# Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 6, 2018)

```
The Nikkei Asian Review sat down with Canon Chairman & CEO Fujio Mitarai for a brief interview about Canon’s plans over the medium term. Canon Inc. is definitely looking to acquire more businesses and continue to diversify their portfolio of industries. Canon wants new businesses to generate nearly one-third of sales.</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Q: What is the biggest issue currently facing Canon?</b></p>
<p><b>A:</b> Our primary management goal this year is to raise our antennas high toward cutting-edge technology. It is on this point where we lag behind other companies. We will open up a research and development center in the U.S.’s Silicon Valley, where we will actively adopt new technology. <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Time-to-think-outside-the-camera-box-Canon-chief-argues?page=1">Read the full interview</a></p>

</blockquote>
<p>Here’s hoping cameras and lenses are part of this goal, there is a general perception that Canon hasn’t innovated the camera space all that much since the launch of DPAF. Whether or not this is factual doesn’t matter, brand perception is a big part of marketing.</p>
<p><em>image credit // <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Time-to-think-outside-the-camera-box-Canon-chief-argues?page=1">Nikkei Asian Review</a></em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 6, 2018)

It's not 1st of April yet.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 6, 2018)

Has AvTvM become CEO at Canon ?


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 6, 2018)

News at 11:00, CEO says a thing that CEO's often say.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 6, 2018)

Part of the issue is that Canon sees the increasing demand for cameras, and is not well placed to provide them. Cameras for smart phones, automobiles, face recognition which can be used almost everywhere from front door locks to automobiles, and they are fooling with DSLR's and printers while letting the big money and the future get away.

Canon is shopping, their profits have soared since they bought Axis and Toshiba Medical. I'[d look for them to get into sensor production and face recognition tech in a big way.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 6, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Part of the issue is that Canon sees the increasing demand for cameras, and is not well placed to provide them. Cameras for smart phones, automobiles, face recognition which can be used almost everywhere from front door locks to automobiles, and they are fooling with DSLR's and printers while letting the big money and the future get away.
> 
> Canon is shopping, their profits have soared since they bought Axis and Toshiba Medical. I'[d look for them to get into sensor production and face recognition tech in a big way.



+1


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 6, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Part of the issue is that Canon sees the increasing demand for cameras, and is not well placed to provide them. Cameras for smart phones, automobiles, face recognition which can be used almost everywhere from front door locks to automobiles, and they are fooling with DSLR's and printers while letting the big money and the future get away.
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 6, 2018)

For a publicly traded company, being number one means returning lots of value to share holders. In Canon's situation, it means being number one in imaging, which can encompass a wide variety of things, Cameras being one of them. 

Mostly, it means profit!!

Its the job of the CEO to guide the company and to look out for both present and future profits. The latter is very difficult.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 6, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Note that he's not specifically referring to cameras, but to the whole range of Canon businesses. He's not saying "our DSLRs suck, we need to improve them," he's saying the normal stuff you say to make your board and stockholders feel good: "we will not rest on our laurels." Sure, it's good to hear, but it's meaningless without specifics. He did not tell us what areas of new research would be explored at their new facility in California.

I wouldn't read much into this, this is nothing more than CEO cheerleading.


----------



## KirkD (Jan 6, 2018)

He might want to take some cutting edge innovation lessons from Sigma. Compared to them, Canon crawls along at a snail's pace on their hands and knees.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 6, 2018)

KirkD said:


> He might want to take some cutting edge innovation lessons from Sigma. Compared to them, Canon crawls along at a snail's pace on their hands and knees.



Pure hyperbole. Sigma is very good at shaving costs and reverse engineering...but true innovation? Not so much.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 6, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Sounds like this exec sees a future that many on this forum never have- being #1 in sales in the near term doesn’t matter. Innovation is needed to stay at #1 and other companies are pulling ahead in this way. Canon has to be willing to disrupt themselves to stay in the lead and hopefully that applies to their camera division.



Next time, you might try actually reading the interview, instead of just repeating talking points. 

He's talking about expanding and investing in areas outside of traditional cameras. Maintaining their core imaging and office businesses, but investing in security, medical, etc., that are not traditional consumer photography products.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > He might want to take some cutting edge innovation lessons from Sigma. Compared to them, Canon crawls along at a snail's pace on their hands and knees.
> ...



Well now, I’m not going to argue that they’re innovate more than the next company, but saying they’re not good at innovating? I wouldn’t say so.. 1.8 zooms for aps-c? Only one in the industry. Stacked sensors? First and only company to implement. F/2.0 FF zoom? Err just barely a zoom, but yup, only company to make one. 2.8 zoom to 300 mm- again the only one in the industry.

Otoh I’d hardly say they’re doing circles around Canon, or is anyone else for that matter- the entire industry has been kinda stagnant for the last 5-10 years


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like this exec sees a future that many on this forum never have- being #1 in sales in the near term doesn’t matter. Innovation is needed to stay at #1 and other companies are pulling ahead in this way. Canon has to be willing to disrupt themselves to stay in the lead and hopefully that applies to their camera division.
> ...



Which is why I said “hopefully that applies to their camera division.” We can always dream it does.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 7, 2018)

I read "_We will open up a research and development center in the U.S.'s Silicon Valley, where we will actively adopt new technology aimed at producing faster EF-M lenses_." Wasn't that the gist of it?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 7, 2018)

Office is a bigger part of their business than imaging. Not sure if the future s bright for printing. They probably want to get more into profitable areas like medical imaging or security video cameras or military equipment . Consumer cameras might not be a big driver for growth.


----------



## CosminD (Jan 7, 2018)

he's speaking about innovations and Canon still launches stuff like 6d mk II and G1x mkIII ? He must be doing drugs or something


----------



## bholliman (Jan 7, 2018)

brad-man said:


> I read "_We will open up a research and development center in the U.S.'s Silicon Valley, where we will actively adopt new technology aimed at producing faster EF-M lenses_." Wasn't that the gist of it?



LOL, I hope you are right!


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 7, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Part of the issue is that Canon sees the increasing demand for cameras, and is not well placed to provide them. Cameras for smart phones, automobiles, face recognition which can be used almost everywhere from front door locks to automobiles, and they are fooling with DSLR's and printers while letting the big money and the future get away.
> 
> Canon is shopping, their profits have soared since they bought Axis and Toshiba Medical. I'[d look for them to get into sensor production and face recognition tech in a big way.


There you go... Canon is already heavily invested in the big brother business.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 7, 2018)

To me this does not tell me anything or giving me any confidence. Even if I have to assume he is talking about Cameras, hypothetically let's say if they open up an R&D division in 2018 and start research immediately by the time we see a product coming to the market it will be too late. Two of my most respected reviewers Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost are in to Sony already and Dustin mentioned he is waiting for his a7r3. Sure there are some caveats with Sony but with dual card slots and decent lens line up Sony is an attractive option for even professional photographers except for wildlife, sports and astro photography. Once Sigma and Tamron starts to deliver full frame lenses for E mount we will see more people jumping ship. Canon is losing its user base slowly and sure enough if they do not come up with a camera that shoots 4k with a decent codec in 2018, I am sure they will loose more market share. I am not even talking about mirror less, just offer the 4k30 with h.265 codec and 1080p 120fps on a DSLR with C-log, focus peaking and zebras


----------



## TAF (Jan 7, 2018)

From our perspective as camera aficionados, this is something of a disturbing interview. Read the following quotes:
----------------
Q: How far is Canon in fulfilling its medium-term plan to 2020?

A: We aim to make at least 5 trillion yen ($44.1 billion) in consolidated sales. It is definitely not impossible if we maintain the current economic situation and stable exchange rates. I see cameras contributing over 30% and office equipment another 40%, while new business segments, with health care at the center, will account for the rest.

Q: Tell us about upcoming mergers and acquisitions.

