may not be!!! The problem is this, and this is where i get the idea of testing the waters. As said above, the industry standard is pocket wizards. Canon not only knows this, but, they also know there's more than one way to trigger a flash. A lot of shooters pick and choose where they need the latest tech, and many do prefer the simplicity of manual flashes. Manual flashes are generally a lot cheaper and pretty reliable because it's not packed full of tech. Then there are others who choose the cheaper option because they can't afford the switch to more complex systems.

For like just shy of 2 years now i have been using the cheap triggers...cactus v5's. Basic, simple, BUT reliable!!! I had one that took such a bad fall it tore the top hotshoe off. that one still works!!! not as a receiver of course, but the bottom shoe is fine. when i got them i got a batch of 5...one of them has died, but, for $35 a pop I'm really surprised more of them haven't died....

And there are a ton of other pretty reliable cheap options, and you can scale it up even too to less cheap options until you get to the odins and PW Flex and radio poppers. 

So, I think it is actually a VERY wise Business decision to do what they have done with the RT system.

If your buying into the RT system, it means you want more than basic manual functionality. And if you want that, you know your spending more $$$ to get it. It's just the nature of the beast. Canon knows this. So they introduce it in their flaghip flash. It's sensible. those that want what the new system can do will buy it. Canon does not need to make a work around because ---most of the people buying into this system already have a way of triggering flashes!!!!!!

I use myself as a test case...as I said, i have my 4 cactus v5's. They are old and i want to replace them, or maybe move to the phottix strattos ---- or, make the leap to the RT system. Flash history. I had 2 580's and a 430. But one of my 580's got stolen. Ended up replacing it with another 430. Then, the night before shooting a wedding my last 580 died. No time to find another 580 on ebay, or order anything cheaper, so i snagged a 600. 

the sale has me tempted, but, I know I could replace my cactus's with strattos for less than it will cost me to buy 1 ST-E3. I have grown used to manual settings so I don't know if I really need ETTL. That, and, I kind of like being able to have an on cam flash as well as off cam (just for a little fill). So, the new system for canon may not be best suited for me. 

There are tons of options out there, and canon knows this. They made something unique and those that have adopted the system like it enough to say great things about it. Hell, great enough to even temp folks like me who like me! Hell, I may even buy the strattos but still get the ST-E3!!! LOL


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I bet if you give Canon the benefit of the doubt, rather than trolling through CR calling them greedy and just another dumb corporation, you might be surprised... Demonizing Canon here on a forum is unlikely to really attract their attention
> ...



Oy. You know I wasn't referring to you specifically, but you did lump yourself in with AvTvM, and he most definitely called Canon greedy. Now were just getting into the realm of playing games, when you ignore the context within which the conversation exists. I hate it when people conveniently ignore context. (Or is it just that most people are never really aware of context...?)


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Let me be more precise: i dont' consider canon to be greedier than other corporations. I perceive them to be more shortsighted with greed. All they only offer is what is absolutely required to not loose out to competitor's products immediately. Sometimes they undershoot that threshold. E.g. Eos-m.
> ...



I think your starting to get it. If we continue on from where you've started...a market that is fairly saturated with both cheap wireless options (Cactus v5) as well as expensive wireless options (PW). Think about what Canon has to do in order to make a dent in that market, especially with the way people's loyalties work.

Their product offerings in that market have to be at least as reliable as the cheap Cactus v5, and they have to be at least as capable as PocketWizard. They really have to be more reliable, and more capable. They have to live up to the Canon brand, and the Canon brand is extremely powerful and garners a hell of a lot of loyalty. Canon can't miss a step...I mean, look at EOS-M. Personally I don't think that EOS-M was a missed step, but it was close enough to one, and Canon ended up pulling it out of the US and European markets for the foreseeable future. *Canon can not miss a step!* It's their reputation riding on it.

Now, what's worse for Canon? Rushing some kind of PW counterpart for the RT system that, due to the fact that it wasn't fully and properly designed and tested before hitting the market, somehow fails? Or, holding back, risking pissing off a very few people in niche groups who really WANT a Canon RT counterpart to PW, are dissatisfied that Canon didn't rush one out, but are probably still ok with waiting, because hell, what else are they going to do?

