# EOS-1D X Mark II Dynamic Range [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 1, 2015)

```
<p>Beyond the increased ISO capabilities of the EOS-1D X Mark II, we’re told that dynamic range is going to see a massive improvement, and possibly have the most stops of any DSLR currently on the market. It’s always possible that Sony will do something in the meantime with their new sensors to increase their lead in stops of DR.</p>
<p>It’s also sounding like a new DIGIC 7 processor will make its way into the EOS-1D X Mark II, instead of going with the DIGIC 6 processor that was introduced in 2013. The current EOS-1D X uses dual DIGIC 5+ processors.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 1, 2015)

That should make a lot of people happy.


----------



## sanj (May 1, 2015)

It was just a matter of time.


----------



## candyman (May 1, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> That should make a lot of people happy.


...with 6.500 to 7.000 euro.... : 
Or...will Canon add it to the 5D MKIV as well?..... :-\


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 1, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Beyond the increased ISO capabilities of the *EOS-1D X Mark III*, we’re told that dynamic range is going to see a massive improvement, and possibly have the most stops of any DSLR currently on the market. It’s always possible that Sony will do something in the meantime with their new sensors to increase their lead in stops of DR.</p>



haha, yes I'm quite sure sony will continue to develop tech over the next 8-10 years.


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2015)

Fingers crossed!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 1, 2015)

DxO is scrambling to come up with a different rating system in order to slam Canon sensors after reading this news.


----------



## Sporgon (May 1, 2015)

CR's forum is going to lose half its contributors


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2015)

yet more proof that Canon does not innovate


----------



## painya (May 1, 2015)

Do you think it will be dual read out with the same old sensor, or a new sensor technology altogether?


----------



## expatinasia (May 1, 2015)

DIGIC 7 and loads of other great features. Am so looking forward to reading just how Canon aims to beat what is already the best DSLR camera (1D X) on the market.


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> CR's forum is going to lose half its contributors



Perhaps if Canon has superior DR to everyone else, they will finally admit that DR is just one aspect of a camera's performance....


----------



## Mdshirajum (May 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :



Can you pls let me know why there are anti-DR people? Isn't it something better to have?


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2015)

painya said:


> Do you think it will be dual read out with the same old sensor, or a new sensor technology altogether?


My bet is new tech and finer lithography.... We have been predicting the death of the 500nm fabrication line and switching over to the 180nm line for quite a while... New 1 series, 5 series, and 6 series cameras all around the same time makes this seem like a certainty.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Perhaps if Canon has superior DR to everyone else, they will finally admit that DR is just one aspect of a camera's performance....



Not at all. As you can see, the groundwork is already being laid: :



dilbert said:


> Are they going to clean up shadows while they're at it or leave the sensor being the noisiest?


----------



## mb66energy (May 1, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Beyond the increased ISO capabilities of the EOS-1D X Mark II, we’re told that dynamic range is going to see a massive improvement, and possibly have the most stops of any DSLR currently on the market. It’s always possible that Sony will do something in the meantime with their new sensors to increase their lead in stops of DR.</p>
> [...]



1 EV would be a massive increase in DR ... for Canon (if we look at the slow progress of the last 10 years).

Experiencing how good images can be from 10 year old tech (5D classic) with inferior 11EV dynamic range and a limited 12 bit ADC ... no, DR isn't everything. Exposure with the 5D classic is very critical, like Kodachrome 25, but if you expose spot on, image quality is stellar (with good lenses and - much more important - the right technique).

But as physicist I like to record as much data as possible with the best possible quality to get the best results. And there are a numerous contra light shots where I would welcome 18 EV DR in one shot. And I would welcome displays with similar DR ...

Hopefully a higher DR will find it's way to slower (and cheaper) cameras ... until this happens I will enjoy my two 5D classics and train my technical and creative skills !


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2015)

Mdshirajum said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :
> ...


Nobody is anti-DR, it's that some very vocal people have been insisting that DR is the only metric that counts with a camera system, while others hold the more balanced view that it is only one of a number of factors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

Mdshirajum said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :
> ...



I couldn't say. But if you find any anti-DR people here, please let us know!


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.se/2013/08/canon-files-for-dual-range-column.html

It was a certainty. Just a matter of time. It hit the C300MKII first and when it did, I said we would absolutely see it on a new 1 body. No doubt. I am wondering however if it's inexorably linked to DPAF sensors. This would explain why it's NOT on the 5DSR, other than they used the 7D2 fab process in FF which came before they managed to build (not design) this.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2015)

I'm already broke....so don't tell mrk II will give me nice and clean ISO25000 in low light :


----------



## zlatko (May 1, 2015)

It will be exciting to underexpose everything by 5 stops and then fix it in post, just like with other brands. Woohoo! Not being able to do this has really limited my photography.


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

Dylan,

The Canon 1DX2 will give you nice clean ISO 25000 images in low light.



Dylan777 said:


> I'm already broke....so don't tell mrk II will give me nice and clean ISO25000 in low light :


----------



## bvukich (May 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :



Until a sensor can hit 18-20 stops of DR, I'm going to be shooting brackets anyways, so as long as it's >11 (i.e. 5D3 territory) I'll have no complaints. That being said, the more the better. 

I'll be in the market for either the 5D4 or the 1Dx2, sadly enough the deciding factor will probably come down to a relatively minor feature, which I really want; AF point linked AE Spot.


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Are they going to clean up shadows while they're at it or leave the sensor being the noisiest?



Only time will tell.... but they knew that they were weak in DR and have obviously taken steps to address the problem. They are also weak in noise... The 7D2 shows some improvements, but it is a fair bet that since they also know they are weak in noise that they will take measures to improve it.... only time will tell.

A safe bet is that the quantum efficiency of the sensor will take a jump up... should be good for a third of a stop just on that variable alone.... and who knows what they are doing with readout noise?

Despite having no intentions to buy this camera, I will be looking at it to see what tech comes with it, as it should eventually trickle down the line. Should be interesting times ahead....


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

Don't forget to put the lenscap on



zlatko said:


> It will be exciting to underexpose everything by 5 stops and then fix it in post, just like with other brands. Woohoo! Not being able to do this has really limited my photography.


----------



## Mdshirajum (May 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Mdshirajum said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




Ahhhh... got it. but i don't think anyone says " DR is the ONLY metric"! But it's a VERY essential aspect. IMO, DR and ISO noise level are two things that defines how good a DSLR is. You may have many many other features, but those are JUST features. These two are NECESSITY (Frame rate, autofocus points etc. are not too important for my shooting) 

I have posted before that I was inclined to switch from Canon because of the lack of DR. But this rumor makes me happy! Canon already has bestest ISO performance, now time to catch up on DR. And I'll be a permanent Canon camper


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

Mdshirajum said:


> Ahhhh... got it. but i don't think anyone says " DR is the ONLY metric"!



Think again.


----------



## expatinasia (May 1, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm already broke...



What with your 11-24 GAS and now this, I sense you have some serious saving coming on!

You are not alone!


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

There are people in here you'd swear must just walk around with nothing but an Exmor in their pocket and magically wave it at their subjects to get pictures... :



neuroanatomist said:


> Mdshirajum said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh... got it. but i don't think anyone says " DR is the ONLY metric"!
> ...


----------



## Mdshirajum (May 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> There are people in here you'd swear must just walk around with nothing but an Exmor in their pocket and magically wave it at their subjects to get pictures... :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol! Spilled my coffee a bit


----------



## sanj (May 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :



Hahahaha. I was actually waiting to see your comment. Good one.


----------



## lo lite (May 1, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Beyond the increased ISO capabilities of the EOS-1D X Mark II, we’re told that dynamic range is going to see a massive improvement, and possibly have the most stops of any DSLR currently on the market. It’s always possible that Sony will do something in the meantime with their new sensors to increase their lead in stops of DR.</p>
> <p>It’s also sounding like a new DIGIC 7 processor will make its way into the EOS-1D X Mark II, instead of going with the DIGIC 6 processor that was introduced in 2013. The current EOS-1D X uses dual DIGIC 5+ processors.</p>
> <p>More to come…</p>



Hi,

today it occurred the first time to me that the rumor rating of Canon Rumors has the same abbreviation as the Canon Raw files have. Nice coincidence!


----------



## sanj (May 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mdshirajum said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



FUNNY....!!!!


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2015)

Bad marketing research/study by Canon due to DSLR will die by 2025 prediction ;D



PureClassA said:


> Dylan,
> 
> The Canon 1DX2 will give you nice clean ISO 25000 images in low light.
> 
> ...


----------



## sanj (May 1, 2015)

This is depressing news. CR will be dull now.


----------



## NancyP (May 1, 2015)

Is that an Exmor in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? (stolen/adapted from Mae West)

I wonder how soon this will come out? I better start 1. saving 2. pumping iron. 

What I really ought to do is pump photo books. Cheaper, more stimulating.


----------



## Vivid Color (May 1, 2015)

sanj said:


> This is depressing news. CR will be dull now.



Sanj, I think you should have some more faith in this community. I certainly do.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm already broke...
> ...



Still there....trying to avoid seeing photos online though. Hate to spend $3k on a lens just to do closet photohragphy 

My crystal ball showed me the future, " ain't so bright" for the saving account ;D


----------



## YuengLinger (May 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > CR's forum is going to lose half its contributors
> ...



+1! Exactly!


----------



## Click (May 1, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> My crystal ball showed me the future, " ain't so bright" for the saving account ;D



;D ;D ;D


----------



## David Hull (May 1, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> That should make a lot of people happy.



And some people unhappy -- now what will Mikael bellyache about


----------



## Peer (May 1, 2015)

With 4k 10-bit video, I'll preorder it without hesitation. 

-- peer


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

It occurs to me that I may be on the cusp of a whole new arena of photography...but if so, I'll need some help. Perhaps Aglet will teach me the proper way to shoot with the lens cap on, Dean can educate me on the importance of DR for taking pictures of Diet Coke boxes (and how to be a real pro and make lots of A$ doing so), and maybe if I get really lucky, Mikael will loan me his QPcard and show me how to take pictures of barbecues and push them 5 stops. 

;D


----------



## dspry (May 1, 2015)

ISO and DR are commonly talked about here as if they are discrete measurements, but they're both effects of signal to noise ratio. DR critically tracks how little signal can be imaged before noise becomes a problem, and as the problem of noise is abated, useable DR increases. As ISO basically correlates to the amplification of insufficient signal, DR is largely what's observed when ISO performance is measured.

Unless I'm ignorant of an important distinction between the two, it doesn't make sense to say that DR improves despite ISO performance.


----------



## cbphoto (May 1, 2015)

I, for one, love the competition between Sony & Canon. While there'll always be bumps in the road, we reap the rewards of both company's R&D.