A: In particular, we will implement M&As that will further strengthen areas where we've already made acquisitions. Future purchases will supplement the health care, security camera and industrial equipment segments, with no bias toward either hardware or software.
---------

That reads to me as 'the camera business, which is only 30% of our business, is stable, so we're going to expand into other areas to enhance our revenue.

Rather than 'we're going to spend lots to make the camera business better'.

Many massive corporations started in one area and eventually moved into totally different areas, eventually abandoning their original business. 2020 will not be a problem, but I would watch to see if they really continue developing new hardware...I wouldn't be surprised to find by 2040 Canon has moved beyond cameras entirely.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 7, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> To me this does not tell me anything or giving me any confidence. Even if I have to assume he is talking about Cameras, hypothetically let's say if they open up an R&D division in 2018 and start research immediately by the time we see a product coming to the market it will be too late. Two of my most respected reviewers Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost are in to Sony already and Dustin mentioned he is waiting for his a7r3. Sure there are some caveats with Sony but with dual card slots and decent lens line up Sony is an attractive option for even professional photographers except for wildlife, sports and astro photography. Once Sigma and Tamron starts to deliver full frame lenses for E mount we will see more people jumping ship. Canon is losing its user base slowly and sure enough if they do not come up with a camera that shoots 4k with a decent codec in 2018, I am sure they will loose more market share. I am not even talking about mirror less, just offer the 4k30 with h.265 codec and 1080p 120fps on a DSLR with C-log, focus peaking and zebras



I'm happy they admit this publicly. Canon was awarded more patent in 2016 than Google, Microsoft, and Apple. It's unclear how much of it will materialize, but it's not like they contemplate to " start research immediately ". It could be simply be mean they got the OK from the boss to allow their engineer division to not be hold back from by other division. Whatever it may be, it's not like they are starting from the beginning ;-). 

I'm currently shooting with 5D IV for weddings, and honestly switching to Sony A7RIII or D850 won't make any differences in image quality and it would be alot more expensive to switch. Lighting, creativity, working on your craft, post-processing is more of a different maker once you have a certain level of parity in equipment.

Remember how photographers hate to hear "You have a nice camera" when people compliment their nice picture. The irony is all these photographers are all chasing specs. 

If camera manufacture make a compelling camera, I'll upgrade otherwise I'll skip a generation.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 7, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> Sure there are some caveats with Sony but with dual card slots and decent lens line up Sony is an attractive option for even professional photographers except for wildlife, sports and astro photography.



Which Canon cameras that pros would consider buying lacks dual card slots? At most the xxD line, if any.



goldenhusky said:


> Canon is losing its user base slowly



IIRC, sales figures have shown otherwise.



goldenhusky said:


> and sure enough if they do not come up with a camera that shoots 4k with a decent codec in 2018, I am sure they will loose more market share.



4K is niche.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 7, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there are some caveats with Sony but with dual card slots and decent lens line up Sony is an attractive option for even professional photographers except for wildlife, sports and astro photography.
> ...



High megapixel photos are also niche.


----------



## AbsN (Jan 7, 2018)

Too late, just jumped ship and got an A7Riii. Sticking with Canon glass as the AF is excellent on the Sony so may return eventually depending on what they come up with.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 7, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > goldenhusky said:
> ...



I should add that this is sarcasm and meant to be taken as such. 4K is so niche, it’s been in every flagship iPhone model for 3 years now, while the photo resolution of those iPhones has stayed at 12MP. 4K TVs are less than $500 now. Time for Canon to take 4K seriously.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 7, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



they won't. it's a DSLR meant for stills photography with an addon of the ability to shoot some form of video.

and no matter how much you scream about it, it really hasn't hurt canon sales, so apparently they have a much better pulse on the stills photography market than the handful of loud video people that want it added to a DSLR.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 7, 2018)

TAF said:


> From our perspective as camera aficionados, this is something of a disturbing interview. Read the following quotes:
> ----------------
> Q: How far is Canon in fulfilling its medium-term plan to 2020?
> 
> ...



someone gets this.

this has ZERO to do with cameras, and the reality is Canon is simply doing "just enough" for cameras, and focusing it's money and energy into emerging technologies and medical.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 8, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon was awarded more patent in 2016 than Google, Microsoft, and Apple.


Patent does not mean anything to a consumer unless they are delivered as features in products that comes out to the market



> I'm currently shooting with 5D IV for weddings, and honestly switching to Sony A7RIII or D850 won't make any differences in image quality


I agree 5D4 is a great camera in fact that is my go to camera. I have no complaints about 5D4 on the stills department. The part that I hate is Canon not offering any usable 4k video and HFR recording or at least RAW 4k out so an external recorder can be used. They deliberately held back on the 4k HDMI out and later claimed the designers did not had access to HDMI 2.0 h/w. The fact is HDMI 2.0 was defined years ago and they were readily available for their competitors and audio and video equipment manufacturers


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> > Which Canon cameras that pros would consider buying lacks dual card slots? At most the xxD line, if any.



not sure what you mean here. I referred to Sony a7r3 that has dual slots and IMO the dual card slot will clear the way for many more professionals like wedding photographers to switch over to Sony. Another reason I think that way is I consider Sony A9 and A7r3 are the two decent cameras Sony has put out there. Yes a72, A7r2 and a7s2 were good but they had their own issues as well. a7r3 has addressed lot of them. Regardless of what many Sony fan boys says I consider all Sony's older cameras except a6300 and a6500 are mediocre at best.


> IIRC, sales figures have shown otherwise.


True, I should have made that clear. I hear about more and more hybrid shooters switching over to Sony because of the video features. Most people I have been following on youtube for years have switched one by one. Like me many has adopted Sony as a second system because of video features but not able to switch over because Sony has short comings as well. If you want to know more on this read my post here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34057.msg698706#msg698706


> 4K is niche.


Absolutely, especially for Canon fan boys because there is no option at all


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Has AvTvM become CEO at Canon ?



no. 
1. I am not old [and senile] enough yet for the job 
2. And in interviews i don't just talk, but say something ... specific 
 ;D


----------



## unfocused (Jan 8, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > From our perspective as camera aficionados, this is something of a disturbing interview.
> ...



It's a bit more complex than that.

You can't simply "spend lots to make the camera business better."

No amount of spending is going to significantly boost demand. All manufacturers are fighting to capture a share of the enthusiast market, which is about the only market left for cameras. And, that market is aging out rapidly. Once baby boomers get too old to spend their discretionary income on travel and hobbies, cameras sales are likely to plummet even further. 

Given the realities of the market, we should be pleased that Canon is diversifying and investing in new technologies that have the potential to generate innovation with spillover effects to the consumer market. Research and development in medical imaging, defense and security may yield new technologies that can translate to the consumer market. Without the incentives offered by these new areas, there simply would not be sufficient return on investment from the consumer imaging sector to justify the kinds of investment needed for new innovations.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > He might want to take some cutting edge innovation lessons from Sigma. Compared to them, Canon crawls along at a snail's pace on their hands and knees.
> ...



How dare you! I hear Sigma's AF tech is almost crawling on it's knees. At the moment... Sigma is just slithering along.  How is Sigma's camera line-up? Yeah, that's what I thought. Cutting edge. Ha!!! Innovation? Ha!!! Please list Sigma's innovations. Please. Thanks for the laugh, Kirk.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 8, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



Scream? Nah. But I can see some are very threatened by the idea of video in what is traditionally a stills camera. I always find it funny that those who complain the loudest about Canon fans desiring 4K are the ones most resentful or frightened of video entering their world of still photography. These technologies are merging (they have merged already) and they will continue to do so. Stills and high quality video can co-exist and you will not lose any of your precious stills capability because of it. In fact, the whole reason people complain and push for Canon to offer both in the same camera is because they LOVE the stills capability and want the quality of the video to live up to that promise of quality imagery (“See Impossible,” as the motto goes). It is inevitable that this will happen, and we are just trying to hasten that inevitability. It’s nothing to get upset about. Everyone here has the right to post and push and speak up for what they want to see in the products they love.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 8, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > 4K is niche.