Canon is going to take the safer rout. Holding back and not releasing a product that may not be ready, or that may otherwise affect their ecosystem in ways we cannot know or understand, is the only *logical course of action* for Canon. They my piss a few people like AvTvM off along the way, but there isn't anything he can really do, and when they finally do release the product he's looking for, he'll clearly be all over it.

There could be a myriad of other issues that Canon has to deal with before they could release such a product as well. Who knows what kind of regulatory pressures and issues Canon might be having to deal with for such a product, not just in one locale, but in multiple locales around the world. Coordinating R&D with multiple local regulatory bodies is no small feat. And if you know anything about regulation, it can be the most boneheaded legislation any country ever creates...a 600-RT, because of it's "class" may apply under one set of regulations, where as a stand alone radio trigger could fall under an entirely different device class, and apply under an entirely different set of regulations. And that may be the case in multiple markets! Regulation can be as much a nightmare as working with the dreaded "third party".

Let's not forget that many markets are controlled by regulatory bodies that frown quite gravely on anti-competitive behavior. The EU in particular. The US is a tossup...sometimes they decide to prosecute vehemently for anti-competitive behavior, and other times they ignore it entirely...depends on the political blob's mood, it seems. Canon could, theoretically, entirely undermine an entire third-party market segment for radio flash triggers. I believe it is MORE than conceivable that these parties, particularly the likes of PocketWizard, are doing everything they can to protect the market they fundamentally rely upon for continued existence. If Canon released a particularly compelling radio trigger for RT with backwards compatibility and that same rich featureset, they could undermine a massive segment of PocketWizard's market, and disrupt their financial stability. There is no knowing for sure, but PocketWizard and many of their counterparts could very well be putting legal pressure on Canon not to release such a device, and their threats may be part of what has held Canon back.

As I've said many times before...nothing is ever simple. People have a tendency to radically simplify the insanely complex natures of human economies. (Well, people actually have a tendency to radically simplify pretty much everything...guess that's just human nature.) Anyway, there are so many unknowns when it comes to what Canon can or cannot do, will or will not do, and the reasons behind those decisions. It's a massively complex system. Only Canon's executives have a handle on it, and even then, Canon's executives delegate the bulk of that understanding to various underling groups and legal groups to deal with the specifics. We can't know why Canon hasn't done something. Trying to make up reasons why is just an exercise in futility. When you take it as far as AvTvM did, it just gets inane, fabricated stories based on assumption and maybe a little bit of overactive imagination, and you really begin to wonder what in the world is going on in their head. 

Well, that exhausts my contribution to the debate. 

Simplicity is a lie. Nothing is simple. See the complexity, and you will be sane!  Later dudes. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

It's also worth noting that Canon really hit a homerun with the RT system, even as it stands today. Yes, there are cheaper options out there, and there will always be people who are willing to sacrifice quality, functionality and/or reliability in favor of lower cost. There will also always be people out there who will whine and complain that the branded system is too expensive. But for a lot of people, having a system that is robust and reliable is 'priceless' – and Canon really delivered in this case.



jrista said:


> Well, that exhausts my contribution to the debate.



Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about that...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's also worth noting that Canon really hit a homerun with the RT system, even as it stands today.



depends what expectations you had. Compared to the age-old, limiting and not very reliable optical triggering: YES. 

Compared to what I would expect from a brand-new, proprietary "flagship-priced" flash system by the market leading camera gear company (right? ) I#d rate it "so-so". Yes, it is less limiting, yes it seems to be working reliably within the stated range and yes, it finally gives group-mode in conjunction with post2012 EOS camera models (is that 3 or is it more? 5D3, 1Dx ... plus some digital rebel?). Plus some nice remote 2-way triggering effects. 

But ... there are shortcomings ... as in the days past: still no 2nd curtain sync, still no no hypersync (rather the other way round with pre-2012 cameras) and no zoom-reflector control. Still no ability to include monolights in an RT-setup. Very basic backwards compatibility - even with still-current Canon speedlites [e.g. 430EX or ring-flashes]. 