I'm still itching to try the Sony a7r with a lens adapter.


----------



## drjlo (May 1, 2015)

What are the chances *5D IV* will get the new DR tech?


----------



## Northstar (May 1, 2015)

this couldn’t be better news for my sports photography. better high ISO AND more stops of dynamic range(hopefully more in the high ISO) AWESOME!


----------



## Sporgon (May 1, 2015)

drjlo said:


> What are the chances *5D IV* will get the new DR tech?



I would say quite high, but I can't see a 5DIV around the corner. Canon will want their run with only their flagship having any significant jump forward. The new 5Ds hasn't even been launched yet; it is to all intents and purposes a 5DIII with a higher resolution sensor using more or less the same tech. ( At least up to the 7DII). 

So when the 5DIV does eventually come out it's going to make the 5Ds look out of date - unless it's really quite different and more video based. I still maintain that we could see an interchangeable finder: one pentaprism, the other an EVF, principally for video.


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

I'm 49/51 betting more it doesn't. I dont think the 1DX2 gets announced before the 5D4 and they aren't going to let the 5D4 debut serious performance updates just ahead of a 1 body. Would love to be wrong.



Sporgon said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > What are the chances *5D IV* will get the new DR tech?
> ...


----------



## nightscape123 (May 1, 2015)

Hopefully the 6DII sees this tech since it isn't due out for another year. Seems unlikely the 5DIV will have it since they'll want their flagship model to stand out for a few months.


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

Eh... What a middle finger that would be though. 6D2 with CPADC design but not on 5D4? No way. Either they will both have it, or neither will. 



nightscape123 said:


> Hopefully the 6DII sees this tech since it isn't due out for another year. Seems unlikely the 5DIV will have it since they'll want their flagship model to stand out for a few months.


----------



## Ozarker (May 1, 2015)

I am so glad that there is such strong competition between Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc... This is what makes things just keep getting better! I hope this Camera will be as good as many anticipate. Can't wait to see the photos you folks post when it does hit the market and gets into your hands!


----------



## sparda79 (May 1, 2015)

We can finally photograph that elusive inside of a lens-cap shots that Sony & Nikon users have been raving about.


----------



## nightscape123 (May 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Eh... What a middle finger that would be though. 6D2 with CPADC design but not on 5D4? No way. Either they will both have it, or neither will.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno, the current 6D sensor was a pretty big upgrade from the 5DIII sensor, people seem ok with that. The increased QE, fix for the banding noise and improved ISO capabilities. I guess it wasn't as big of an upgrade as this would be, but there is some precedence for it.


----------



## nwardrip (May 1, 2015)

New sensor bubble technology FTW!


----------



## zlatko (May 1, 2015)

sanj said:


> This is depressing news. CR will be dull now.



No it will still be lots of fun. There will be complaints about other Canon cameras being "crippled". Someone has to say "crippled" at least once each day. Like, "Waaaaa, why did Canon _cripple_ the sensor in my Rebel? Why can't it have the same sensor as the 1DX2? Why is Canon being so cheap? They just want to make money! That's it; I'm done with Canon!" 



sparda79 said:


> We can finally photograph that elusive inside of a lens-cap shots that Sony & Nikon users have been raving about.



Just try to think of the new creative possibilities!


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

I own both. Yes the 6D yielded better results at high ISO with less banding... but it wasn't a huge step up. We're talking about a completely NEW sensor design that is a big leap from the current in the way it's manufactured and performs. Not sure it's the same thing.



nightscape123 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Eh... What a middle finger that would be though. 6D2 with CPADC design but not on 5D4? No way. Either they will both have it, or neither will.
> ...


----------



## jaayres20 (May 1, 2015)

If this is true, I would think it will first appear in the 1DX. While we are waiting for the 1DX to become available, we will get the announcement of the 5D4 with the same increase in DR and a few months later the camera will arrive sometime in spring 2016. The 1DX2 will be available for the summer to the pros who are hand picked to get the first batch and the rest of us will have one by the fall of 2016. Then the 6D2 will come around in time for Christmas 2016.


----------



## ecqns (May 1, 2015)

cbphoto said:


> I, for one, love the competition between Sony & Canon. While there'll always be bumps in the road, we reap the rewards of both company's R&D.
> 
> I'm still itching to try the Sony a7r with a lens adapter.


Pick one up, you can get a good deal on eBay. I did. I shoot architecture and landscape and the files are wonderful. So much more recovery info. Of course I bracket but with ppl in the scene it's better to blend exposures from the same frame. 
No matter what canon does eventually I'll definitely have a Sony as either a main or backup high res camera.


----------



## wockawocka (May 1, 2015)

A wide dynamic range has its uses.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 1, 2015)

sanj said:


> This is depressing news. CR will be dull now.



The is always the EOS-M line to bash: Why aren't there are fast prime pancakes?


----------



## ScottyP (May 1, 2015)

Don't overlook the possibility this might be a Sony sensor. Or a Sony sensor with some face-saving qualification that it was developed with some input from Canon. If the rumor is even true at all, of course.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 1, 2015)

Mdshirajum said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :
> ...



It doesn't hurt, it's just that it usually doesn't help either, certainly not at a level commensurate with the level of talk about it.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 1, 2015)

I wonder how they would choose to encode an image with more than 16 stops of DR.

There are really two ways.

One is to use a linear encoding with more than 16 bits.

The other is to use a non-linear (logarithmic) encoding the way the new Lightroom HDR merge works (16 bit floating point for about 30 stops).


----------



## danski0224 (May 1, 2015)

Bring it!


----------



## TeT (May 1, 2015)

Mdshirajum said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :
> ...



He is referring to the DR is not everything PPL.

The argument goes something like this... 
DR PPL: "Sony and Nikon have more DR at ISO 100 and you can shoot in the dark with them and bring up the exposure and see a fantastic image.

NON DR PPL: Take a properly exposed picture and leave me alone with your DR BS!


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 1, 2015)

More DR would be a game changer now wouldn't it. :


----------



## dstppy (May 1, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> That should make a lot of people happy.


Ooooooh no it won't. Bless you for being an optimist, but they are only going to get louder.

This is there internet. The Dynamic Range that exists only in some people's heads contain darks so dark that they suck the soul out of you like a Dementor.


----------



## TeT (May 1, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> A wide dynamic range has its uses.



I am impressed the composition. Very Nice photos...


----------



## LOALTD (May 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :




If Canon is class-leading = essential feature
If Canon is class-lagging = it's about the whole system, silly! The image sensor doesn't take photos for you!!!111 LOL


Finally DR will be an essential figure again! 


I just hope they put it in a smaller, cheaper body. I have no use for perma-vertical grips.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 1, 2015)

dspry said:


> ISO and DR are commonly talked about here as if they are discrete measurements, but they're both effects of signal to noise ratio. DR critically tracks how little signal can be imaged before noise becomes a problem, and as the problem of noise is abated, useable DR increases. As ISO basically correlates to the amplification of insufficient signal, DR is largely what's observed when ISO performance is measured.
> 
> Unless I'm ignorant of an important distinction between the two, it doesn't make sense to say that DR improves despite ISO performance.


His statement left out an important detail:

Those who sing praises in honor of EXMOR sensors, only care about dynamic range at ISO100. These people do not care if EXMOR loses the advantage of DR in ISO1600 and above that.


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I wonder how they would choose to encode an image with more than 16 stops of DR.
> 
> There are really two ways.
> 
> ...


or save as an 18 bit (or more) RAW file


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> If Canon is class-leading = essential feature
> If Canon is class-lagging = it's about the whole system, silly! The image sensor doesn't take photos for you!!!



It is – and always has been – about the whole system, silly...


----------



## quod (May 1, 2015)

TeT said:


> NON DR PPL: Take a properly exposed picture and leave me alone with your DR BS!


That's a great philosophy if you shoot in a studio or take portraits with flashes that can overcome the sun, etc. Some of us do not.


----------



## quod (May 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> It is – and always has been – about the whole system, silly...


To you? What strobes do you use? Oh yeah, Paul C Buff. What tripod? Oh yeah, Really Right Stuff. Shall I continue, Mr. Silly System? I can use all of my L glass on a Sony body. They do not need the loving Canon body touch to do their magic.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how they would choose to encode an image with more than 16 stops of DR.
> ...



Isn't that the first one I said?


----------



## Lee Jay (May 1, 2015)

quod said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > NON DR PPL: Take a properly exposed picture and leave me alone with your DR BS!
> ...



Some of you should.

I have done experiments where I compared using high DR to using fill-light, and fill-light essentially always wins even when the tone curves are equalized in post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

quod said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > NON DR PPL: Take a properly exposed picture and leave me alone with your DR BS!
> ...



Apparently some of us live in a world where the EV difference between the sun in the frame and detail in pitch black shadow is greater than 11.5-stops but less than 14-stops. The rest of us live in reality.


----------



## bmwzimmer (May 1, 2015)

I would not be surprised if Canon is working with Samsung to develop a 35mm Back side illuminated sensor that already has great ISO performance and Dynamic Range while also utilizing a form of Magic Lantern's Dual ISO


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

quod said:


> I can use all of my L glass on a Sony body. They do not need the loving Canon body touch to do their magic.



Thanks for the tip. I'll run right out and try that for tracking birds in flight. :


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

They just did it on the C300 II. 15 stops of DR, same 14bit RAW files. I assume then some logarithmic encoding. And no, stop with this Sony and Samsung stuff. Canon made the sensor in the C300II themselves on what is obviously a new fab process. The 1DX2 will use the same process. 



Lee Jay said:


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


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

and +1 I'll go get an A7 too. You let me know how blurry those birds turn out with poor AF tracking and the EVF lag time and i'll let you know how bad my dancers turn out when they're flying through the air... Sony Alphas are good for portrait work and landscape. They don't hold a candle to Canon when it comes to AF tracking moving targets



neuroanatomist said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > I can use all of my L glass on a Sony body. They do not need the loving Canon body touch to do their magic.
> ...


----------



## RGF (May 1, 2015)

me to save $. Wonder when this will launch. Before or after I go to africa in April

Occasionally I get a lens before I go, but in the case of the 5Ds it will be launch just after I get back from big trip in June.


----------



## rbielefeld (May 1, 2015)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It is – and always has been – about the whole system, silly...
> ...



Oh, but the loving touch of a Canon body nestled up next to a Canon 600mm f/4 sure is nice when you want to capture images like this: hand held! It is all about the Canon system for my type of shooting.


----------



## GuyF (May 1, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> A wide dynamic range has its uses.



Maybe I'm just weird (that's rhetorical, just in case there are any comedians around here...), but am I the only one who feels an urge to Photoshop in a mushroom cloud to the two lower images?