> ...



Yes, they are.

They are popular only because its easy and profitable for the manufacturers to participate in a megapixels war, e.g. due to customers insisting they bought a new 30MP 5DmkIV, so they ought to buy lenses that "match", such as the 24-105mm mkII.

But have no fear. When the competition becomes fierce enough, Canon will join the video megapixels war, and John Q. Public will get a DSLR with the 4K video he "needs" as well.


----------



## gsealy (Jan 8, 2018)

I have a bunch of Canon cameras and camcorders. I love Canon. The thing is the Panasonic GH5 has better combination of video specs and price point than anything Canon has. The word is that a GH5s is due to be announced shortly. Lots of filmakers use the GH5. Then there is the Fuji GFX50. You say why spend $6500 on that camera? True, until you see the photos. Then it's wow, where can I get the money to buy it. So for me, it's I like Canon, but there are these other alternatives that offer more. So I have to consider them.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 8, 2018)

gsealy said:


> Then there is the Fuji GFX50.



Yes, medium format has definite advantages. I wonder why those aren't more mainstream.



gsealy said:


> You say why spend $6500 on that camera? ... where can I get the money to buy it.



Ah, yes, that's why.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Looking forward to it.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 8, 2018)

gsealy said:


> I have a bunch of Canon cameras and camcorders. I love Canon. The thing is the Panasonic GH5 has better combination of video specs and price point than anything Canon has. The word is that a GH5s is due to be announced shortly. Lots of filmakers use the GH5. Then there is the Fuji GFX50. You say why spend $6500 on that camera? True, until you see the photos. Then it's wow, where can I get the money to buy it. So for me, it's I like Canon, but there are these other alternatives that offer more. So I have to consider them.


Many wildlife documentaries are being shot on with Panasonic/Canon Combo. This photo was posted by Sandesh Kadur couple of months back when he was shooting Pallas cats in Ladakh(India).


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 8, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Scream? Nah. But I can see some are very threatened by the idea of video in what is traditionally a stills camera. I always find it funny that those who complain the loudest about Canon fans desiring 4K are the ones most resentful or frightened of video entering their world of still photography. These technologies are merging (they have merged already) and they will continue to do so. Stills and high quality video can co-exist and you will not lose any of your precious stills capability because of it. In fact, the whole reason people complain and push for Canon to offer both in the same camera is because they LOVE the stills capability and want the quality of the video to live up to that promise of quality imagery (“See Impossible,” as the motto goes). It is inevitable that this will happen, and we are just trying to hasten that inevitability. It’s nothing to get upset about. Everyone here has the right to post and push and speak up for what they want to see in the products they love.



In your world, not wanting 4k is the same as being 'scared of' 4k, which amounts to tabloid style thinking (to put it politely). Almost childish (WAAAAH! Why don't people want what I want....?) 
The only thing many have said is that there is no urgency to include 4k. It will come, of that I have no doubt and I have no complaints but when you say it shows Canon's incompetence and Canon's misunderstanding of the market, and Canon will suffer because they don't include it NOW then history proves you wrong, time and again. It is the sense of urgency where you are wrong yet you cannot understand this - you can't understand the facts nor can you understand the counterargument people put forward. If you want small-minded thinking, there it is...right there. 
By the way, a few of your mates switching to Sony for video is not evidence of Canon 'suffering'.


----------



## Takingshots (Jan 8, 2018)

Good to innovate, but the last few "innovations" were kinda lackluster at a pace where competitor outshines with their menu of offerings. Raising "antennae" is no longer a good terminology...could be late in the game. Perhaps offering better FULL 4 K /DPAF +..etc in your camera against competitor's A7Riii would be your challenge... 
Today extending your "wireless" reception and listen to what Canon consumers want is a good thing...


----------



## SkynetTX (Jan 8, 2018)

I don't want to see to much innovations as most of them nowdays make things worse and worse. We don't need cameras that can be used as 
a camcorder
or microwave owen 
or television
or ebook reader
or whatever.

Let a camera be a camera. What we do need is
a sensor that is able to decrease the effect of diffraction
an APS-C sensor with the same or better noise performance than the currently existing best full frame sensor
fast and very lightweight zoom lenses (for example, EF 100-400mm f/4, 750g or less)
thin compact cameras (maximum 34 mm deep) with APS-C or just a bit smaller sensors and relatively large zoom range and maximum aperture (for example, PowerShot SX900 20-300mm f/2.8-4.5)
better AF performance in low light conditions
better flare resistance and ghosting resistance.

This is what I would call innovation.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2018)

SkynetTX said:


> Let a camera be a camera. What we do need is
> a sensor that is able to decrease the effect of diffraction
> an APS-C sensor with the same or better noise performance than the currently existing best full frame sensor
> fast and very lightweight zoom lenses (for example, EF 100-400mm f/4, 750g or less)
> ...



That is what I would call miracles


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

brad-man said:


> I read "_We will open up a research and development center in the U.S.'s Silicon Valley, where we will actively adopt new technology aimed at producing faster EF-M lenses_." Wasn't that the gist of it?



Ha! Canon isn't offering fast EF-M glass because _they haven't figured out how to do it yet! _ 

Good one. ;D 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

TAF said:


> That reads to me as 'the camera business, which is only 30% of our business, is stable, so we're going to expand into other areas to enhance our revenue.



..which is precisely what a smart CEO would do. 

Stable, mature markets tend to have very predictable returns; they don't explode in profitability all of a sudden. It makes a ton of sense to print steady money from cameras as a cash cow (maintaining their level of quality and competitiveness) and funnel the remaining profits into more lucrative parts of the business.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > You say why spend $6500 on that camera? ... where can I get the money to buy it.
> ...



Medium Format has a place, and that place _is to be markedly better than FF_. But the two current mirrorless MF offerings of late -- the Hass'y and Fuji -- are 50 MP sensored 44x33 medium format that are only marginally better than the 42-50 MP FF offerings out there.

Do they have screamingly fast glass with that larger sensor to generate smaller DOF throughout the focal length range than FF? Not really, I saw one quick portrait lens and that was it. The rest of the lenses are relatively slow to keep them from looking like weapons to TSA. :

Do these sensors get you more resolution than FF? 0-8 MP vs. FF, so 'no' to 'not much'.

Are these great sensors offering more DR for landscapes and studio work? Not really, unless you compare to the 5DS, which is admittedly last-gen sensor tech.

Do these cameras come with limitations on AF, throughput, etc. compared to FF? They sure do. These products don't have same-sensored peers from major manufacturers, so why offer high fps or quick AF? They don't need to!

Are the lenses for this system remotely affordable? (a) What lenses? and (b) No... unless you own some already. 

Seems to me -- with those two cameras in particular -- that you are paying a TON of money for the _perception_ of being better. You are sinking something like 3x the money into a platform whose only clear-cut advantage is leaf-shutter lenses and 'you wouldn't understand why medium format is better'. Or you are married to a sensor size to the point that the novelty of a smaller rig is worth turning a blind eye to how little you get above the smaller FF sensor sized systems in doing so.

Don't get me wrong, I see value in Medium Format -- value to offer more DR, more resolution and thinner DOF than FF. But those two cameras aren't delivering that, unless I'm missing something. I think they need to get that implement something like that PhaseOne IQ3 sensor (100 MP, more DR) and put FF more clearly behind MF in the rear view mirror -- I just don't know how they do that for less than $10k.

Please educate me, folks, b/c at face value I see the Fuji / Hass'y value proposition as rather crap at first glance. Please straighten me out on what I'm missing.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > gsealy said:
> ...



Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF. The 645Z is far less than $10k (About $5,600 I think). I think I read it uses the same sensor as the Hasselblad. I'd love to have one. That and the 90mm lens. There are very reasonable lens offerings, though, for that camera. The 90mm isn't one of the reasonable lenses though.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 9, 2018)

Canon FF vs Pentax 645z sensor size comparison.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF. The 645Z is far less than $10k (About $5,600 I think). I think I read it uses the same sensor as the Hasselblad. I'd love to have one. That and the 90mm lens. There are very reasonable lens offerings, though, for that camera. The 90mm isn't one of the reasonable lenses though.



F2.8 is f2.8, so they are the same speed and will realise the same exposure, however from a dof perspective the Pentax has a 0.79 crop factor so gives the equivalent of a ‘ff’ camera of f2.2. Nothing to write home about, and certainly there is nothing in medium format glass that will get close to the ‘ff’ f1.4 and f1.2 primes for dof isolation.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF.



Not faster in light gathering, but yes, for a given aperture it would have shallower DOF compared to FF.

But I'm used to seeing 'quick' for FF being f/1.4 or f/1.2, and I generally see f/2.8, f/3.2, f/4 for the medium format lenses I've seen. Fuji I believe has a 110mm f/2, which for MF would be similar to an 87mm f/1.6 if my equivalence calculator skills are correct. Good... but not better on this front. 

But there certainly seem to be more 'fast' primes for FF in more focal lengths from those MF lenses I've seen. For instance, you can get f/1.4 (or faster) primes in Canon and Nikon from 24mm to 85mm, and third parties unlock 20 f/1.4, 105 /1.4, 135 f/1.4 - 1.8, etc. I could be mistaken, but the MF equivalent of those working DOFs for those FLs are not available.

I'm not arguing FF is 'better' on this front -- I'm just saying that MF does not distinguish _itself_ as being clearly better here (at least on this front). MF has other virtues, but 'boatloads of high quality glass that doesn't cost a mint' isn't necessarily one of them.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon FF vs Pentax 645z sensor size comparison.



Yep, that's the comparison. But all that extra real estate should net you some combination of:


More detail
Better high ISO performance
More DR

...and from the testing I've seen, the improvement for the jump to that 50 MP 44x33 isn't that big. Now _were it 100MP_ or _50 MP with 2+ stops of base ISO DR_ or _2 more stops higher ISO at the same output_, etc. it would warrant the price that it is asking for. But at present offering, other than leaf shutters -- which are no doubt useful -- I'm not seeing the give-to-get being worth it, esp when you think about lens costs.

But in all fairness to MF fans, I've never shot one and I'm looking at this like a Maytag Washer on Consumer Reports and not like an artist. What the hell do I know?

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF.
> ...



Well, I have always heard that a full frame camera performs about a stop better than a crop sensor camera. So while a stop is a stop, the better sensitivity of the larger sensor makes the "equivalent" f/stop different.

This from DPreview:

"Full-frame sensors are 1.2/1.4 stops better in signal to noise ratio than Nikon/Canon crop sensors. That means that a crop-sensor camera at ISO 100 is like a full-frame at ISO 250.

The formula is LOG( SQRT( FF-Area / Crop-Area ) ) / LOG( SQRT( 2 ) )

That’s the sensor only. To finish equating the shooting conditions you need to multiply the F-number of the crop camera by the crop factor. So f/2 on the FF camera is like f/3.2 on a crop-frame. Shutter speed remains the same.

So ISO 100, f/2, 1/60s on a crop camera is like ISO 250, f/3.2, 1/60s on a FF camera."

So one should be able to use a faster shutter speed when using a camera with a larger sensor at the same f/stop as a smaller sensored camera.

So, while we might not see "quick" lenses in medium format, I don't think a medium format camera necessarily needs to be that quick or that an f/2 equivalent is that slow. In the bright desert sun I don't think I can use my 35 at f/1.4 anyway. Also, for tight indoor spots (aka house or apt) the depth of field is just about too shallow to be any good. From what I can tell, the medium format cameras are mainly used for landscape, portrait and fashion shoots. For those uses a very fast lens isn't required and the lenses are usually stopped down... no matter the lens or sensor.

I understand the larger sensor also gives more detail too. There was a marked difference in detail between my former 70D and my 5D Mark III.

But just like you, what do I know?  I've not used a medium format camera either. I do know the lens is just one part. Sensor size is important too.

The Pentax has many lenses available in the $1,000 to $2,000 range. In fact, most of them are in that range.

Anyway, I might completely misunderstand what I found on DPreview. I'd still like the Pentax if I could get one.  I don't see the huge price downside or value downside. With the Hasselblads and such I plainly see it. I don't when it comes to the Pentax. I think that is really my point. That's just what I think. Nobody has to agree. It's all opinion, isn't it?

If I had the choice between a 5DSr and the Pentax and I was shooting portraits or landscapes... I'd choose the Pentax. The Canon, though, has a richer feature set by far. Larger lens selection too.


----------



## Karlbug (Jan 9, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So one should be able to use a faster shutter speed when using a camera with a larger sensor at the same f/stop as a smaller sensored camera.



Not true. You would use exactly the same shutter speed and ISO when shooting FF vs crop with both f/2. The difference is that crop ISO 100 is like FF ISO 250 in terms of noise and maybe dynamic range. Not exposure as the crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO".


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > gsealy said:
> ...



That's what I said in the part of my post you've snipped, thank you very much.


----------



## sunnyboy (Jan 11, 2018)

oh... i had already sold off all my canon gear. I believe they are too late to innovate, and will always be 1-2 steps behind competitor.


----------



## C-A430 (Feb 12, 2018)

sunnyboy said:


> oh... i had already sold off all my canon gear. I believe they are too late to innovate, and will always be 1-2 steps behind competitor.



So you think we believe that you used Canon gear and never came here, only to come to CanonRumors now and have your first post be "I SOLD MY CANON GEAR"? I know I dont believe it.


----------



## C-A430 (Feb 12, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > So one should be able to use a faster shutter speed when using a camera with a larger sensor at the same f/stop as a smaller sensored camera.
> ...



f2 will not give same depth of field on crop and FF. Larger sensor will produce blurred images, small sensor the sharp one.

Bokeh was usually just an UNDESIRABLE side-effect before smartphones. Now it is the easiest, laziest and most popular way to distinguish pro-photos from small-sensor-shots made by smartphones and point'n'shoots.

Lack of understanding of ISO equivalence is not the problem. The problem is that 90% of photographers use Auto mode and 9% are afraid to go over 800ISO. That leaves only 1% to use f-stop for depth-of-field rather than a way to ease the fear of noise.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 12, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> f2 will not give same depth of field on crop and FF.



Correct. But I wasn't talking about depth of field, right. 



C-A430 said:


> Bokeh was usually just an UNDESIRABLE side-effect before smartphones. Now it is the easiest, laziest and most popular way to distinguish pro-photos from small-sensor-shots made by smartphones and point'n'shoots.



Bokeh is the *quality* of out of focus areas caused eg. by more aperture blades, not just the fact that you have smaller depth of field. The smaller depth of field was always desired for some genres, eg. portrait. And besides, there used to be compact cameras and polaroids with small apertures and big depth of field. Smartphones are not new in this. 



C-A430 said:


> Lack of understanding of ISO equivalence is not the problem. The problem is that 90% of photographers use Auto mode and 9% are afraid to go over 800ISO. That leaves only 1% to use f-stop for depth-of-field rather than a way to ease the fear of noise.



You're making numbers up just to prove... what exactly?


----------



## C-A430 (Feb 13, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> You're making numbers up just to prove... what exactly?