So, in my book, they made it to first base and stopped right there. Although the ball is good and no outfielder erm competitor managed to catch it yet. Although 2nd and 3rd base are free. For whatever weird reason, Canon decided to stop right there, rather than going for a homerun and win the game. Just standing there, frozen at first base. Weird, ain't it? ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> depends what expectations you had. Compared to the age-old, limiting and not very reliable optical triggering: YES.
> 
> Compared to what I would expect from a brand-new, proprietary "flagship-priced" flash system by the market leading camera gear company (right? ) I#d rate it "so-so". Yes, it is less limiting, yes it seems to be working reliably within the stated range and yes, it finally gives group-mode in conjunction with post2012 EOS camera models (is that 3 or is it more? 5D3, 1Dx ... plus some digital rebel?). Plus some nice remote 2-way triggering effects.
> 
> ...



It is still flag shipped priced at over $100 less than the vastly less well specced Nikon flag ship. 

As for your shortcomings, I always ask people who moan about lack of remote second curtain sync to provide a situation where not having it ruins their image, I have never had one image posted as an accurate illustration. HSS works for all cameras via the RT system. Remote zoom might have some limited use to some shooters, I wouldn't have minded if it was included but have lost no sleep, or real time on the ground, as it isn't. A studio strobe trigger, that is the magic iPod Touch to iPhone box, never going to happen from Canon, it is not in their interests, mind you there are various ways of integrating 600's into a mixed studio light environment, using the studio strobes optical triggers would be my first thought, but there are many other routes. Get off the limited backwards compatibility loop, the 600 is 100% backwards compatible with every EX ever made. The ST-E3-RT is an RT, it was only designed to work with the RT system, if you want an optical controller for your 600 and 430 or macro flash setup use an ST-E2, how hard is that?

Not weird at all, the RT system is the best flash system on the planet. That you are too small minded to see the good for concentrating on the incorrectly reported, or misguided, bad is your loss, not mine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's also worth noting that Canon really hit a homerun with the RT system, even as it stands today.
> ...



Well, I guess we all know about unrealistic expectations. Compared to what's out there on the market, I'd expect it to be far better - and it is. 

PocketWizard? E-TTL, HSS, and monolight capability, sure...when you can get the damn things to work. Remote power control? Within a limited range, yes - and very easy to make those changes, a real plus. But, if you need to connect everything in a specific order, turn the power switches on in a specific order, stand on your left foot chanting a mantra and it needs to be a Tuesday with a full moon in the sky to get the setup to work, and oh god whatever you do don't turn a flash off to change the batteries or else you're back to square one, except you need to stand on your right foot that time…well, the PW system doesn't exactly set a high bar for reliability, does it?

Cactus/Vello/YN 'dumb' triggers? Well, at least they're cheap…and they're reliable. But they're 'dumb' for a reason - having to climb up a ladder to change the power setting on a hair light isn't that fun, to give one example.

Phottix Odin? Probably the best 3rd party alternative available right now, but not better than the Canon RT system, just cheaper - and it's pretty unsurprising that a 3rd party alternative would be cheaper. If you need >3 groups, the Odin is certainly not better. The only real advantage is if you want to change the head zoom remotely, I'm still not sure why you'd want to do that (well, yes, I can think of reasons to _want_ to, but many people don't realize that a consequence of zooming the head tighter than 50mm is patterned light if you're using bare flash - a grid or snoot will serve you better for creative use). A given modifier will have an optimal zoom setting, and once you've determined that, you're not going to change it unless you're changing the modifier, and unless you have a robotic assistant, you're not doing that by remote control.

I need to modify my earlier statement - not only will there always be people who will whine and complain that the branded system is too expensive, there will also always be people who will whine and complain because a system isn't perfect for their personal needs, and claim it fails to meet their expectations as if the manufacturer should have designed it specifically for them.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's also worth noting that Canon really hit a homerun with the RT system, even as it stands today.
> ...



WOW...so other than the Odin system, and I think radio poppers which are both a bit pricey (I think PW does a system that offers high speed sync and 2nd curtain, but that system is pricey too), there isn't much that does offer that! 

Optical trigger, yeah, it does suck, no arguments there. But for about $60 (cactus v5) you can use triggers which are reliable! Of course your using manual settings with these triggers. But they work! As with all things in photography, you make compromises unless you have an unlimited budget. 