----------



## Neutral (May 1, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> <..>
> Those who sing praises in honor of EXMOR sensors, only care about dynamic range at ISO100. These people do not care if *EXMOR loses the advantage of DR in ISO1600 and above that.
> *



Marked red in the statement above is completely wrong for quite some time already.
Please see attached comparison chart between 1Dx ,5DM3 and Sony A7S.
For me personally I started using A7S firstly just because it is about half stop better at high ISO compared to 1DX and secondly because it is much easier to carry it around compared with 1DX due to smaller size and smaller weight. 
Combined with the new Zeiss FE 35 *F/1.4* ZA it is very handy at low light conditions. 
I will post few pictures done with this combo later in 3 party manufactures section.

Currently A7S is about two stops better at low ISO DR and half stop better than 1DX at high ISO.
I hope that new 1DX II will be at least half stop (or preferably 1 stop ) better than current A7S at high ISO.
This would be very significant move forward. 
It also would be nice to see Foveon like sensor tech but probably this will not happen this time, probably only after Sony will present that in their new cameras (Sony mentioned some time ago that they are working on this technology but so far it is too expensive to be used in new cameras)


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2015)

A7S = Very Special Animal. The Exmor used in the Nikon D810 (and A7R) is what is compared to the 5D3 and 1DX. The A7S is supertuned for sensitivity at only 12MP



Neutral said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > <..>
> ...


----------



## Matthew Saville (May 1, 2015)

This will be huge, especially if they can maintain DR at higher ISO's. Indeed, although the Sony A7S is a different beast, most Nikons lose most or all of their advantage by ISO 1600 / 3200, making the Canon 6D an actually far superior sensor for things like astro-landscapes, when you consider the DR and noise performance at ISO 6400-12800.

I'm a Nikon owner, and I'm all in favor of Canon's 1DX ii and 5D iv having 15+ stops of DR. I won't feel too heartbroken about my D750's DR, or the D810 losing its spot at the top, I'll simply look forward to the healthy competition.

This is, of course, assuming that Canon can maintain their mid-range tonal quality and trademark colors. Canon skin tones have long been a selling point for wedding and portrait photographers, and if they sacrifice that in favor of extreme DR, there will definitely be a riot. 

Either way, this is exciting news. I'm actually quite puzzled as to how this topic got to 6 pages long without being 99% "yay!" responses...

=Matt=


----------



## Neutral (May 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> A7S = Very Special Animal. The Exmor used in the Nikon D810 (and A7R) is what is compared to the 5D3 and 1DX. The A7S is supertuned for sensitivity at only 12MP



A7S = 12mpx
1DX = 18mpx
D810=36mpx

Which is closer to compare ?
Secondly, what matters in this respect is overall sensor efficiency for it's full geometrical size and not number of pixels on it.
And yes, A7S is really Very Special Animal. It is my lovely pet now, more then other one (1DX).
Definitely it can not compare with 1DX for action/sports, but for still low light hand held photography is better than 1DX ( for me at least).


----------



## photonius (May 1, 2015)

painya said:


> Do you think it will be dual read out with the same old sensor, or a new sensor technology altogether?



probably dual read, maybe dual pixels like the 70D, but not used for AF, but used for simultaneous dual exposure. 

Otherwise, it's difficult to see how one could get higher DR than what Sony has.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 1, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> I would not be surprised if Canon is working with Samsung to develop a 35mm Back side illuminated sensor that already has great ISO performance and Dynamic Range while also utilizing a form of Magic Lantern's Dual ISO



It would surprise me a little if they worked with samsung for flagship sensors. It would surprise me greatly if they used a form of magic lantern's dual iso rather than flushing out their own existing patents.



photonius said:


> probably dual read, maybe dual pixels like the 70D, but not used for AF, but used for simultaneous dual exposure.



I don't think that would buy them much. Rather, I think they have to read out the entire pixel charge (the sum of both diodes) and send it down parallel signal paths processing different gain. Otherwise, wouldn't they essentially be cutting FWC in half (if each read diode is half of a full pixel)?


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


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


Sorry, I mis-read what you wrote. My mistake!


----------



## dolina (May 1, 2015)

So looking forward to CFast! ;D


----------



## Creative69 (May 1, 2015)

zlatko said:


> It will be exciting to underexpose everything by 5 stops and then fix it in post, just like with other brands. Woohoo! Not being able to do this has really limited my photography.



Ha Ha love this! As a "musician" in the old sense of the word I watched as a new generation used computers to make up for a lack of ability. Suddenly everyone could make music. I have kind of always seen the DR thing as this in photography terms. Forget learning how to expose a scene correctly, its just easier to slag off canon because sony give you more leverage to make up the lack of skill needed.


----------



## Orangutan (May 1, 2015)

rbielefeld said:


> Oh, but the loving touch of a Canon body nestled up next to a Canon 600mm f/4 sure is nice when you want to capture images like this: hand held! It is all about the Canon system for my type of shooting.



HOLY CRAP those are phenomenal kingfisher photos! I've tried a few times to capture kingfishers and the damned things are like bullets! Ah! 1/4000th, I've been trying 1/2000th. Must try the faster shutter!


----------



## Sabaki (May 1, 2015)

So what would this world best DR mean to action and nature photography?


----------



## mobile4788 (May 1, 2015)

Matthew Saville said:


> Canon skin tones have long been a selling point for wedding and portrait photographers, and if they sacrifice that in favor of extreme DR, there will definitely be a riot.



Amen. Much as I'd love a little more DR, it plays second (third? fourth?) fiddle to skin tone for my work. Nikon skin tones make me throw up in my mouth.


----------



## frumrk (May 1, 2015)

Matthew Saville said:


> This will be huge, especially if they can maintain DR at higher ISO's. Indeed, although the Sony A7S is a different beast, most Nikons lose most or all of their advantage by ISO 1600 / 3200, making the Canon 6D an actually far superior sensor for things like astro-landscapes, when you consider the DR and noise performance at ISO 6400-12800.
> 
> I'm a Nikon owner, and I'm all in favor of Canon's 1DX ii and 5D iv having 15+ stops of DR. I won't feel too heartbroken about my D750's DR, or the D810 losing its spot at the top, I'll simply look forward to the healthy competition.
> 
> ...



+1

I agree... having shot a wedding with a 5D III and my second shooting with a D610... Advantage to the 5D III because I had less to do to get the photos color graded to my preference. No noticeable noise difference and the Nikon photos were less contrasty due to the increased DR (I am assuming). Also both cameras were shooting with the same settings (ISO 1600 @ 1/160th)

If canon can give me better DR/Tonal quality at and above ISO 1600/3200 and maybe a modest increase in Noise performance I would be more than happy to upgrade. And of course I am hoping that any advances in the 1D X II carry over to the 5D IV


----------



## K (May 1, 2015)

More DR is a good thing, and will be welcome.

But regardless of how much DR Canon will actually have, it wasn't something that was holding Canon back. 

It's just not as critical as its made out to be. 

Better ISO performance is always more useful.


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2015)

Creative69 said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > It will be exciting to underexpose everything by 5 stops and then fix it in post, just like with other brands. Woohoo! Not being able to do this has really limited my photography.
> ...


I also find this laughable. All these photographers that are so good, apparently you are amongst them, who always get the exposure right. when following a subject from shadow to bright sun, from dark background to bright background etc. etc. you always get your exposure right. God I am envious and I wonder what I am doing wrong ...
A bright sunny day, with white clouds, white beach, dark green leaves on trees and interesting details in the shadows. Apparently that is no problem for you, because you know how to get your exposure right. I wonder what I am doing wrong, when I have shadows with no detail (worth having) and blown skies in the same image ...

When Canon now finally add DR and hopefully good noise performance to their sensors, it is very good news. Resolution, dynamic range, noise performance, contrast, color and ISO range are fundamental qualities for a camera. Canon has not been good at DR and noise, compared to the competition. If this rumor turns out to be true, they will finally complement a system that beats all the others in pretty much every other department.


----------



## Stu_bert (May 1, 2015)

photonius said:


> painya said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think it will be dual read out with the same old sensor, or a new sensor technology altogether?
> ...



Same tech as the C300 II, but honestly I don't mind if they have a particle accelerator in there, or a singularity doing the magic . Nor do I care if they've moved to a new fab (which I doubt, btw).

If I get an improved image quality, finally ISO 16, maybe a few more MP even better AF, improved video and accessory compatibility with the other 1xx bodies then thank you Canon.

I would be happy, but doubt, that all bodies will get it initially. A 50MP 1xx version of this might finally convince me to flog some other bodies...


----------



## Diko (May 1, 2015)

It's so sad. High *ISO* and best *DR*.... No more *DR*ones.... *Zlatko*, things will never be the same again. 

Creativity has nothing to do with it. *Nikon *and *SONY *will be left in the dust. No more rivals... Everything will be perfect... 

*TheMatrix *is no more. We all are gonna die.


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2015)

Diko said:


> TheMatrix [/b]is no more. We all are gonna die.


Yupp, we´re off to Nirvana, with the ultimate camera


----------



## rbielefeld (May 1, 2015)

I shoot mostly birds, and birds in flight are my passion. High performance of the overall camera system in capturing these types of images is what I covet most. The 1Dx gives me very high performance. Given bird photography is subject photography and getting the proper exposure on your subject is all important; at the detriment of foregrounds and backgrounds at times, I would love even better noise and DR performance than what the 1Dx currently provides. Does the 1Dx absolutely need better noise and DR performance to make great images, no, but better performance in these areas sure would not hurt. Bring them on! I will take advantage as best I can.


----------



## Creative69 (May 1, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Creative69 said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Yeah..... nice try but I aint biting!


----------



## zlatko (May 1, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Creative69 said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



It's not about being "so good" that we "always get the exposure right". Not at all. I have no special gift for exposure. But for years now I have been able to mess up exposures by as much as +/- 2 stops. And most of the time I'm within +/- 1 stop. Has there ever been an exposure that I messed up even more than 2 stops? Of course, and sometimes those are fixable too. But +/- 2 stops is a *very* big range, covering quite a lot of shooting situations. Anyone with access to a light meter should be able to get within +/- 2 stops pretty easily.

I realize it may not be enough for everyone in every situation. And perhaps some people never look at their LCD to check exposure (though I don't understand them). I'm not against more dynamic range; of course that is good news! What is objectionable/funny to me is setting up a 5-stop push of underexposed base ISO shots as the standard by which all camera sensors are judged — that's a "standard" cherry picked to put Sony/Nikon on a pedestal. We've all seen those horrid examples where the Canon 5-stop push looks like crap and the Sony/Nikon still looked OK. These get paraded all the time as if they are something we should all be anxious for Canon to "fix".


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Creative69 said:
> ...