I was asking WTF is this supposed to mean:



angrykarl said:


> Not true. You would use exactly the same shutter speed and ISO when shooting FF vs crop with both f/2. The difference is that crop ISO 100 is like FF ISO 250 in terms of noise and maybe dynamic range. Not exposure as the crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO".



ISO values are designed in such a way that the film-era light meter will suggest the same shutter speed for the given ISO/f-stop/scene combination regardless of film/CCD/CMOS choice and regardless of sensor size. This was designed loooong time ago and became a norm 70-ish years ago. Its goal is that light meters can be universal for every camera and _"crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO""_ makes NO sense. There is no such thing as cameras internal ISO compensation


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 13, 2018)

That's precisely what I said: The same exposure means the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

But how do you reckon a camera with eg. crop factor 10 manages the same exposure as a fullframe camera when the latter receives ten times more light over the whole sensor area? Sure, both receive the same amount of photons per 1mm², but crop cameras usually have smaller pixels so each pixel receives less light. How come they have the same brightness as full frame ones? The crop must digitally boost the signal to provide the same exposure with the same ISO. And boosting a signal clamps dynamic range and amplifies noise.

Now what happens when you double the ISO on any camera? It cannot magically catch more photons, so it digitally boosts the signal, which suprisingly clamps dynamic range and amplifies noise...

That's what I meant by (I agree not exactly ideal term) "internal ISO".

But I am no camera engineer, so if you understand the field better, I am all ears.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> That's precisely what I said: The same exposure means the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
> 
> But how do you reckon a camera with eg. crop factor 10 manages the same exposure as a fullframe camera when the latter receives ten times more light over the whole sensor area? Sure, both receive the same amount of photons per 1mm², but crop cameras usually have smaller pixels so each pixel receives less light. How come they have the same brightness as full frame ones? The crop must digitally boost the signal to provide the same exposure with the same ISO. And boosting a signal clamps dynamic range and amplifies noise.
> 
> ...



Yes you are completely wrong, there is no _"internal iso"_.

Think of a sensor as a car park and rain as photons that make a picture. The asphalt of the car park gets wet as it rains, it doesn't matter how big or small an area of the car park you measure the wetness of all areas is the same. Same with a big sensor and a small sensor, they all get the same photons for the same exposure. The difference in image quality is because the smaller sensor data has to be enlarged more for the same sized output, on a phone screen it makes little difference, in a big print viewed up close there is a massive difference. The smaller sensor got less total photons so has less to show, as a unit area it is as wet as any other area of the carpark but it took less water/photons to get it there than a bigger area.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Same with a big sensor and a small sensor, *they all get the same photons* for the same exposure. The difference in image quality is because the smaller sensor data has to be enlarged more for the same sized output, on a phone screen it makes little difference, in a big print viewed up close there is a massive difference. *The smaller sensor got less total photons* so has less to show, as a unit area it is as wet as any other area of the carpark but it took less water/photons to get it there than a bigger area.



First you said they get the same numbers of photons, then you said the smaller area gets fewer photons. Which is it?



privatebydesign said:


> The difference in image quality is because the smaller sensor data has to be enlarged more for the same sized output, on a phone screen it makes little difference, in a big print viewed up close there is a massive difference.



Enlarged? What enlargening do you mean?

An image consists of pixels and pixels are buckets collecting rain when using your analogy. When you have a big area covered by ten big buckets and a small area covered by ten smaller buckets, the buckets with smaller diameter inevitably catch less rain during the same amount of time. Right? So the smaller sensor pixels catch less light. How come they have the same brightness as big sensor pixels?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The difference in image quality is because the smaller sensor data has to be enlarged more for the same sized output, on a phone screen it makes little difference, in a big print viewed up close there is a massive difference.
> ...



Pixel size is irrelevant and a distraction. It is the total area covered by those pixels (buckets) that defines the amount of light you have captured: if you have the 5D3 with 22P and the 5DSR with 56MP, give them the same lens at the same aperture and the same exposure time and same ISO they both capture the same amount of light and will have the same brightness on the computer screen. 
Each sensor has a certain amount of thermal noise and assuming the same technology in each body, having more sensors will increase the amount of noise and that is what raises the noise floor. But you can pretty much overcome that by downsampling the 5DSR image to the 'pixel count' of the 5D3.


----------



## sanj (Feb 14, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> goldenhusky said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there are some caveats with Sony but with dual card slots and decent lens line up Sony is an attractive option for even professional photographers except for wildlife, sports and astro photography.
> ...



Is not.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 14, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Pixel size is irrelevant and a distraction. *It is the total area covered by those pixels (buckets) that defines the amount of light you have captured*: if you have the 5D3 with 22P and the 5DSR with 56MP, give them the same lens at the same aperture and the same exposure time and same ISO they both capture the same amount of light and will have the same brightness on the computer screen.
> Each sensor has a certain amount of thermal noise and assuming the same technology in each body, having more sensors will increase the amount of noise and that is what raises the noise floor. But you can pretty much overcome that by downsampling the 5DSR image to the 'pixel count' of the 5D3.



You're comparing 5D3 and 5DSR.

5D3 has 22.3 milion pixels, each 6.25 micrometers
5DSR has 50.6 milion pixels, each 4.14 micrometers

5D3 total pixel area = 6.25 * 22.3M = 139.4M micrometers.
5DSR total pixel area = 4.14 * 50.6M = 209.4M micrometers.

5DSR has 2.27 bigger resolution, but only 1.5 smaller pixels. Clearly they are not the same technology.

You said pixel size is irrelevant and the amount of light on two fullframe sensors is the same. But I was asking how can crop and fullframe sensors have the same brightness if the crop covers smaller area and therefore there must be less light to collect?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel size is irrelevant and a distraction. *It is the total area covered by those pixels (buckets) that defines the amount of light you have captured*: if you have the 5D3 with 22P and the 5DSR with 56MP, give them the same lens at the same aperture and the same exposure time and same ISO they both capture the same amount of light and will have the same brightness on the computer screen.
> ...



I was pointing out that pixel size is irrelevant to your question and that it is a distraction yet you have referred to it every time. 



> I was asking how can crop and fullframe sensors have the same brightness if the crop covers smaller area and therefore there must be less light to collect?


That is the actual question, and has no reference to pixel size. 

This article gives a good technical explanation of ISO and as you will see, it is based on the amount of light needed to saturate the photosites. 
https://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/what-is-iso-a-technical-exploration--photo-11963

This is not dependent on sensor size. 

So you ask that if the APS-C captures less light than the FF sensor, why is it just as bright as the FF image?
Take a FF image and crop it. Does the reduced image size darken? That is what you are effectively doing with the APS-C sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Same with a big sensor and a small sensor, *they all get the same photons* for the same exposure. The difference in image quality is because the smaller sensor data has to be enlarged more for the same sized output, on a phone screen it makes little difference, in a big print viewed up close there is a massive difference. *The smaller sensor got less total photons* so has less to show, as a unit area it is as wet as any other area of the carpark but it took less water/photons to get it there than a bigger area.
> ...



You get the same number of photons per unit area, in the carpark analogy all the asphalt is as wet in any specific area irrespective of how large or small that area is.

If it rains at 1" an hour for an hour there is an inch of rain on every bit of asphalt. It doesn't matter if the bit you sample is the size of a postage stamp or a basketball court, they both have an inch of water on them. Ergo in our analogy they are the same brightness because they received the same amount of photons per unit area. 

If you were to paint the carpark it wouldn't matter what sized area you looked at to determine its color. Imagine the rain is paint, now imagine the paint is photons. Because the carpark is wet/painted/received photons at an even rate per unit area any one section is as bright as any other.