One last thing regarding sync speed....

why is it that the sony a7 and a7r have the same sync speeds as most common SLR's???? I ask you directly because you seem to beleive these new systems are the template for all that is good in the world, why is it that with no mirror the zync speeds are still low? And I am talking flash on camera, not even off camera. shouldn't that be one of those benefits to ditching the mirror?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> why is it that the sony a7 and a7r have the same sync speeds as most common SLR's???? I ask you directly because you seem to beleive these new systems are the template for all that is good in the world, why is it that with no mirror the zync speeds are still low? And I am talking flash on camera, not even off camera. shouldn't that be one of those benefits to ditching the mirror?



The mirror is gone, but the mechanical shutter is still there…and it's the shutter that imposes the Xsync limitation (shortest duration where the sensor is completely exposed - above Xsync both curtains are traveling across the sensor in a 'rolling' slit).


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution.
> ...



The 6D further improved on the 5D2, yet you don't give it any respect. You're biased, that's all.


----------



## danimon (Feb 5, 2014)

it's 2014 already and yet we haven't seen any pro DSLR with built in SSD..

since it's been rumored that nikon 4s will have 4k video capability, all i want from canon is another line of DSLR that featuring:
- >256GB SSD storage
- 3,2 inch articulated screen
- 60fps uncompressed fullHD +120fps compressed FullHD (adding 30fps 4k video would be generous)
- high capacity battery

all the cinema goodness in a standard DSLR body 

just pack it with 20-ish mp high sensitivity sensor, and sell it under $4k


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > why is it that the sony a7 and a7r have the same sync speeds as most common SLR's???? I ask you directly because you seem to beleive these new systems are the template for all that is good in the world, why is it that with no mirror the zync speeds are still low? And I am talking flash on camera, not even off camera. shouldn't that be one of those benefits to ditching the mirror?
> ...



exactly. 

Aside from the "generic problem" of a mechanical shutter, Sony's greedy and shortsighted (!) choice of A) whimpy battery and B) crappy mechanical shutter unit [noise, lots of vibration, bad X-sync] for the A7R seriously degrades what would otherwise have been a truely amazing camera. Unfortunately. Shutter situation in A7 is somewhat better since it has an electronic "first curtain" and 1/250s X-sync as opposed to only 1/160s for A7R. 

Much shorter X-sync times are one of the reasons why I am clamoring for true "solid state" mirrorless cameras, with "no moving parts whatsoever" inside. 

see also: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19224.msg364739#msg364739


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> The 6D further improved on the 5D2, yet you don't give it any respect. You're biased, that's all.



Sure, it further improved the IQ a bit, which was already excellent on the 5DII. It improved the metering, too. It didn't _significantly_ improve the AF or frame rate, which were the 5DII's biggest deficits. The 6D has a less robust shutter with a 1-stop lower max speed, slower Xsync, and a shorter rated lifespan. The 6D has a substantially longer shutter lag. So considering IQ only, the 6D improved on the 5DII, but overall it's a mixed bag. The 5DIII improved on the 5DII in pretty much every way. At least on Amazon (not that it means much) the 5DIII is outselling the 6D. 

The 6D's biggest 'feature' is its lower cost. 

Of course, AvTvM might say the 6D is not 'dated' because it has WiFi. Nice if you want to upload your JPGs to Facebook on the fly, I suppose. I thought it would be great for remote triggering, but someone pointed out that after a short time the connection drops, and you have to physically access the 6D to reactivate the link - that severely limits the utility, IMO (the WFT options for other bodies aren't limited in that way, but you pay a big premium for them).


----------



## MLfan3 (Feb 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Exactly, the shutter issue and the slow flash sync speed of the A7R really hurt what would otherwise have been a truly amazing pocket camera.
This thing shouldn't have been rushed , after all , not many of us want to be beta testers for Sony or Samsung or whatever.


----------



## flowers (Feb 5, 2014)

danimon said:


> it's 2014 already and yet we haven't seen any pro DSLR with built in SSD..
> 
> since it's been rumored that nikon 4s will have 4k video capability, all i want from canon is another line of DSLR that featuring:
> - >256GB SSD storage
> ...