I agree, that this whole thing about DR has derailed, with stupid arguments and loads of very poor examples. To me it is very simple. I have numerous images where improved DR would have been beneficial, so I want more. I have numerous images where noise is an issue. I want less. DR and noise are (in my opinion) the only areas where Canon is lagging behind Sony and Nikon. If the 1DXII will solve that, then Canon is back on top in everything that matters to me (I don´t care about video, so that may be a different story ...)


----------



## Matthew Saville (May 1, 2015)

mobile4788 said:


> Matthew Saville said:
> 
> 
> > Canon skin tones have long been a selling point for wedding and portrait photographers, and if they sacrifice that in favor of extreme DR, there will definitely be a riot.
> ...



Don't high-horse too much; Canon's 5D mk3 skin tones are still a step back from the 5D classic. Or maybe it's just that back then many of us wedding / portrait shooters actually shot JPG, and its Adobe who is butchering the RAW processing horribly. I know my Nikon skin tones look pretty gorgeous in JPG form, it's Adobe I hate for their piss-poor handling of Nikon reds/yellows. ;-)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 1, 2015)

Neutral said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > <..>
> ...


In fact, the graph DXO Mark you mentioned, does not contradict my statement.

I said "EXMOR lose the vantage of DR in ISO1600 and above that."

The graph shows a technical tie in ISO1600, ISO3200 1DX has higher DR, and ISO6400 is more a technical tie.

Furthermore, Sony A7S is a more recent model, and has only 12 megapixel. It would be shameful if Sony does not have any gain from these advantages.


----------



## Sporgon (May 1, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



So the Sony team are fielding a 2014 specialist 12 mp low light camera against the 2012, 18 mp Canon action camera ? Hmmmm, reminds me of the UK election going on at the moment.


----------



## SwnSng (May 1, 2015)

It took 8 pages before this meme was posted. A lot disappointed in you alls.


----------



## 9VIII (May 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Don't forget to put the lenscap on
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Crap. I knew I was doing something wrong.

I guess I need to go back and re-take all those Disneyland pics.
We need to start a petition to have a special night event where they turn all the lights off.


----------



## 9VIII (May 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>Beyond the increased ISO capabilities of the EOS-1D X Mark II, we’re told that dynamic range is going to see a massive improvement, and possibly have the most stops of any DSLR currently on the market. It’s always possible that Sony will do something in the meantime with their new sensors to increase their lead in stops of DR.</p>
> ...



Dilbert, can you please explain to us how sensor noise is going to ruin every picture we take?


----------



## tpatana (May 2, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> It took 8 pages before this meme was posted. A lot disappointed in you alls.



I was just about to post this


----------



## Ozarker (May 2, 2015)

rbielefeld said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Best Osprey photo I have ever seen. It is photos like yours that turned me into a Canon fan boy to begin with. Very nice work.


----------



## NancyP (May 2, 2015)

rbielefeld - Wow, what captures! As exciting as a new top-level camera can be, I am more impressed with actual skills like yours. DR is all well and good, but skills are better.

I am just poking along in bird photography with a lowly 60D and EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS (almost entirely handheld), I am happy if I get the bird sharp and occupying more than a few pixels in the frame. Admittedly I don't concentrate in one type of photography, and putzing with landscape and macro and wide-field astro means that I get a little skill in those areas but don't keep the kind of constant practice in stalking and panning the birds that is necessary to get top-quality BIF shots like yours. It is like playing an instrument - you skip a day of practice, you know it; you skip two days, your teacher knows it; you skip three days, your audience knows it.

I hope to get more shooting time in, and I aspire to 1. better-developed muscles for BIF shooting with a heavier kit 2. a 500 or 600 f/4 L IS, v.II preferably (see #1, wimpy arms) 3. a body that can bang out 8 to 12 fps maximum rate. Work on #1 pumping iron, rent big lens and fast body for a week's vacation, see if I can handle it.


----------



## danski0224 (May 2, 2015)

All I can say is that the next X best be gluten-free.


----------



## K (May 2, 2015)

zlatko said:


> It will be exciting to underexpose everything by 5 stops and then fix it in post, just like with other brands. Woohoo! Not being able to do this has really limited my photography.



LOL!

Best post in this thread.


----------



## serendipidy (May 2, 2015)

K said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > It will be exciting to underexpose everything by 5 stops and then fix it in post, just like with other brands. Woohoo! Not being able to do this has really limited my photography.
> ...


+1


----------



## Aglet (May 2, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> A7S = Very Special Animal. The Exmor used in the Nikon D810 (and A7R) is what is compared to the 5D3 and 1DX.


Despite that, the d8x0 sensors don't give up anything across the range to 5d3 and are only marginally behind a 1dx at very hi iso where the more appropriate D4s comparison shows it's pretty much equal using a design similarly optimized for speed and low light.


----------



## Aglet (May 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> It occurs to me that I may be on the cusp of a whole new arena of photography...but if so, I'll need some help. Perhaps Aglet will teach me the proper way to shoot with the lens cap on,..



I'm sorry, that's proprietary.
Oh wait, that's fracking. 

ahem... so... how many stops of DR _do_ you need to shoot a BIF anyway?...
Let's make it more relevant, a backlit black one?... 
After all, you're _properly exposing_ it, right?...


----------



## emko (May 2, 2015)

hope the next 5D gets this sensor if not i think i will go to Nikon, i have no use for the 1DX


----------



## starship (May 2, 2015)

*i don´t care about religion...*

i don´t care about religion...

so, for me personally, brand atheism is logical. over the last 7 years, I used canon-stuff for my work. 

but for a couple of years I also waited to throw 2 or 3 thousand bucks into the arms of canon for a dslr with the quality of a "sony-like" sensor. with 14ev dynamic range and a good high iso-performance.

but I`m really fed up with this "waiting for godot"-drama. so, this month, I bought a nikon d750 and a couple of lenses. i don´t care about all the guys telling me and others, that people like me are just not capable to make a proper exposure. 

enough is enough. I wanted a good tool for my work, and finally I got one. 

canon simply missed the chance to get my money.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2015)

I hope so. I have 1.9 feet out the door. I guess I'll wait to later this year to see what pans out, but that's it. And I'm only waiting at this point since I have to some other bills to pay now at the moment so the any new gear was not going to be until late this summer anyway. And we'll see if it is tech that they can ever do at more than a low MP count or not or if they plan to hold it for one series only for another few years (forget it).

A side note: doesn't this rumor bring a bit more credence back to the 5D4c 4k with high DR rumor again? If so, then things might be getting interesting at Canon again (other than for lenses which have remained interesting ever since they came out with the EOS EF mount).


----------



## Orangutan (May 2, 2015)

*Re: i don´t care about religion...*



starship said:


> I bought a nikon d750 and a couple of lenses.



I hope you enjoy it.


----------



## TeT (May 2, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It occurs to me that I may be on the cusp of a whole new arena of photography...but if so, I'll need some help. Perhaps Aglet will teach me the proper way to shoot with the lens cap on,..
> ...



a backlit bird is tough. One system doesnt have the DR, another system doesn't have the AF and Nikons are just backwards to me...


----------



## Orangutan (May 2, 2015)

Aglet said:


> ahem... so... how many stops of DR _do_ you need to shoot a BIF anyway?...
> Let's make it more relevant, a backlit black one?...
> After all, you're _properly exposing_ it, right?...



I'd like to see a Nikon sample of that if you have one. Depending on time of day it could be 18-20 stops of DR to get the bird and the sky. More DR would help in some circumstances.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It occurs to me that I may be on the cusp of a whole new arena of photography...but if so, I'll need some help. Perhaps Aglet will teach me the proper way to shoot with the lens cap on,..
> ...



Wanting DR has NOTHING to do with proper exposure. NOTHING. NOTHING NOTHING.
People keep saying expose properly and DR does not matter. They keep saying that because they are Canon fanboys and can't admit that their God is not delivering. 
DR comes into play when bracketing and lighting is not possible. Then the photographer exposes for the bright or dark areas and hopes to get some details back in post. Canon is not the best in that regard with banding and noise. 

The backlit bird is a good example.


----------



## jarrodeu (May 2, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > ahem... so... how many stops of DR _do_ you need to shoot a BIF anyway?...
> ...


In that case you better be shooting Kodak Portra.

Jarrod


----------



## Mitch.Conner (May 2, 2015)

Here's hoping the same tech makes its way into the next 5d as well.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Mdshirajum said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess those of us who are anti-DR will have no interest in this camera. :
> ...



You are new here so missing the inside joke.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Vivid Color said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > This is depressing news. CR will be dull now.
> ...



You right. I will keep my faith alive. This community has full potential to educate and entertain.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Mdshirajum said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Mdshirajum said:
> ...



Words out of my mouth....!!!  except for the frame rate/focus points


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Matthew Saville said:


> This will be huge, especially if they can maintain DR at higher ISO's. Indeed, although the Sony A7S is a different beast, most Nikons lose most or all of their advantage by ISO 1600 / 3200, making the Canon 6D an actually far superior sensor for things like astro-landscapes, when you consider the DR and noise performance at ISO 6400-12800.
> 
> I'm a Nikon owner, and I'm all in favor of Canon's 1DX ii and 5D iv having 15+ stops of DR. I won't feel too heartbroken about my D750's DR, or the D810 losing its spot at the top, I'll simply look forward to the healthy competition.
> 
> ...



That is just us. Mind it!!! )


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > This is depressing news. CR will be dull now.
> ...



True. Why are they not there??? hahahaha


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon is class-leading = essential feature
> ...



You said no one gets best of both worlds. But that seems to be changing. Happiness....


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> So what would this world best DR mean to action and nature photography?



A lot. They would benefit the most as they often deal with extreme contrast and no lighting. Landscape photographers who find themselves without a tripod will be able to do better post.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Creative69 said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Well said. Agree totally.


----------



## Moulyneau (May 2, 2015)

Don't know whether I should cry or laugh... If this proves true, looks like weight issue is going to become secondary all of a sudden. Have to prepare myself to lug around another 3 pounds stuff...


----------



## tpatana (May 2, 2015)

I want to be able to push shadows so many stops that I can shoot with lens cap on and still recover the picture in LR.


----------



## rs (May 2, 2015)

tpatana said:


> I want to be able to push shadows so many stops that I can shoot with lens cap on and still recover the picture in LR.


Some traditional Canon users would consider shooting at base ISO in low light with the lens cap still on as bad technique - I consider it one if the many basic situations the sensor should be able to overcome


----------



## Bennymiata (May 2, 2015)

I think what Canon should do is bring out a lens cap with a clear glass front.

Then Canons would be the best camera to take pictures with the lens cap on.

Take THAT Sony fanboys. ;D


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Some people need to chew on this fact long and hard:

If better DR was redundant, Canon and others would not work on increasing it. 