Enlarged: When you look at an image on your screen or in print it has been enlarged from the original sensor capture, if you use a 17" screen the enlargement from a 135 format sensor is factor of 10 for 100 times the area, if you use a crop camera it is 15 for 225 times the area, if you use a phone it is 70 for 4900 times the area. Now if you painted your car park with one coat of paint when you looked close enough there would be misses and imperfections (digital noise). It is obvious that if you enlarge those imperfections by 10 you often won't see them, if you enlarge those imperfections by 4900 then you will see them much more often.

Noise in the image works the same. On any given same size reproduction in print or on screen the phone image imperfections are 4900 times more obvious than a ff capture. That is why phones can never equal the IQ of crop cameras and why crop cameras can never equal the IQ of ff sensors and ff sensors can never equal the IQ of even larger sensors. Obviously most of the time and especially in good light any sensor size works well enough for most people most of the time.

When talking about same sized comparisons across sensor sizes individual pixel size is irrelevant, we are comparing the whole image and the output of all the pixels combined, so 1 pixel is the same as 4 pixels a 1/4 the size.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 14, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I was pointing out that pixel size is irrelevant to your question and that it is a distraction yet you have referred to it every time.



You're dismissing pixel size effect and proving it by comparing sensors of 5D3 and 5DSR, which I've shown is not a valid comparison. 5DSR has bigger total collecting area. I am keen to hear better reasons why pixels size is irrelevant.

To quote from your link:



> Thus slow films like ISO 25, 50 and 100 have very fine grains to reduce the amount of light hitting them, useful for capturing fine detail. Conversely, very fast films like ISO 1600 and 3200 have relatively huge grains for the maximum possible chance of capturing photons



In analogue films slow ISO means small particles that capture light and high ISO means big particles. These particles are similar to pixels. So I assume smaller pixels = less light. Why would physics work differently for analogue and digital?



Mikehit said:


> So you ask that if the APS-C captures less light than the FF sensor, why is it just as bright as the FF image?
> Take a FF image and crop it. Does the reduced image size darken? That is what you are effectively doing with the APS-C sensor.



You're comparing FF and APS-C with the same pixel size. But APS-C has usually smaller pixel to offer bigger resolution. You'll hate me for bringing pixel size again, I know...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> Not true. You would use exactly the same shutter speed and ISO when shooting FF vs crop with both f/2. The difference is that crop ISO 100 is like FF ISO 250 in terms of noise and maybe dynamic range. Not exposure as the crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO".



There is no 'hidden internal ISO'. 




angrykarl said:


> Enlarged? What enlargening do you mean?



The enlargement comes from the way we (appropriately) compare images, which is at the same output size. Say you capture 'the same exposure' on crop and FF – 1/100 s, f/2, ISO 800. Light per unit area of the sensor is the same. The full frame sensor gathers more total light. Now, you compare those images on a 20" retina cinema display. The FF image was enlarged from 36x24mm to that display size, the crop image was enlarged from 22x15mm. The smaller the sensor, the more you enlarge it when comparing output. The images will appear to have the same brightness (because that's how your computer handles the enlargement), but the crop image will appear to have more noise (similar to ISO 2000 on the FF sensor). But if you view the FF image on that 20" cinema display, and the crop image next to it on a 13" retina laptop, the relative enlargement is the same, and the crop image will not appear any noisier (but as I said, that's not how we generally compare things). 




angrykarl said:


> You said pixel size is irrelevant and the amount of light on two fullframe sensors is the same. But I was asking how can crop and fullframe sensors have the same brightness if the crop covers smaller area and therefore there must be less light to collect?



The brightness issue is something of a red herring because of digital imaging. When a computer doubles the size of an image (one pixel becomes four), it's simply applies the luminance value of the original pixel to all four of the new pixels. In other words, the computer is in effect brightening the image (i.e., it's not happening at the sensor level in the camera...there is no hidden internal ISO). 

A better way to conceptualize this might be thinking back to the film era. Say you captured the same exposure (1/100 s, f/2, ISO 100) on a 35mm negative and an APS-C negative (and for our example, you've cropped that negative from its original APS format with a pair of scissors). Now you put both negatives in an enlarger and make 4x6 prints. To fill that 4x6 print, you'll have to move the enlarger head further from the paper with the smaller negative (that's the 'more enlargement with a smaller sensor' part of the analogy). The greater enlargement will enhance the visibility in the print of the film grains in the negative (that's the 'more image noise with a smaller sensor' part of the analogy). But with the smaller negative, since its further from the paper, you'll also need to either increase the brightness of the bulb or expose the paper for longer, because light intensity decreases as the inverse square of distance (that's the 'adding brightness for display output' part of the analogy). To drive the final nail in this analogy's coffin, the film camera isn't somehow adding light or amplification to the APS negative on the roll (that's the 'there is no hidden internal ISO' conclusion to the analogy).


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 14, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The enlargement comes from the way we (appropriately) compare images, which is at the same output size. Say you capture 'the same exposure' on crop and FF – 1/100 s, f/2, ISO 800. Light per unit area of the sensor is the same. The full frame sensor gathers more total light. Now, you compare those images on a 20" retina cinema display. The FF image was enlarged from 36x24mm to that display size, the crop image was enlarged from 22x15mm. The smaller the sensor, the more you enlarge it when comparing output. The images will appear to have the same brightness (because that's how your computer handles the enlargement), but the crop image will appear to have more noise (similar to ISO 2000 on the FF sensor). But if you view the FF image on that 20" cinema display, and the crop image next to it on a 13" retina laptop, the relative enlargement is the same, and the crop image will not appear any noisier (but as I said, that's not how we generally compare things).



So if I had one crop and one FF sensor *with the same resolutions* and compare their RAWs at 100%, the pixels would be equally enlarged on the screen and they would be of the same brightness *and noise*? 

Such situation would look like this when we take equaly sized parts of both sensors (assuming crop factor 4).







You have sensor A with one pixel and sensor B with four pixels. Both sensors cover the same area. A collects 100 photons per pixel, B collects 25 photos per pixel... How come the pixels from B have the same brightness, even if they collected less light?

I was suggesting that in such situation sensor B would amplify the signal x4 and therefore have more noise. Otherwise why there are no 50MP m43 cameras with noise level of 5DSR?



neuroanatomist said:


> angrykarl said:
> 
> 
> > You said pixel size is irrelevant and the amount of light on two fullframe sensors is the same. But I was asking how can crop and fullframe sensors have the same brightness if the crop covers smaller area and therefore there must be less light to collect?
> ...



You're comparing films/sensors with the same size of grain/pixels. But in reality crop digital cameras have much smaller pixels, so in your analogy the APS-C negative would have to be of slower ISO (=smaller grain) than 35mm one. Now would the images be equally exposed?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2018)

@angrykarl – comparing _pictures_ is *not* the same thing as comparing _pixels_. You're trying to do both at the same time, and confusing yourself in the process.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> You're comparing films/sensors with the same size of grain/pixels. But in reality crop digital cameras have much smaller pixels, so in your analogy the APS-C negative would have to be of slower ISO (=smaller grain) than 35mm one. Now would the images be equally exposed?



You are confusing the issue by bringing in number of pixels. Pixel number is to do with resolution *not* light gathering - about 10 years ago sensor manufacturers developed gapless sensors where the microlens picks up light outside the boundary of the actual pixel sensor. So to go back to the rainy day in the car park analogy:
cover a 6x4m area with appropriately sized buckets.
Cover a 3x2 meter area with the same number of smaller buckets.
The larger buckets have bigger gaps between them so will miss more rain.
Now put appropriately sized square shaped funnels into each bucket so that there are no gaps (the gapless sensor). The amount of rain captured is now totally dependent on the area covered. 

And in that respect my comparison of the 5D3 and 5DSR was totally valid: same sensor area, different number of pixels giving 100% sensor coverage (and, incidentally, the pretty much the same technology giving the same mount of noise if processed appropriately): and you have not 'shown' it to be invalid. You simply stated it wasn't based on your prior presumption that pixel count matters.