Though 4K->2K video always looks better than native 2K, 2K editing and 2K final result are plenty. Did you know over 90% of movies today are filmed on film that is smaller than an FF sensor or recorded by a sensor that is smaller than an aps-c sensor, and in the case of film telecined at about 3K and edited in about 2.5K and then shown in the cinema at 2K? 4K is not necessary for making a movie, it's just the latest hype.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D further improved on the 5D2, yet you don't give it any respect. You're biased, that's all.
> ...



I consider 
* 5D III = 5D IIN
* 6D = 5D II v1.1
 

6D basically is a FF digital rebel to me. Marekting crippled product with a reasonable sensor and Wifi. About equally bad as Nikon D610, but better than D600, since it did not do splatter movies with its mirror.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



LOL. OMG this is such an unmitigated amount of bias against the 5D III. The 1D IIn was a MINOR update to the 1D II. The 1D IIn was mostly the same, with literally the same sensor, af system, same digic, etc. The ONLY changes with the n were firmware...picture styles...and a better LCD screen. You do realize that, right?

Trying to make it seem as though the 5D III is basically a 5D IIn is exceptionally naive and ignores a hell of a lot of facts. The 5D III was a massive upgrade compared to the 1D II -> 1D IIn update. It got an entirely NEW sensor that offered significant improvements in IQ (especially at high ISO), it got a new DIGIC chip, it got a radical update in AF system, it was the first non-1D body to get f/8 AF, it got a significant upgrade in metering sensor, it got the much-needed ergonomic and button placement upgrade, it got a weather sealing upgrade, it got a massive firmware update (akin to the 1D X firmware, which is WORLDS better than what the 5D II had), and a hell of a lot more!!!!

Saying the 5D III is like a 5D IIn is completely ignoring ALL of the facts. Man, you know, you indicated in a response to me on another thread not long ago that you wanted me to show you some more respect. I'm happy to do so...but AvTvM...you really gotta DESERVE it. Saying crap like the 5D III is just a 5D IIn doesn't help, at all, in the respect department. It isn't as bad as the spinhappy tiraid against Canon as a greedy, selfish, and dumb company that is missing all it's opportunities (as if you actually know anything about it), but it's still dishonest. It speaks to a considerable level of either naiveté (i.e. you really just DON'T know what your talking about), or you do know what your talking about and it speaks to someone who is trying to pull a fast one on unsuspecting readers. Neither are very respectable. 

I can't respect the way you try to twist and convolute the facts. Sorry, but seriously...if you want to make a viable, cogent argument that other readers here on the forum will respect, don't go around making bullsh*t claims like "The 5D III is a minor upgrade, barely qualifies as a 5D IIn." That's a bold faced LIE! I KNOW you know that! And we aren't talking about a difference of opinion here...were talking about concrete facts. Verifiable, measurable differences in relative terms. The 5D III is *not *akin to a 5D IIn based on the _actual, real-world,_ *factual *differences between a 1D IIn and the 1D II. The latter was a pitiful update, involving minor firmware and very minor hardware changes. The former was a very significant, measurably meaningful update involving massive changes in both firmware and hardware.

Facts, bud. I'll respect you if you stick to the facts. :-\


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



You certainly have a talent; for losing credibility. 

With the exception of the 5Dmkiii AF system, which you acknowledge, your premise for considering the camera to be a '5Dmkiin' is clearly based upon the fact that it has a dslr form and a sensor of about 20mp. 

Canon answered all those users who wanted a fully 'professional grade' 5D mkii and didn't want the cost and bulk of a 1Ds mkiii. Quite apart from the AF, speed, dual cards, shutter durability, stainless steel bottom plate, transmissive lcd display, improved build and weather sealing, the sensor in the mkiii is a substantial improvement over the mkii at high high ISOs, but also has subtle improvements in total graduation and graduation to high and low lights, which give it ( and the other latest generation FF cameras) much more of a film like quality. 

Looking at the sales success and feed back from users of the mkiii Canon has clearly produced the finest general purpose dslr of the current era. 

However as it _looks_ like a mkii, and the sensor is more or less the same mp, I suppose there will be those, like yourself, who think it's a mkiin, but then there are those who think the moon's made of cheese. 