End of drama, I say.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

Meanwhile I wonder if the followers of Nikon God have gone into a stunned mourning.


----------



## jrista (May 2, 2015)

sanj said:


> It was just a matter of time.




It's STILL a matter of time. Canon's concept of DR, and the actual measurements of DR, have thus far proven to be very different things. It will only "have been" a matter of time when it's actually a fact in a physical camera we can buy and hold in our hands.


----------



## mb66energy (May 2, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> I think what Canon should do is bring out a lens cap with a clear glass front.
> 
> Then Canons would be the best camera to take pictures with the lens cap on.
> 
> Take THAT Sony fanboys. ;D



These lenscaps still exist but Canon doesn't produce them in large amounts.
Use them from 3rd party companies like B+W etc. They are called "filters"
and have you have to fiddle around with a screw in mount - but you don't 
remove them for taking pictures.
These black lens caps sit in a little box in a drawer since I opened the
box with a newly acquired lens and will see light again 
if I sell a corresponding lens.
Hopefully this helps.


----------



## jrista (May 2, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Are they going to clean up shadows while they're at it or leave the sensor being the noisiest?
> ...




Read noise...DR....basically they boil down to the same thing. DR is the ratio between FWC and RN after all. Canon has improved their read noise characteristic in recent models, which is certainly a welcome improvement. Somehow, though, the improvement in characteristic hasn't actually improved DR...honestly not sure what's going on there.


A Q.E. boost should help high ISO performance, but a solid reduction in read noise (not just more improvement in characteristic) would really be needed to improve dynamic range. 


I hope this is finally it, or at least, finally the beginning of the end of Canon's very long in the tooth "Age of 11 Stops."  It's kind of a bummer (although certainly not surprising as it's the epitome of Canon's M.O.) it's coming in a camera likely to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $7000...that won't stop many people from complaining about Canon DR since most people won't be able to even hold a 1D X II in their hands, let alone actually buy one. I wonder if the 5D IV will get a DR boost....otherwise, we'll have to wait for the 5D V before the majority of Canon users who want more DR actually get more DR.


----------



## bollo (May 2, 2015)

As a long time occasional lurker I just dropped in to say what a bunch of insufferable arsetwats the majority of you are.

I've never seen such an argumentative, self absorbed, smug, infantile and downright pathetic group as that which regularly posts here. Nothing is more important than being right, starting a fight, arguing over nothing or scoring points.

Never mind the signal to noise ratio of the new vaporware 1DXII, how about y'all try to improve it here on this site.

It's not been a pleasure folks, you can stick it up yer fundamental.

Love & kisses, 

bollo


----------



## GuyF (May 2, 2015)

Bollo,

Yup, if some people put as much effort into their photography skills as they do arguing about the DR of something that isn't yet available, then this small part of the world might be a better place.

Anyway, let the mud-slinging continue...

Guy.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

GuyF said:


> Bollo,
> 
> Yup, if some people put as much effort into their photography skills as they do arguing about the DR of something that isn't yet available, then this small part of the world might be a better place.
> 
> ...



Wow. You mean exactly how you are commenting here?


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

bollo said:


> As a long time occasional lurker I just dropped in to say what a bunch of insufferable arsetwats the majority of you are.
> 
> I've never seen such an argumentative, self absorbed, smug, infantile and downright pathetic group as that which regularly posts here. Nothing is more important than being right, starting a fight, arguing over nothing or scoring points.
> 
> ...



"Long time (yet) occasional" lurker. That made me laugh. I guess you did not see this or similar thread to know how we all really are: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25988.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26160.0

Its a pleasure to see you leave.


----------



## GuyF (May 2, 2015)

Sanj,

I don't want to get into an argument with you, but my post simply pointed out there are some people who seem to get very worked up over the possibilities of something that doesn't yet exist. Wouldn't it be better to wait until we see what technology Canon unveils?

Guy.


----------



## danski0224 (May 2, 2015)

What, this doesn't exist yet? WTF!


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

GuyF said:


> Sanj,
> 
> I don't want to get into an argument with you, but my post simply pointed out there are some people who seem to get very worked up over the possibilities of something that doesn't yet exist. Wouldn't it be better to wait until we see what technology Canon unveils?
> 
> Guy.



Guy,
Yes you are right, but it is a rumor site. We like to discuss possibilities. One thing leads to another and along the way we learn photography techniques . When I joined this site I was getting into photography after a long time - direct after film days - and must say I learnt a lot. On this Juza photo, and Brian's website. And Ken Rockwell.   
But yeah getting worked up is never good. Like Bollo. He certainly has issues. Like "occasionally lurking for a long time" at a site where he thinks contributors are pathetic. Lol. 
There are some posts which are offensive but I guess sometimes we misread humor and get offended. Besides this is the internet. It needs to be different than a social club. Here faceless people can and should say their minds. That is the fun bit. If you are a Mac user try their rumor site. It's juicy. 
Peace!


----------



## GuyF (May 2, 2015)

Sanj,

A Mac user? Now that's just name calling! ;D

Yeah, it's one thing to speculate on "what ifs.." but there are a few people here who take things really too personally and get very very angry if their point of view is challenged.

Before this ends up with comments neither of us would be proud of, let's call it quits and we'll both come out of this in one piece!

Peace, love and good hapiness stuff.

Guy.


----------



## expatinasia (May 2, 2015)

I will be honest and say I do not understand an awful lot of what is being discussed here, but I will most likely get the 1D X II a few months after it is released.

I just hope it has an USB Type-C connecter and preferably 3.0 or 3.1.

See, I am easy to please!


----------



## GuyF (May 2, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> What, this doesn't exist yet? WTF!



Well, okay it probably exists in some hollowed out volcano where Canon build their prototypes but other than that, it'll be October/November before we get real specs on this (according to my source on the board of Nikon).


----------



## 9VIII (May 2, 2015)

bollo said:


> As a long time occasional lurker I just dropped in to say what a bunch of insufferable arsetwats the majority of you are.
> 
> I've never seen such an argumentative, self absorbed, smug, infantile and downright pathetic group as that which regularly posts here. Nothing is more important than being right, starting a fight, arguing over nothing or scoring points.
> 
> ...



I'm always wondering if these are reappearances of ancient personalities. I've even forgotten who most of them are, but apparently they don't like Canon.

Another one for the road:
Nikon Lens Selection Sucks, Nikon Menues Suck, Nikon Live View Sucks, Nikon Control Dials Suck, Nikon Editing Software Sucks, Nikon Chromatic Aberration Sucks, Nikon Video Mode Sucks, Nikon Lens Naming Sucks...
Sony has flimsy lens mounts and is indecisive, Samsung uses 12bit RAW in burst mode, The 654Z cost more than a 1Dx, Oh and Nikon doesn't have an RT flash, and Nikon's wireless functionality Sucks. Fuji only makes crop sensors and Micro 4/3 is even worse! But as bad as they are, it's still not as bad as the Nikon 1 series.
Nikon, Really, Sucks.


----------



## 9VIII (May 2, 2015)

9VIII said:


> bollo said:
> 
> 
> > As a long time occasional lurker I just dropped in to say what a bunch of insufferable arsetwats the majority of you are.
> ...



The number of things wrong with Nikon is so big right now that you could almost write a song about it.
I was about to go over to Nikonrumors and ask if they could come up with a similar list for Canon, but on their frontpage all I saw was more things about how much Nikon sucks, so maybe that's not a good idea as they probably aren't feeling very lively at the moment.


----------



## gsealy (May 2, 2015)

I like all the complaining, wishing, and speculating. It tells me what people are thinking and what is probably coming down the line sooner or later. Many of these posts lead to some detailed technical discussions. Not all people express themselves nicely, but that's okay. I can work around all that.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

jrista said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > It was just a matter of time.
> ...



In time.


----------



## sanj (May 2, 2015)

9VIII said:


> bollo said:
> 
> 
> > As a long time occasional lurker I just dropped in to say what a bunch of insufferable arsetwats the majority of you are.
> ...



Feeling better? Must be!


----------



## ScottyP (May 2, 2015)

This is such a dramatic jump, from out of nowhere, that I don't think I believe the rumor. 

Not only that, but if there really were a giant tech/fab leap about to happen, would Canon premiere a drastically new, drastically different sensor on a 1-series camera? Usually they are conservative with the 1-series sensors and they try out new stuff lower down the product chain (dual pixel AF in the 70d, for example), right?

If this rumor IS true, I wonder if it is a Sony sensor, or at least some kind of Sony collaboration.


----------



## K (May 2, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> This is such a dramatic jump, from out of nowhere, that I don't think I believe the rumor.
> 
> Not only that, but if there really were a giant tech/fab leap about to happen, would Canon premiere a drastically new, drastically different sensor on a 1-series camera? Usually they are conservative with the 1-series sensors and they try out new stuff lower down the product chain (dual pixel AF in the 70d, for example), right?
> 
> If this rumor IS true, I wonder if it is a Sony sensor, or at least some kind of Sony collaboration.




Every time a new Canon is on the verge of release, there is speculation of a Sony sensor. 

Canon has shown that they will do everything possible to not use a non-Canon sensor. Even if that sacrifices some ISO and DR performance. 

This could be a pride thing. It could be the economics of paying another company for the sensor. It could be anything. Canon doesn't disclose their reasoning. But the fact remains, Canon prefers to use their own sensors.

Now, Canon sensors are not bad at all. For being "behind" on specs and all the nerd-tests - they are either the equal of or the superior of other sensors on the market when it comes to final IQ result. Photos from Canon are great. Simple as that.

Whether that is due to other factors (processing, lenses etcetera) - that matters not to me. Because the camera is a SYSTEM. As a photographer, I only care about the photo I get out of the camera. If Canon is doing that with magic fairy pixel dust algorithms, or with a better sensor - I don't care. I get a RAW file that looks fantastic.

No one shoots photos with just a sensor. The Sonikonians and DXO monkeys seem to conveniently forget that they aren't walking around with ONLY a CMOS. There's a camera body, image processing, electronics, lenses and much more that delivers that final IQ result.

I do concede that in lab tests of the most extremes, the Sony / Nikon sensors come out on top by a very slight margin. But again and again, this comes up in real photography almost never. The gap between Sony/Nikon and Canon would have to be very significant to lead to practical IQ differences in most images.

This difference is NOT seen within the same generation or even within the span of 2 generations in some instances. 

You would have to compare a 2-3 generation old camera of the same line/level to have noticeable differences in IQ without pixel peeping.


----------



## deleteme (May 2, 2015)

So just what is the theoretical limit of DR assuming 16 bit capture?
I am also guessing that the usable DR is also affected by the assumptions of base noise levels.

In the end it seems that while we will see improvements, most of us will be underwhelmed by the arrival of DR nirvana.


----------



## TeT (May 2, 2015)

it could be Pride... that would explain a lot of Canon's product decisions.