Now, Neuro was quite correct. The APS-C collects less light and the fact they appear the same brightness on the computer screen comes from the how the computer renders the image, not anything in the camera. 

I believe what you are proposing is along the lines of the manufacturers adding a program into the APS-C that says 'I am an APS-C camera. So to maintain standards across the product range, I cannot have the same calculations used in a FF body so to keep the exposure time the same I need to add more gain than the ISO 400 implies to give the same output brightness." In other words, the body would be using (for example) ISO500 and calling it ISO400 on the metadata. 

But think about this: what is the reference model for that calculation? When the sensor is used in 'FF' body? medium format? 5x4? 
'FF' has become a misleading term because it implies that 35m is some sort of magic reference point. It isn't. And by your reckoning each body format would need to have its own internal 'correction' according to sensor size so as to give the same 'apparent' ISO output.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 14, 2018)

It’s not correct to call it a hidden internal ISO, however there is more gain applied with smaller sensors for a given ISO speed.

Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal. This indeed happens in camera. That’s the entire point of ISO 12232: “The equations used in this International Standard have been chosen to create a link between electronic and conventional silver-halide-based photographic systems. Using a particular ISO speed value as the exposure index on a DSC should result in the same camera exposure settings, and resulting focal plane exposures, as would be obtained using the same exposure index on a film camera or other photographic exposure meter.”


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2018)

Boy, I'm glad I don't have enough photographic background and knowledge to offer any comments here. This gets confusing but still it's fun taking photos. 

Jack


----------



## dak723 (Feb 14, 2018)

Here's some interesting reading that may help clear things up:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure/
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/iso/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Here's some interesting reading that may help clear things up:
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure/
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/iso/



Been there a couple or so years back but looks like it's expanded and improved. Thanks.
One has to really put effort into this and review often because it's not trivial if you're new to photography. 

Jack


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 14, 2018)

I think part of the confusion here might be from the ISO adjustments made at wide apertures.
Interestingly, DXO took down their "F-stop Blues" article, which is ironic when that was one of the most useful things they've ever published.
At least we have a decent summary on the forum: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31598.0


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> @angrykarl – comparing _pictures_ is *not* the same thing as comparing _pixels_. You're trying to do both at the same time, and confusing yourself in the process.



Sure, so let's compare only pixels! 



Mikehit said:


> You are confusing the issue by bringing in number of pixels. Pixel number is to do with resolution *not* light gathering - about 10 years ago sensor manufacturers developed gapless sensors where the microlens picks up light outside the boundary of the actual pixel sensor. So to go back to the rainy day in the car park analogy:
> cover a 6x4m area with appropriately sized buckets.
> Cover a 3x2 meter area with the same number of smaller buckets.
> The larger buckets have bigger gaps between them so will miss more rain.
> Now put appropriately sized square shaped funnels into each bucket so that there are no gaps (the gapless sensor). The amount of rain captured is now totally dependent on the area covered.



I never disputed that there is the same amount of light captured from the same area. I am simply telling that distributing the same amount of anything into more buckets means there is less in each.



Mikehit said:


> And in that respect my comparison of the 5D3 and 5DSR was totally valid: same sensor area, different number of pixels giving 100% sensor coverage (and, incidentally, the pretty much the same technology giving the same mount of noise if processed appropriately): and you have not 'shown' it to be invalid. You simply stated it wasn't based on your prior presumption that pixel count matters.



5D3 has max native ISO 25600, 5DSR only 6400... I wonder why is that.



Mikehit said:


> Now, Neuro was quite correct. The APS-C collects less light and the fact they appear the same brightness on the computer screen comes from the how the computer renders the image, not anything in the camera.



So you finally agree that APS-C collect less light per pixel? And according to you the pixels are less bright, but when viewing the whole picture the downsampled pixels are more bright? What about histogram -- which shows distribution of bright and dark pixels -- does that also magically change when I zoom the picture? Or do you think histograms from these FF and APS-C images differ? And what if I create a large resolution uniform gray picture in Photoshop and downsample it, would I also get a more white picture?



Mikehit said:


> I believe what you are proposing is along the lines of the manufacturers adding a program into the APS-C that says 'I am an APS-C camera. So to maintain standards across the product range, I cannot have the same calculations used in a FF body so to keep the exposure time the same I need to add more gain than the ISO 400 implies to give the same output brightness." In other words, the body would be using (for example) ISO500 and calling it ISO400 on the metadata.



And would that be a problem? You want to have exactly exposed image at ISO400 as from other cameras. That's the point of ISO. How the camera handles it is just a technical detail.



3kramd5 said:


> It’s not correct to call it a hidden internal ISO, however there is more gain applied with smaller sensors for a given ISO speed.



You're right, the term is misleading, I won't be using it again. My fault.



3kramd5 said:


> Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. no enlargement (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a standardized output signal. This indeed happens in camera. That’s the entire point of ISO 12232: “The equations used in this International Standard have been chosen to create a link between electronic and conventional silver-halide-based photographic systems. Using a particular ISO speed value as the exposure index on a DSC should result in the same camera exposure settings, and resulting focal plane exposures, as would be obtained using the same exposure index on a film camera or other photographic exposure meter.”



Exactly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. *no enlargement* (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a *standardized output signal*.



How do differently-sized image constitute a standardized output?


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. *no enlargement* (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a *standardized output signal*.
> ...



The image is not differently-sized. You've got the same shutter speed, t-stop, composition, *resolution*, equivalent focal length, just different size of sensors. The resulting images are equal sized.

He wrote "standardized output *signal*". Signal is electric charge from collected photons in one photosite. Which results in one pixel brightness. Raw collected signal is smaller, but according to ISO the brightness must equal, therefore there must be amplification.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Please read the part highlighted in red above, which clearly states that images of different sizes are being compared.



> He wrote "standardized output *signal*". Signal is electric charge from collected photons in one photosite. Which results in one pixel brightness. Raw collected signal is smaller, but according to ISO the brightness must equal, therefore there must be amplification.



We’ve already been down the rabbit hole of comparing pictures (i.e. the image from a whole sensor) versus comparing pixels. They are not the same.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> I never disputed that there is the same amount of light captured from the same area. I am simply telling that distributing the same amount of anything into more buckets means there is less in each.


And the amount of lighting each pixel (water in each bucket) is irrelevant to the image as a whole because the amount of signal being transmitted to the final processor is the same whether it is a bit of light from lots of pixels or a lot of light from a few pixels. The difference is that with a higher number of smaller pixels you are also transmitting more noise which raises the noise floor and reduces dynamic range
As neuro says, comparing what is happening at pixel level is completely different to looking at the whole image 



angrykarl said:


> 5D3 has max native ISO 25600, 5DSR only 6400... I wonder why is that.


Because that is the limit Canon put on it. No other reason. Canon decide on behalf of the photographer what is a usable quality and will design the cameras accordingly and with the higher pixel count the noise becomes intrusive and Canon decide they will not let the ISO of the 5DSR go higher.
Why can Sony claim 3million ISo for their FF cameras? Are you saying they have a single humungous pixel? Nope. Canon could if they wanted put 3 million ISO on their camera but the image would be total shit.




angrykarl said:


> So you finally agree that APS-C collect less light per pixel? And according to you the pixels are less bright, but when viewing the whole picture the downsampled pixels are more bright? What about histogram -- which shows distribution of bright and dark pixels -- does that also magically change when I zoom the picture? Or do you think histograms from these FF and APS-C images differ? And what if I create a large resolution uniform gray picture in Photoshop and downsample it, would I also get a more white picture?



I never denied the APS-C collects less light. I was pointing out that basing your argument on pixel size was flawed. It has nothing to do with pixels but the fact both sensors how long the shutter is open at a specific aperture and the light per unit area is the same but there is not as much area to collect the light.