You've also contradicted yourself with the 6D. In one sentence you call it a '5D mkii v1.1', and in the next paragraph a FF rebel. 

The 6D actually does not feel like a 5D at all; it has its own characteristics. It's a fine camera for the market that it is aimed at.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> 6D basically is a FF digital rebel to me. Marekting crippled product with a reasonable sensor and Wifi.



Oh dear, that was a grave mistake. As soon as he reads this, mild-mannered CarlTN will head for the nearest phone booth or broom closet to turn himself into SuperCarl and take you down like General Zod. 







...and rightfully so. While the sensor is only part of the camera, the 6D does offer the best sensor IQ Canon has today outside the ~$7K 1D X (and at ISO 100, the 6D has slightly more DR than the 1D X). I stated that the shutter is less robust, but I bet many 6D owners never will never exceed 100K shots, need faster Xsync or 1/8000 s for shooting fast primes wide open in daylight. Importantly, the 6D is substantially cheaper than the 5DII was, making that level of image quality much more affordable.


----------



## Woody (Feb 6, 2014)

Wow, I'm enjoying the fireworks here! ;D

Anyway, back to the topic on hand. I have no doubt Canon will answer the D4s (which is actually a rather minor update based on the rumored specs). I am more curious if Canon has a high mp, high DR answer in a moderately sized body like the D800.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2014)

Woody said:


> Wow, I'm enjoying the fireworks here! ;D
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic on hand. I have no doubt Canon will answer the D4s (which is actually a rather minor update based on the rumored specs). I am more curious if Canon has a high mp, high DR answer in a moderately sized body like the D800.



HOW will they answer the D4s, though? I mean, is the 1D X not already THE answer? I find it highly doubtful that Canon would design, build, test, and release a successor to the wildly successful 1D X, which is already a far superior tool, just because of the minor updates coming in the D4s. 

That's almost like a car manufacturer building an entirely new car only a few months after they put it on the market because their rival put prettier rims on their model, when the first car manufacturer already had kick-ass rims and was already selling the car like hotcakes.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 6D basically is a FF digital rebel to me. Marekting crippled product with a reasonable sensor and Wifi.
> ...



LOL at that pic...

In practice I have found the 6d to be a way more capable camera than the specs say and many reviews say. I use it side by side with a 5d3, and depending on what and where and I'm shooting it's rare that I absolutely need the 5d3 to get the shot the way i want it. Sometimes even, in challenging low light like at a reception, if i am not using a flash on cam the 6d has a better hit rate with focus using that center point than any point with the 5d3. 

But, none of what I say in on the matter will make much difference - to those that are rational they've already heard me say exactly what I just said and many do have similar experiences with the 6d. For action, yeah, it's not the best option. But for most other things it's a great little body.

but in your eyes (AvTvM), both of these bodies are paper weights, because they have mirrors. 

Lastly, I kind of feel like you may be one of those people that's never happy. I keep seeing you posting these demand lists, and the list keeps growing. Canon could produce a mirrorless 1dx right now priced at 5d3 prices and you'd still complain about it (ohhhh its too large, or, it where is the tilt screen...)


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 6, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> but in your eyes (AvTvM), both of these bodies are paper weights, because they have mirrors.
> 
> Lastly, I kind of feel like you may be one of those people that's never happy. I keep seeing you posting these demand lists, and the list keeps growing. Canon could produce a mirrorless 1dx right now priced at 5d3 prices and you'd still complain about it (ohhhh its too large, or, it where is the tilt screen...)



+1, bingo! The A7R should have satisfied most of the requirements of his earlier lists, and yet he is still using his 7D in place of the A7R. There is a large IQ gap between the 7D and the current FF offerings, and yet he still won't switch...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 6, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> +1, bingo! The A7R should have satisfied most of the requirements of his earlier lists,



it did. MOST of my requirements. But not all of them. No 500+ shot on a battery charge. No in-body stabilizer. No silent shutter. No vibration-free shutter. No really good AF. Unfortunately. 



Random Orbits said:


> and yet he is still using his 7D in place of the A7R. There is a large IQ gap between the 7D and the current FF offerings, and yet he still won't switch...