----------



## K-amps (May 2, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> They just did it on the C300 II. 15 stops of DR, same 14bit RAW files. I assume then some logarithmic encoding. And no, stop with this Sony and Samsung stuff. Canon made the sensor in the C300II themselves on what is obviously a new fab process. The 1DX2 will use the same process.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt they will use Sony Sensors, or Samsung etc... Face saving and all.... The C300 mk.ii uses a sensor with similar QE/SN as the 6D. The difference would be the DPAF. Those extra pixels can be used to expose the shade areas for example; expose half the file at +4ev, and the non DPAF pixels expose at 0 EV; then the RAW file is cooked to spread this exposure latitude over one file (i.e Average out normal pixels and the DPAF ones shot at +4Ev. Very much like the ML Dual_iso hack. Except that this will be done at a hardware layer, meaning no loss of resolution like in Dual_iso. This will certainly increase DR, but I do not expect a commiserate increase in high ISO performance (there might be some Digic magic in play ofcourse) but for RAW files, I doubt it will be much more than the 5D3... unless they use both Sony tech plus DPAF, then Nikon fanbois can kiss our combined rears.... 

I hope they use 16bit files with greater color depth as well... I struggle capturing deep reds in flowers with my 5D3, there is of loss of detail. Other channels are handled better. I do not recall my old 5Dc struggling with reds...


----------



## ritholtz (May 2, 2015)

dilbert said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That is exposure latitude test in DPR where they will underexpose +5EV then push it later. Latest 70d, 7D2 and 6D are doing fine upto +3EV. There is no banding either. Actually Nikon d7100 is the one with the green horizon banding even though it has class leading DR and ISO performance. DPReview is keep on pushing d7100 over all the crop cameras including 7d2 with the assumption of great shadow pushing performance, DR and ISO. I think, that is the reason why they are avoiding adding d7100 to their exposure latitude test. 

They kept on referencing 70d and 7d2 not so good performance when some on pushes unnecessarily underexposed shots by 5EV in each of their review. I am yet to understand their methodology where they are mixing up low iso DR, underexposing 5 stops then pushing later to preserve highlights, banding and pushing shadows by few stops. I am still trying to find out how to push shadows by x stops. Because DPP and dxo optics has shadow slider in terms of numbers/levels instead of stops. If you look at their real world example, it has lot of noise where they pushed shadows in a landscape. 70d, 7d2 can match upto +3EV push with any other crop cameras. Beyond +3EV push they are bad. Even though they gave up something in low ISO DR, 70d and 7d2 sensors have latest duel pixel tech which can do video AF where as Nikon still stuck with old CDAF for video AF.

Sony A7II you are refering in above links is not comparable to Nikon and Canon full frame sensors in terms of high ISO noise. It is barely beating d7100 and 7d2. Check these comparisons done by photographylife.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-a7-ii/6


----------



## rs (May 2, 2015)

K-amps said:


> The C300 mk.ii uses a sensor with similar QE/SN as the 6D. The difference would be the DPAF. Those extra pixels can be used to expose the shade areas for example; expose half the file at +4ev, and the non DPAF pixels expose at 0 EV; then the RAW file is cooked to spread this exposure latitude over one file (i.e Average out normal pixels and the DPAF ones shot at +4Ev. Very much like the ML Dual_iso hack. Except that this will be done at a hardware layer, meaning no loss of resolution like in Dual_iso.


DPAF is not used for dual ISO on the C300 mk II. It would create quite horrendous bokeh in bright and dark regions. The effect would have a very pronounced negative effect on the image at any viewing size (unless everything is in focus), unlike magic lanterns dual ISO which only has a minor impact when viewed at 100%. 

The implementation used on the C300 mk II has the output from each pixel simultaneously fed into two amplifiers - one for the shadows/mid tones, and the other for mid tones/highlights. This way each segment of the picture sees the entire captured dynamic range, not split up into alternate pixels, and much more importantly, not split into alternate phases.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2015)

K-amps said:


> I hope they use 16bit files with greater color depth as well... I struggle capturing deep reds in flowers with my 5D3, there is of loss of detail. Other channels are handled better. I do not recall my old 5Dc struggling with reds...



If you are not using a wide gamut monitor in wide gamut mode that can cause a lot of troubles with reds. Sure the color filter in the camera can make some difference, but the most critical difference is sRGB vs wider gamut color spaces.


----------



## sanj (May 3, 2015)

dilbert said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Do you have a similar comparison at ISO 800 and at ISO 2500. Please I want to see that.


----------



## MrToes (May 3, 2015)

I'll take some more DR and less shadow noise!!!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 3, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Beyond the increased ISO capabilities of the EOS-1D X Mark II, we’re told that dynamic range is going to see a massive improvement, and possibly have the most stops of any DSLR currently on the market. It’s always possible that Sony will do something in the meantime with their new sensors to increase their lead in stops of DR.</p>
> <p>It’s also sounding like a new DIGIC 7 processor will make its way into the EOS-1D X Mark II, instead of going with the DIGIC 6 processor that was introduced in 2013. The current EOS-1D X uses dual DIGIC 5+ processors.</p>
> <p>More to come…</p>


I hope it comes true and better DR is also incorporated in all other Canon DSRL camera bodies.


----------



## Aglet (May 3, 2015)

K said:


> Now, Canon sensors are not bad at all. For being "behind" on specs and all the nerd-tests - they are either the equal of or the superior of other sensors on the market when it comes to final IQ result. Photos from Canon are great. Simple as that.


uhmmm... Lots of talented/lucky people make have made great photos using Canon gear, but that doesn't always equate to any form of technical superiority, it just reflects the state of the market numbers, which are, again, no metric equating to quality.



> Whether that is due to other factors (processing, lenses etcetera) - that matters not to me. Because the camera is a SYSTEM. As a photographer, I only care about the photo I get out of the camera. If Canon is doing that with magic fairy pixel dust algorithms, or with a better sensor - I don't care. I get a RAW file that looks fantastic.



you really otta play with some ABC camera raw files to appreciate what the limitations are compared to canon's raw files shot for the same scene. ABC raw files will give you more processing latitude with less work.
I don't care so much about what _comes out of the camera._ I care about the quality of the raw file because some of the images I create may take a great deal of manipulation in post to produce the effect I'm after. A clean raw file is a good thing to have, otherwise it's a lot of work to fix the garbage noise from a poor sensor system.




> No one shoots photos with just a sensor. The Sonikonians and DXO monkeys seem to conveniently forget that they aren't walking around with ONLY a CMOS. There's a camera body, image processing, electronics, lenses and much more that delivers that final IQ result.



Do you think that ABC cameras are lagging so far behind Canon, as a system, that they are handicapped in some way? While I'll concede that Canon has a good variety of niche lenses, it's again more likely due to their ability to fund that much R&D because of their size, not just engineering talent.



> I do concede that in lab tests of the most extremes, the Sony / Nikon sensors come out on top by a very slight margin. But again and again, this comes up in real photography almost never. The gap between Sony/Nikon and Canon would have to be very significant to lead to practical IQ differences in most images.


As you may be aware, at the lower iso ranges, the difference is a modest 3 stops. having that much more clean data available provides a lot more choice over how to create the final image.



> This difference is NOT seen within the same generation or even within the span of 2 generations in some instances. You would have to compare a 2-3 generation old camera of the same line/level to have noticeable differences in IQ without pixel peeping.



true, canon's IQ has not noticeably improved, model-to-model, for nearly a decade. With the only significant improvement in the very latest models finally reducing FPN by cleaning up the noise-inducing circuitry.
OTOH, SoNikon's improvements have been steady and incremental over the same period, adding up to today's 3 stop lead in some models.


----------



## K-amps (May 3, 2015)

rs said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > The C300 mk.ii uses a sensor with similar QE/SN as the 6D. The difference would be the DPAF. Those extra pixels can be used to expose the shade areas for example; expose half the file at +4ev, and the non DPAF pixels expose at 0 EV; then the RAW file is cooked to spread this exposure latitude over one file (i.e Average out normal pixels and the DPAF ones shot at +4Ev. Very much like the ML Dual_iso hack. Except that this will be done at a hardware layer, meaning no loss of resolution like in Dual_iso.
> ...



Let me understand this better, The amplifier reading the shadows would need to amplify more since the pixel is not going to collect more photons beyond the shutter closing up. This would denote an operation similar to high iso (i.e. Signal amplification), so would that introduce noise?... or perhaps noisier than the mid to highlight capture which requires less amplification?


----------



## Aglet (May 3, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > ahem... so... how many stops of DR _do_ you need to shoot a BIF anyway?...
> ...



Me too. But I don't have the fast-focusing long lenses for BiF shooting, it's not my area of interest to put that kind of loot into a big lens I don't have a use for.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 3, 2015)

K-amps said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



For a given number of photons captured you want to read out at the *highest* possible ISO, not the lowest. This will give you the lowest noise. The reason low ISOs have less noise is that more light is captured, not that the electronics are less noisy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2015)

Aglet said:


> But I don't have the fast-focusing long lenses for BiF shooting, it's not my area of interest to put that kind of loot into a big lens I don't have a use for.



You really should consider getting a supertele lens. Unlike smaller lenses where the lens cap merely sits on the front of the lens, supertele lens cap/covers fit completely over the front and extend down the sides like a glove, which ensures complete blockage of any light entering the lens. That could have a profoundly beneficial impact your lens cap photography.


----------



## K-amps (May 3, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...




Thanks, I had it backwards. I thought hi-ISO meant high amplification, thus higher noise....


----------



## tpatana (May 3, 2015)

K-amps said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



That's how I thought it too. Lee Jay, can you give more details to explain how that works? In most electronics, increasing amplification also increases noise. What's the difference here?


----------



## Aglet (May 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't have the fast-focusing long lenses for BiF shooting, it's not my area of interest to put that kind of loot into a big lens I don't have a use for.
> ...


at the risk of giving away my proprietary lens-cap testing methodology, that full sleeve front cap won't help a bit.
But, how many stops of DR _are_ required for BiF pictures? ;D


----------



## exquisitor (May 3, 2015)

tpatana said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


The thing with the read noise is a bit more complex. There are *three sources* of the total read noise: *read noise (RN)* from the sensor itself, *amplification noise (AN)* and *analog-to-digital converter (ADC) noise*. At the low ISO most cameras are ADC noise limited, with the higher ISO ADC noise decreases and after roughly 1600-3200 most cameras become RN limited.
The reason for high ADC noise is (as I understand it) is the high level of *the maximal* signal at low ISO (corresponding to full well capacity). ADC converters have certain signal-to-noise characteristics, expressed like percentage of the full well capacity signal fed to the ADC. The full well capacity is ISO dependent and is maximal at the lowest ISO.
At low ISO there are a lot of electrons in highlight areas, however in the shadow areas you've got much less electrons. Because all data from the sensor processed in the same way, the signal from the shadow has more noise form ADC. For example if we have ADC with 1 %SNR characteristics, we will get 10 electrons noise at 1000 electrons signal at *ISO 100* in highlight area (SNR =100) and ... same 10 electrons noise at 20 electrons signal (*SNR = 2*). This is why Canon cameras have high shadow noise. Sony's sensors have much less ADC noise.