The histogram of the whole picture never changes because the histogram shows a percentage distribution of luminosity for the whole picture so if the framing is the same the histogram is the same. If you crop the image the histogram changes for this very reason. 



angrykarl said:


> And would that be a problem? You want to have exactly exposed image at ISO400 as from other cameras. That's the point of ISO. How the camera handles it is just a technical detail.


You do get the same exposures - exposure of the same unit area of sensor. ISO is defined by the ability to fill the wells on the pixel, not by the output viewed on screen. This is where your reference to pixels falls down.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you review two photos at sensor dimensions, i.e. *no enlargement* (the digital equivalent of a contact print), your noise performance will be better with the larger sensor, given the same exposure time and t-stop with a format-appropriate image circle (focal plane exposure) and the same composition. Why? You sampled the scene with more photons, thus generating more charge and requiring less amplification when digitized to a *standardized output signal*.
> ...



It’s an I/O-based designation. The expected output signal is a function of known input levels and “ISO speed”. ISO speed is typically defined including a noise basis.

Per the standard:
“numerical value calculated from the exposure provided at the focal plane of a DSC to produce specified camera output signal characteristics using the methods described in this International Standard

NOTE The ISO speed is usually the highest exposure index value that still provides peak image quality for normal scenes. However, a DSC does not necessarily use the ISO speed value as the exposure index value when capturing images.”

Unless I’m mistaken (might be), enlarging a digital file doesn’t affect its luminance (histogram stays the same) nor amount of noise present. Enlarging it more can make noise more apparent when viewed, but what is inherent to the file is baked in at capture, i.e. in camera, which is what ISO speed is concerned with. Less total light gathered -> more gain required before the analog is digitized, all else being equal.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> angrykarl said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ok. What if they are the same?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



All else isn't equal if you're comparing images of different sizes. 

That aside, you seem to be suggesting that more analog gain is applied to signals from a smaller sensor. Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc. They should be the same – they represent the same physical sensor area being sampled. If more analog gain was applied to the APS-C sensor signal, why isn't the resulting image brighter or noisier than the equivalent image cropped from the FF sensor?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I don’t think images of size are being compared. I think signal levels are being considered. 




neuroanatomist said:


> That aside, you seem to be suggesting that more analog gain is applied to signals from a smaller sensor. Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, *noise*, brightness, etc.



Is that so? I’ve never seen two sensors which are the same in every way excepting area with which to verify that noise levels are equal.

Brightness indeed would be the same as that’s implicit in the ISO speed formulation.

Again, I’m not an expert and claim to not be. I’m merely someone who has read and tried to interpret the standard. I’m happy to be educated


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc. They should be the same – they represent the same physical sensor area being sampled. If more analog gain was applied to the APS-C sensor signal, why isn't the resulting image brighter or noisier than the equivalent image cropped from the FF sensor?



Great. Now have both sensors the same resolution and use equivalent focal length on the crop so that you cannot blame the enlarging of image. Do they have the same noise? But you never compare this, because that wouldn't suit you.

I am leaving this hopeless discussion. Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc. They should be the same – they represent the same physical sensor area being sampled. If more analog gain was applied to the APS-C sensor signal, why isn't the resulting image brighter or noisier than the equivalent image cropped from the FF sensor?
> ...



You're right. If you lack the ability to comprehend, then further discussion is indeed hopeless. 



neuroanatomist said:


> The enlargement comes from the way we (appropriately) compare images, which is at the same output size. ... The smaller the sensor, the more you enlarge it when comparing output.



In your scenario —same framing on APS-C vs FF (i.e., different focal lengths or different subject distance), same aperture, same ISO, same output size— the APS-C image will be noisier, _becuase you enlarged it more_. Incidentally, the DoF of the APS-C image will be deeper...for the same reason – more enlargement from the smaller sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I don’t think images of size are being compared. I think signal levels are being considered.



That's the rabbit hole of pictures vs. pixels, again. If you are talking about pixels, things like pixel diameter and well depth matter. When comparing pictures, noise is determined primarily by total light gathered. A bigger sensor gathers more light. Simple as that. 




3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That aside, you seem to be suggesting that more analog gain is applied to signals from a smaller sensor. Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, *noise*, brightness, etc.
> ...



I'm not the biggest fan of DPR, but credit where credit is due, they did a reasonably good job with this.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I don’t think images of size are being compared. I think signal levels are being considered.
> ...



Of course those things matter, but they’re behind the scenes. ISO doesn’t look at sensor size, nor pixel size, nor well capacity. It looks at how to assign an ISO speed to relate a known focal plane exposure (which has an effective f number component) to an expected signal level. 




neuroanatomist said:


> When comparing pictures, noise is determined primarily by total light gathered. A bigger sensor gathers more light. Simple as that.



I’m neither comparing pixels nor pictures. I’m reading a document about how ISO speed is defined, and speculating that all else being equal (same t-stop, same framing, same exposure time) since less light hits a smaller sensor, that more gain must be used to result in the appropriate signal strength. 

Given a controlled input signal, how do I have to tune the electronics to result in a file with expected levels, and what ISO speed do I assign based on the characteristics?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> I am leaving this hopeless discussion. Have a nice day.



You ask a question - a genuine and very interesting question.
In that question you posit an idea and ask if that is correct.
Somewhere along the line that idea turns in your mind from an idea to a fact
People disagree with that 'fact' and refuse to agree with you 
So you call the discussion hopeless

Interesting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2018)

For anybody actually interested in understanding this stuff then I always link to this article. 

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

It explains everything we see when we use different sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> For anybody actually interested in understanding this stuff then I always link to this article.
> 
> http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
> 
> It explains everything we see when we use different sensors.



Indeed, it's an excellent reference.

From it:



> Given four cameras, one with...
> 
> ...an mFT (4/3) sensor,
> ...another with a 1.6x sensor,
> ...



Which was my point:



neuroanatomist said:


> Consider...if you capture an image with a FF and an APS-C camera at the same focal length, aperture, ISO setting, and subject distance, then crop the FF image so it matches the FoV of the APS-C camera (and output both to the same size, but since the sensor areas are equal, that doesn't matter in this case), you'll get two images that are equivalent – same framing, DoF, noise, brightness, etc. They should be the same – they represent the same physical sensor area being sampled.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > For anybody actually interested in understanding this stuff then I always link to this article.
> ...


No.

You are wrong.

I use magic lenses that change brightness, fstop, and focal length when I move them between crop and FF cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

I bet those lenses are ideal for taking pictures of rainbow-pooping unicorns!

;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I bet those lenses are ideal for taking pictures of rainbow-pooping unicorns!
> 
> ;D



No, if I am going to take pictures of a magical imaginary creature, I use Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

How DRoll.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 15, 2018)

I tried a little more to understand the input (had to go to CIPA rather than ISO) which can either be measured focal plane exposure or measured scene luminance. My assumption was that the test chart was shot to fill the camera frame, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. In the test setup the camera is to be placed or zoomed to take up the full area within targets, but the whole test area need not fill the camera FOV. It stands to reason then that it is evaluated at the pixel level, as neuroanatomist suggested, not based on the total light gathering area being used.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2018)

I read CR for the humour. This thread qualifies and to boot I got some good reference articles. Thanks guys.

Jack


----------



## RGF (Mar 2, 2018)

It seems to me that since the problems with the 1D M3 Canon has become much more conservative. Too bad. Their cutting edge products, 5Ds/R, are tepid. It seems they are afraid to push the envelop for fear of what? Eating their own lunch, someone is going to eat it, they don't, Nikon or Sony will? Of failing and having egg on their faces. They will need to handle the problems than they did with 1D3.


----------