Sensor IQ is only one thing in a camera, as Neuro and almost everybody else in this thread will be happy to tell you. 

However, I may still get an A7 or A7R with the 24-70 Sony-Zeiss. But first the lens has to become available where I live. ;-)


----------



## J.R. (Feb 6, 2014)

Oi Oi... Don't stop now, I've still got some popcorn left


----------



## Roo (Feb 7, 2014)

I'm waiting for AvTvM to launch his dream camera producing crowd funded start up so that I can launch the AvTvMrumors site


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 7, 2014)

Roo said:


> I'm waiting for AvTvM to launch his dream camera producing crowd funded start up so that I can launch the AvTvMrumors site


Please yes and bring in a couple of the other guys too. None mentioned, none forgotten.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 7, 2014)

actually, I AM dreaming of starting a REALLY RIGHT digital camera company. 

Design of the product lineup and selling it would be really easy. Sourcing of components is what concerns me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> actually, I AM dreaming of starting a REALLY RIGHT digital camera company.
> 
> Design of the product lineup and selling it would be really easy. Sourcing of components is what concerns me.



I'd be more worried about your market size.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 7, 2014)

This is like wondering when will Apple respond to HP and Dell's workstations with a new Mac Pro (which is thankfully out now). Just like Apple, Canon can afford to wait until they have something worth putting out. Top-of-the line might be where the "pro" reputations are made, but the money is made toward the bottom-end. So don't be too surprised that Canon takes their sweet time.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd be more worried about your market size.



don't worry. All the cameras in my dreams are really great. None of them is marketing-crippled. They'll sell like hot-cakes. 8)


----------



## Semprasectum (Feb 12, 2014)

I am in the process of changing from Nikon to Canon. I have been a professional sports shooter for over a decade and recently became disenchanted with Nikon's service and that combined with a Canon rep allowing me to use a 1DX I have decided to make the change. 

With that said, the Canon rep dissuaded me from changing immediately with the clear message being a successor for the 1Dx is at hand. This rep had no reason to lie or mislead, so I will spend the rest of the bb season and track season with my D4 and D3s but by this fall I expect no to have the 1Dx successor available to me, but the successor to the 1Dx available. Just my 2 cents ;D

Anyone interested in some pristine Nikon gear, D4, D3s, 200mmf/2VRII, 400mmf2.8VR and a dozen other pieces of quality Nikon glass it will be available at Sports Shooter in late May. . .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/semprasectum/12359730805/#


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D further improved on the 5D2, yet you don't give it any respect. You're biased, that's all.
> ...



I'm not big on the Wi-Fi aspect, myself. And thanks again for posting that insulting cartoon that you claim depicts me. I would like to post the cartoon I have for you, but I would get banned, where you're likely being paid every time you take a cheap shot at me...if not in money, then in "atta-boys"...

As for the shutter lag being far longer for the 6D than the 5D3, *how about posting a link that shows evidence of that? I've not seen it. *I very highly doubt it's much different. Even the 1DX has close to or the same shutter lag as the 5D3, from what I have seen.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-6d/canon-6dA.HTM

"Canon rates shutter lag as around 60 milliseconds (we measured 59), which is near-identical to that of the EOS 5D Mark III."

At least you are starting to admit to the 6D's positive attributes...but that's only so you can pretend that you aren't biased. Nobody believes it...I'm surprised you didn't mention that the 6D is technically "not full frame", since the sensor is .2 mm smaller in height and width. Apparently nobody cares about this anymore, but they sure pretended to when the 6D was first introduced.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 12, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


Actually Carl, I thought more of it as an olive branch.

It's fun what you write about the sensor size on the 6D. people tend to get very upset about tiny details just to have something to complain about, then after a whiöe when it turns put it was aquite a good camera you hear very little about it.