So now the trick with dual ISO readout is to make two parallel ADC channels and process all data simultaneously at different ISO. At low ISO the highlights will get processed the best way as described above. At high ISO the shadows will be processed with lower full well capacity and respectively with lower maximal signal. So as in the example above, if we have maximal signal of 62.5 electrons at *ISO 1600*, the noise in the shadows will become 1/16 of that at ISO 100: 0.625 electrons corresponding to *SNR of 32*.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 3, 2015)

tpatana said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Two separate but related things happen when you change ISO. First, you change the sensor analog amplification (usually, this is sometimes also done purely in digital). Second, you change the way the in-camera meter works with higher ISOs meaning shorter or darker exposures. The second one costs you light and that creates a lower signal to noise ratio.

However, what's the point of the additional amplification? The point is to *reduce* noise created in the pipeline between the pixel and the output of the analog-to-digital converter. An unfortunate side effect of that is that it means that big signals will saturate the ADC creating clipped highlights.

So, for a given exposure you want the highest gain and thus the lowest noise you can get that clips only as many highlights as you are willing to tolerate being clipped.

As always, more (brighter) exposure will get you more light captured and thus lower noise and that's why setting a lower ISO generally gets you a lower-noise photo, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about *for a given exposure* and for that you want the highest analog gain you can get.

What Canon is doing here is trying to get the lowest noise possible (highest ISO) but not accepting all those clipped highlights and therefore sampling everything at a low gain (low ISO) at the same time, and blending the two to get a shot without clipped highlights but with low shadow noise as well.


----------



## tpatana (May 4, 2015)

Ok, I think I got what you meant. So in short, ETTR gives less noise for same picture conditions than if you exposure left, hence higher ISO = less noise.


----------



## pedro (May 4, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



Very intresting. Even as a non-tech guy I kinda get the idea. Will this trickle down into a 5DIV or 5DX or whatever may come out next? I don't mind if it is 2016 or 17, my 5D3 still rocks...


----------



## Woody (May 4, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> DxO is scrambling to come up with a different rating system in order to slam Canon sensors after reading this news.



They don't have to. Their sensor scores are so cryptic that they can assign any number they like without any justification.


----------



## K-amps (May 4, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Two separate but related things happen when you change ISO. First, you change the sensor analog amplification (usually, this is sometimes also done purely in digital). Second, you change the way the in-camera meter works with higher ISOs meaning shorter or darker exposures. The second one costs you light and that creates a lower signal to noise ratio.
> 
> However, what's the point of the additional amplification? The point is to *reduce* noise created in the pipeline between the pixel and the output of the analog-to-digital converter. An unfortunate side effect of that is that it means that big signals will saturate the ADC creating clipped highlights.
> 
> ...



Thanks... sort of reminds me of the old analog amplification days with in-line limiters, where you'd have a zener diode in line with the signal, which when saturated would increase negative feedback thus reducing overall output so that the next stage (e.g preamp input) would not be saturated. In the end, the effect is not to increase DR, rather manage is by decreasing DR to a given architecture (e.g. 14bit or 16bit encoding).


----------



## K-amps (May 4, 2015)

exquisitor said:


> The thing with the read noise is a bit more complex. There are *three sources* of the total read noise: *read noise (RN)* from the sensor itself, *amplification noise (AN)* and *analog-to-digital converter (ADC) noise*. At the low ISO most cameras are ADC noise limited, with the higher ISO ADC noise decreases and after roughly 1600-3200 most cameras become RN limited.
> The reason for high ADC noise is (as I understand it) is the high level of *the maximal* signal at low ISO (corresponding to full well capacity). ADC converters have certain signal-to-noise characteristics, expressed like percentage of the full well capacity signal fed to the ADC. The full well capacity is ISO dependent and is maximal at the lowest ISO.
> At low ISO there are a lot of electrons in highlight areas, however in the shadow areas you've got much less electrons. Because all data from the sensor processed in the same way, the signal from the shadow has more noise form ADC. For example if we have ADC with 1 %SNR characteristics, we will get 10 electrons noise at 1000 electrons signal at *ISO 100* in highlight area (SNR =100) and ... same 10 electrons noise at 20 electrons signal (*SNR = 2*). This is why Canon cameras have high shadow noise. Sony's sensors have much less ADC noise.
> So now the trick with dual ISO readout is to make two parallel ADC channels and process all data simultaneously at different ISO. At low ISO the highlights will get processed the best way as described above. At high ISO the shadows will be processed with lower full well capacity and respectively with lower maximal signal. So as in the example above, if we have maximal signal of 62.5 electrons at *ISO 1600*, the noise in the shadows will become 1/16 of that at ISO 100: 0.625 electrons corresponding to *SNR of 32*.



Thank you Sir. Can't say I am ready for a quiz, but I get the idea.


----------



## exquisitor (May 4, 2015)

pedro said:


> Very intresting. Even as a non-tech guy I kinda get the idea. Will this trickle down into a 5DIV or 5DX or whatever may come out next? I don't mind if it is 2016 or 17, my 5D3 still rocks...



There was a rumor that this tech will come to 5D IV. Now it's used in C300 II.
However it's not clear, if the dual ISO will be used in 1DX II. It could be a new ADC design that has lower noise. IMO dual ISO is still sounds more plausible. What ever the reason is, Canon is avoiding to use on-chip-in-row ADC like that found in Sony's sensors.


----------



## exquisitor (May 4, 2015)

K-amps said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > The thing with the read noise is a bit more complex. There are *three sources* of the total read noise: *read noise (RN)* from the sensor itself, *amplification noise (AN)* and *analog-to-digital converter (ADC) noise*. At the low ISO most cameras are ADC noise limited, with the higher ISO ADC noise decreases and after roughly 1600-3200 most cameras become RN limited.
> ...



You're welcome! If you want get more details on this topic and generally how the sensor works, I would recommend this article: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html .


----------



## pedro (May 4, 2015)

Thank you, *exquisitor*. In reference to improved high ISO IQ what will the improvement be like, on correctly exposed images using on-chip-in-row-ADC in comparison to the discussed dual ISO concept? Or, what wil be the overall improvement of either of those new concepts over current ADC tech? 1/2, 1, or two stops combined with new Digics and reasonable MP count? I would be absolutely happy with 12800ish ISO 25.600 ;-)


----------



## jrista (May 4, 2015)

pedro said:


> Thank you, *exquisitor*. In reference to improved high ISO IQ what will the improvement be like, on correctly exposed images using on-chip-in-row-ADC in comparison to the discussed dual ISO concept? Or, what wil be the overall improvement of either of those new concepts over current ADC tech? 1/2, 1, or two stops combined with new Digics and reasonable MP count? I would be absolutely happy with 12800ish ISO 25.600 ;-)




High ISO performance is going to be more dependent upon sensor Q.E. than ADC performance. Because the signal is initially amplified in each pixel, it is stronger coming off the sensor. The ADC will still add noise, but it's a relatively consistent amount of noise, so relative to a strongly amplified signal, it's small. There is also little value in using dual-ISO techniques at high ISO, as you aren't able to make full use of the dynamic range of the sensor in the first place.


As Q.E. on current Canon sensors is already up in the 60% range, it's unlikely we will see a 1-stop improvement in high ISO noise unless larger pixels are used (or something else that increases well capacity). It is primarily at low ISO where a reduction in read noise will increase dynamic range. A dual-ISO approach can certainly improve things, however as your effectively blending two different exposures with different noise characteristics, this can often create artifacts (check MagicLantern images). The best approach is to actually use better technology to prevent noise in the first place. Isolating high-frequency components away from ADC units, using more ADC units so they can operate at lower frequency, reducing trace distance from pixel to ADC, converting to digital at the earliest convenience and using error-corrected data transfer, etc.


----------



## exquisitor (May 4, 2015)

pedro said:


> Thank you, *exquisitor*. In reference to improved high ISO IQ what will the improvement be like, on correctly exposed images using on-chip-in-row-ADC in comparison to the discussed dual ISO concept? Or, what wil be the overall improvement of either of those new concepts over current ADC tech? 1/2, 1, or two stops combined with new Digics and reasonable MP count? I would be absolutely happy with 12800ish ISO 25.600 ;-)


You are welcome.
High ISO capability is not limited by ADC noise anymore and thus ADC type is not relevant in this case. The noise at high ISO comes from actual read noise from the sensor and from amplification noise. However these two guys are already very good at this point and there is not much room for improvement. So to achieve cleaner high ISO there are two ways:
1). improve quantum efficiency of the sensor to use more light arrived to the pixel;
2). make larger pixel to gather more light.
1Dx has about 50 % quantum efficiency, so there is a room for improvement. The resolution would be IMO in the 20-24 MP range. Overall I think you could expect at least half a stop better high ISO, optimistically even 1 stop. But that is just speculation...


----------



## pedro (May 4, 2015)

Thanks a lot to both of you *jrista* and *exquisitor* for the helpful explanation! If a 5DIVc came out at 18 MP I'd go for it, as long as one can shoot stills as well, without severe limitations. As for the pixel size there would be less noise due to more light gathering if I am correct. As I mostly do astro and lowlight, this one would do just fine for me. Or will a regular 5DIV benefit from a 1/2 stop IQ improvement as well due to the new tech? I hope so. Wish they'd leave it in the low 20 MP, and increase to 24 MP max. 22 MP and an improved sensor would be even better of course! 8)


----------



## jrista (May 4, 2015)

pedro said:


> Thanks a lot to both of you *jrista* and *exquisitor* for the helpful explanation! If a 5DIVc came out at 18 MP I'd go for it, as long as one can shoot stills as well, without severe limitations. As for the pixel size there would be less noise due to more light gathering if I am correct. As I mostly do astro and lowlight, this one would do just fine for me. Or will a regular 5DIV benefit from a 1/2 stop IQ improvement as well due to the new tech? I hope so. Wish they'd leave it in the low 20 MP, and increase to 24 MP max. 22 MP and an improved sensor would be even better of course! 8)




There are different kinds of noise. There is noise in the signal itself, and noise added by the electronics. Bigger pixels mean more light. Signal grows faster than noise in the signal, so with bigger pixels, you get a higher SNR. Technically speaking, however, noise is also growing, not shrinking, with bigger pixels...it's just that with the higher SNR, our perception of it changes. 


If you have small pixels that can gather 5000e- at half well (midtone gray), then the noise in that signal would be SQRT(5000), or 70.71e-. Now, lets say you double the pixel size, in which case it would have four times the area, and thus be capable of gathering four times as much light in the same exposure (time the shutter is open at a given aperture). You now have 20,000e- at half well. The noise in that signal is SQRT(20000), or 141.42e-. The noise is MORE, not less...however the signal is much much more. The ratio between signal and noise, or S/N, which is really S/SQRT(S), increased. You have an SNR of 5000/SQRT(5000) for the smaller pixels, which is 70.71:1, and an SNR of 20000/SQRT(20000) for the larger pixels, which is 141.42:1.