----------



## NostraHistoria (Feb 12, 2014)

Nikon D4s listed at Adorama as a 24MP camera
By [NR] ADMIN | Published: FEBRUARY 12, 2014
1
Nikon-D4s-camera-with-24MP-sensor
Adorama lists the Nikon D4s camera with a 24MP sensor, 11 fps and 51 points AF system (update: the listing is now removed). The camera is listed to include:


Nikon D4S HDSLR Camera
Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL18
Battery Charger MH-26
USB Cable UC-E15
USB Cable Clip
Camera Strap AN-DC7
Body Cap BF-1B
Accessory Shoe Cover BS-2
Eyepiece DK-17
Battery Chamber Cover BL-6
UF-2 Connector Cover
UF-1 Connector Cover
Nikon View NX2 CD-ROM
Nikon 1 Year Warranty


Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2014/02/12/nikon-d4s-listed-at-adorama-as-a-24mp-camera.aspx/#ixzz2t7u1Ym8Y


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> I'm not big on the Wi-Fi aspect, myself. And thanks again for posting that insulting cartoon that you claim depicts me. I would like to post the cartoon I have for you, but I would get banned, where you're likely being paid every time you take a cheap shot at me...if not in money, then in "atta-boys"...
> 
> As for the shutter lag being far longer for the 6D than the 5D3, *how about posting a link that shows evidence of that? I've not seen it. *I very highly doubt it's much different. Even the 1DX has close to or the same shutter lag as the 5D3, from what I have seen.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the correction, I was wrong on the shutter lag (a quick look at a top Google hit, Snapsort, from my phone, which lists the shutter lag as 290 ms, but I didn't verify, my fault). FYI, the defult 1D X shutter lag is 55 ms, but enabling a C.Fn drops it to 36 ms if you're shooting no narrower than ~3 stops from wide open - the disadvantage to that mode is if you stop down more, you get a lag that varies with how far you stop down).

I didn't know the 6D has a dwarf FF sensor, wow, now I have something else to hold against it.  Obviously, the 0.2mm doesn't matter in practice, anyway…and it may be that when you factor in the masked pixels at the edges of the sensors, there's no actual difference in the active imaging area (i.e. the 6D might have a physically smaller sensor but also a narrower region of masking).

I'm realisitic, not biased. "Starting to admit"? The reality is that the 6D is a capable camera, as I've stated many times...but it's also at the bottom of Canon's full frame range. The 5DIII is better, the 5DII is better in some ways and worse in others (although that's partly irrelevant since it's no longer current), and the 1D X is better still. If you want to believe that I'm biased against the 6D, then I would hope you'd realize that you're far more biased than me, albeit in the opposite direction.




Arctic Photo said:


> Actually Carl, I thought more of it as an olive branch.


In my experince, when you extend an olive branch to someone with a huge chip on their shoulder, they tend to think you plan to hit them over the head with the branch and they often respond aggressively.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 12, 2014)

NostraHistoria said:


> Nikon D4s listed at Adorama as a 24MP camera
> By [NR] ADMIN | Published: FEBRUARY 12, 2014
> 1
> Nikon-D4s-camera-with-24MP-sensor
> ...



One of my nikon shooting friends posted a rant on FB the other day about how nikon needs to innovate cause they aren't giving him a reason to upgrade from his d3 (I would argue that the d3s or the d4 would be an upgrade...) Either way, that led me to see what the current buzz is...

Still no real news but the majority are saying it will have the same 16 MP's but in a slightly improved sensor, plus a few other improvements that don't sound like much.


----------



## Semprasectum (Feb 12, 2014)

Unless the D4s is able to at least equal the focus capabilities of the 1Dx, they have no reason to release the D4s . . . Nikon isn't stupid, the focus performance will be upgraded, the ISO performance will be enhanced and I would expect the cosmetic MP increase to say, 21 . . the only real thing that matters in this upgrade is the focus improvement, it this isn't done, no professional will by it . . . and they need professionals to buy their flagship . . . I expect Nikon to present a vastly improved product. . .. JMHO. . . . now, if they would just improve their service :


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 15, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> Actually Carl, I thought more of it as an olive branch.


In my experince, when you extend an olive branch to someone with a huge chip on their shoulder, they tend to think you plan to hit them over the head with the branch and they often respond aggressively. 
[/quote]
Well I enjoy following and learning from both of you guys here.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Carl, I thought more of it as an olive branch.
> ...


Well I enjoy following and learning from both of you guys here.
[/quote]

Thanks, I admit my knowledge is limited in many areas. When I'm wrong, I try to admit that too...at least until it gets deleted by the thought police.


----------