There is also the sources of electronic noise added to the signal. Those are on top of the noise in the signal itself. At ISO 100, let's say the 5D IV has half the noise of it's predecessor. That would be about 16e- RN. Let's say it has similar dark current to the 7D II, in which case (outside of astro, at least) it's meaningless. Our S/N then becomes more complex: S/SQRT(S+RN^2). With our smaller pixels, our SNR is 5000/SQRT(5000+16^2), or 5000/72.5, 68.97:1. With the bigger pixels, our SNR is 20000/SQRT(20000+16^2), or 20000/142.32, which is 140.52:1. Read noise is compounded with the noise in our signal, increasing the overall noise in our images.


With a bright signal, like we get in the midtones, the increase caused by read noise is negligible. However at low signal levels, such as you would have with your astrophotography, the amount of read noise becomes significantly more important. You might have an object signal (at a true dark site, 21.5mag/sq") of 200e- for a five minute exposure with smaller pixels. That impacts our SNRs more. Smaller pixels would have an SNR of 9.36:1, while bigger pixels would have an SNR of 24.61:1. The bigger pixels do have a higher SNR, but it's still low compared to the midtone signal. 


---


TL;DR


There is another factor to consider with astro. Image scale. With normal terrestrial photography, you compose your subject relative to your frame, and that is pretty much that. Composition in astrophotography is a bit different, and there is sampling to consider. For a given scope and camera, your field of view is your field of view...your not going to be changing it, as everything is effectively at infinity. Sampling ratio then becomes a significant factor (for DSO imaging, at least...if your doing ultra wide field milky way imaging, this doesn't really apply). How many pixels are being used to represent each star? If stars only cover about one pixel each, then all your stars will be square. Even if you manage to get a 2x2 matrix of pixels covering each star...your stars are still going to be mostly square. Sampling becomes very important to accurately resolving details in astrophotography. You want about 3.5x3.5 pixels sampling each star, at the very least. Picking a camera then becomes an exercise in combining the pixel size of your sensor and the focal length of your lens or scope, to get a more ideal sampling.


Small pixels will sample better at shorter focal lengths. At 300mm, you could well need ~1.5 micron pixels to be well sampled. At 600mm you will need about 3 micron micron pixels. At 1000mm or so, 5 micron pixels are better. At 2000mm, 9 micron pixels are better. A Sony A7s makes for an ideal long focal length camera, as it's cheap (compared to CCD cameras with 9 micron pixels, which cost $8000-$20,000), and has nice, but 7.4 micron pixels. A 7D II would be great for an 800-1000mm scope or lens. An APS-C camera with 28mp would be pretty nice for a 600mm lens or scope. It's actually pretty tough to find sensors with 1.5 micron pixels...so image scale tends to suffer when you get wider. 


Pixel size and noise are a different best in astro. You expose multiple sub frames, and technically speaking, more is always better. A lot of astro imagers get 2-3 hours of exposure, and leave it at that. I myself usually get about 10-12 hours. Great imagers are usually working with 20, 30, 60 hours of total exposure time. The amount of noise in a single sub becomes less meaningful the more you integrate...and since you can effectively integrate an infinite amount of data, the amount of noise in astro images ultimately boils down to the individual imager's tolerance for exposing the same target for many nights, and spending the necessary compute cycles to integrate ever larger volumes of data.


----------



## K-amps (May 5, 2015)

Thanks Jon. Your posts are a mouthful, but very helpful. You are generous with your research.


----------



## pedro (May 5, 2015)

Thanks again, *jrista*!


----------



## sanj (May 5, 2015)

Jrista.
My wish: To one day understand what you wrote.


----------



## Diko (May 5, 2015)

bollo said:


> I've never seen such an argumentative, self absorbed, smug, infantile and downright pathetic group as that which regularly posts here. Nothing is more important than being right, starting a fight, arguing over nothing or scoring points.


Good day MR. bollo, that is what discussion groups are all about:
Entertainment, Education & Clash of Egos.

You obviously dislike all that "noise". So feel free to never ever allow thyself wasting any precious time around here.
It is your (birth)right.



ScottyP said:


> ...dual pixel AF in the 70d, for example), right?


 Nope. 70D otherwise had little to offer. So they needed urgently to come up with something so not to stop the cash flow. ;-) Actually if you have been around. Since the 5D mark II the only ground braking novelty was exactly DAF. Otherwise it *was *a boring cycle of moderately (compared to the competition) increasing the specs. I don't count the new flash 600 series, because I see nothing genuinely new there either.

I said WAS, because now these rumors of new CMOS with competitive DR and the new E-TTL III are quite promising. As it seems finally Canon has heard its users and came to reality where there exist competition.



sanj said:


> Yes you are right, but it is a rumor site. We like to discuss possibilities. One thing leads to another and along the way we learn photography techniques .
> ....
> Besides this is the internet. It needs to be different than a social club. Here faceless people can and should say their minds. That is the fun bit...


 That was beautiful... May I quote you? 



rs said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > I want to be able to push shadows so many stops that I can shoot with lens cap on and still recover the picture in LR.
> ...



Absolutely. 95% of the time I begin shooting with the lens cap on. Which also makes always my models smile. A good time for a photo ;-)


----------



## sanj (May 5, 2015)

Diko said:


> bollo said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen such an argumentative, self absorbed, smug, infantile and downright pathetic group as that which regularly posts here. Nothing is more important than being right, starting a fight, arguing over nothing or scoring points.
> ...



May I quote you?


----------



## Diko (May 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely. 95% of the time I begin shooting with the lens cap on. Which also makes always my models smile. A good time for a photo ;-)
> ...



Sure


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 6, 2015)

jrista said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, *exquisitor*. In reference to improved high ISO IQ what will the improvement be like, on correctly exposed images using on-chip-in-row-ADC in comparison to the discussed dual ISO concept? Or, what wil be the overall improvement of either of those new concepts over current ADC tech? 1/2, 1, or two stops combined with new Digics and reasonable MP count? I would be absolutely happy with 12800ish ISO 25.600 ;-)
> ...



Always an education listening to you bud. It looks like a useful feature but no free lunch....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2015)

High DR, like even 8 or 10 at high ISO's would be a area where the improvement is worthwhile. Right now, Canon edges out the competition, but its a struggle.


----------



## Don Haines (May 6, 2015)

jrista said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, *exquisitor*. In reference to improved high ISO IQ what will the improvement be like, on correctly exposed images using on-chip-in-row-ADC in comparison to the discussed dual ISO concept? Or, what wil be the overall improvement of either of those new concepts over current ADC tech? 1/2, 1, or two stops combined with new Digics and reasonable MP count? I would be absolutely happy with 12800ish ISO 25.600 ;-)
> ...


well said!

and let me add a further factor why this is so important....

Say your QE is 50 percent, your well size is 16,000 electrons, and 32000 photons hit your pixel.

That puts 16,000 electrons into the well for a bright pixel, 0 for a dark pixel. If you had perfect and noise free A/D conversion, (you could accurately count each electron), a 14 bit number would be all that was required to hold the result... those 14 bits would be all the accuracy you could ever get out of the system. If you had somewhere between 0 and 8 electrons of read noise, amp noise, and A/D noise, you loose 3 bits of precision off of the bottom of your signal and your 14 bit number becomes a 14 bit number that is only accurate to 11 bits. The less the noise, the greater the accuracy.

Even so, with perfect electronics, you are still stuck at 14 bits.... but if you can bump up the QE of your sensor from 50% to 75% you end up with 24000 electrons in the well and that bumps your accuracy up to 14.5 bits.... even if you invented some miracle technology that had a perfect photon to electron conversion, you would still be at 15 bits. If you want to go higher, you need more photons and the only two ways to do that are to gather more light or to make bigger pixels... and this is why, at similar pixel counts and levels of technology, FF outperforms crop by 1 1/3 stops..... because the pixels are 2.5 times larger and gather 2.5 times more light.

Right now, Sony/Nikon/Canon are chasing diminishing returns. The electronics are by no means perfect, but for all of them, over half the photons that enter the sensor get converted to electrons and are counted to various degrees of accuracy. Improvements will be made, but they will be tiny compared to the wild increases of 5-10 years ago and fairly soon they will reach convergence... that point where there are no significant differences.


----------



## jrista (May 6, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> High DR, like even 8 or 10 at high ISO's would be a area where the improvement is worthwhile. Right now, Canon edges out the competition, but its a struggle.




The Sony A7s actually tops Canon DSLRs by quite a bit. It delivers 9.9 stops at ISO 6400, still delivers 8.8 at ISO 51200, and is still delivering 8.1 at ISO 102400. Conversely, the 1D X is 6.6 @ 51200, 6.0 @ 102400. The 6D actually delivers 6.7 at 51200, and the D4 is 7.1 at 51200.


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2015)

jrista said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > High DR, like even 8 or 10 at high ISO's would be a area where the improvement is worthwhile. Right now, Canon edges out the competition, but its a struggle.
> ...



It's 12 mp for heaven's sake. 

Personally, because I stitch a lot, I'd love a 5D t - assuming the 't' stood for 12 mp. Can't see it ever happening.


----------



## jrista (May 6, 2015)

Don Haines said:


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




Aye, this is indeed correct. Q.E. is into the realm of diminishing returns. 


The only thing that no one has covered yet is gain. Because of gain, at higher ISO, you can't actually make use of more charge in the well than your post-amplification signal supports. If your base well capacity is 32000e-, and your at ISO 200, then 16000e- is the highest charge you could convert to a pure white (2^14) ADU count anyway. At ISO 400, 8000e- would be the limit, at ISO 800, 4000e- would be the limit, etc. 


This is why increasing well capacity becomes more important as we approach the limits of Q.E. That means either bigger pixels, or multi-layer photodiodes or something like that. Canon actually has very intriguing layered sensor technology that I think may give them an edge in the multi-layer photodiode game. They designed it or stacked RGB sensors, but even if they employed that technology in standard bayer pixels, I think it would still improve DR at high ISO. This is the same technology in Canon's 5-layer sensor. It's anti-reflective, reflective coatings and nano-coatings on both the surface and underside of each photodiode. Basically, a nanocoating is used to prevent reflection off the photodiode, a single-direction reflective surface is used on the bottom of the photodiode (so that any reflected light that tries to escape is actually bounced back down to the photodiode), and there are anti-reflective coatings elsewhere. It's pretty amazing technology, and I'm really looking forward to seeing it used in a commercial camera. I think it could do wonders for high ISO performance...either in a layered (foveon-type) or bayered sensor. 


With a higher FWC at base, every time you divide it for each ISO setting, you have more well capacity at higher ISO. That means you can take better advantage of high QE at high ISO, and use even lower gain settings.


----------



## jrista (May 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...




There are plenty of people who think current cameras have too many MP. That argument was pushed on these forums for quite some time after even higher resolution cameras hit the market. The 1D X is only 18mp, for that matter, which by todays standards is very low.


----------

