# Global Shutter Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 22, 2015)

```
<p>We’re told that Canon is working on using a global shutter for the upcoming replacement of the Canon EOS-1D X. The hope is to get the camera to shoot at 30fps for still images, which would require a lot of upgrades and new technologies such as CFast.</p>
<p><strong>What is a global shutter? </strong>(<a href="http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling-shutter" target="_blank">From Red</a>)<strong>

</strong><em>“A global shutter controls incoming light to all photosites simultaneously. At any given point in time, all photosites are therefore either equally closed or equally open. A global shutter can work either by abruptly exposing and then obstructing all photosites at once, in which case it can be thought of as a “hard shutter,” or by doing this more gradually as a “soft shutter.” Since they have no moving parts, these are sometimes also referred to as an electronic shutter.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p>I’ll let the more engineering inclined discuss the likelihood of this technology for CMOS DSLRs on the forum. This comes from an unknown source, so take it with lots of salt.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Jerome (Jan 22, 2015)

Would this allow to sync flash at any shutter speed if we have a flash trigger that is quick enough?


----------



## knoxtown (Jan 22, 2015)

Jerome said:


> Would this allow to sync flash at any shutter speed if we have a flash trigger that is quick enough?



I don't see why not. As long as your trigger and flash can keep up, I believe it should work. E


----------



## saveyourmoment (Jan 22, 2015)

That is what Canon has to go for to stand out!


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 22, 2015)

What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?


----------



## fish_shooter (Jan 22, 2015)

cellomaster27 said:


> What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?



I would assume the resolution (megapixels) would be greater than what one would get from a video still grab from lower res. typical of vid. formats such as 1080, 4K etc. as well as have the 2:3 aspect ratio of the whole sensor (also not a crop as many video implementations; e.g., the 1DC as a 1.3 crop factor as well as narrower aspect ratio).


----------



## Skirball (Jan 22, 2015)

Jerome said:


> Would this allow to sync flash at any shutter speed if we have a flash trigger that is quick enough?



First thing that went through my mind as well. I couldn't care less about 30 fps, but no max sync speed sounds awesome.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 22, 2015)

.
You have to wonder what it means when technology being used by other photographic equipment manufacturers is a "rumor" for Canon.


----------



## Quackator (Jan 22, 2015)

Breaking the x-sync barrier would be the most welcome effect 
of this, and will make all HSS/Auto-FP/Hypersync/SuperSync 
hacks obsolete.

The minute they announce this, I place my order.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2015)

Some of those Canon patents were supposed to deal with situations like this. The issue gets much more difficult as the sensor gets larger. Maybe they were able to improve on the patent, or figure out how to reliably mass produce FF sensors with the technology.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 22, 2015)

cellomaster27 said:


> What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?



Video has two disadvantages.

its resolution is usually less than still frame modes/cameras

its shutter speed will typically be roughly 1/frame rate, or at least somewhat slow... so you get a lot of blurred shots. taking 30fps of 1/8000th second shots is another thing entirely.



What I'm scratching my head about is how are they doing it.. liquid crystal?.. double layer CMOS sensor (with a hidden layer? so the image can be transferred to an insensitive layer when integration time is enough).. Somewhere in a box I have an FT18 CCD sensor with 2048 x 1024 sensor, with half the CCD covered, so you can take a 1024x1024 image, then shift it to the dark area and then read it out at leisure. But that's expensive in terms of silicon and large, if that could be replicated vertically it would be interesting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 22, 2015)

If Canon have a true global shutter working on a CMOS sensor then I will be getting the 1DX MkII on release. That is a significant technological improvement and will sidestep some flash limitations.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 22, 2015)

cellomaster27 said:


> What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?


To me the biggest disadvantage of video is flash. If they bit the current sync speed with this, it would be difficult not to be tempted.


----------



## cpreston (Jan 22, 2015)

Yeah, global shutter basically means that the entire sensor is exposed and read at the same time. It doesn't necessarily matter rather it is an electronic sensor or mirror. Most sensors have to read the sensor sites at different points in time. This causes images to have problems with motion, flash, and certain types of lights and projections/monitors. This rumor seems farfetched, though. If Canon could create a self contained camera that could continuously record RAW and compressed images at 30fps on a global shutter, it would have a huge impact on both the video and photography markets. Nothing comes close right now. The 1DC is a pale imitation since it can only record non-continuous 12fps RAW and 24fps compressed at APS-H crop on a non-global shutter.

The thought that this rumor might be true is a little too much to take.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 22, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> You have to wonder what it means when technology being used by other photographic equipment manufacturers is a "rumor" for Canon.



Yes, there are sensors with global shutters; however, I believe they're only common in specialty devices, not in general-purpose, high-end DSLRs. Do you have an example of a camera with a global shutter which ALSO competes with the 1DX in sports/action/BIF/etc?


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Jan 22, 2015)

This is a step in the right direction for Canon and I'm hoping a firmware update 'might' bring this to the table.

Fujifilm just released their new line of mirrorless cameras that have ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL shutters. You can either use one or the other depending on shutter speed needed. Their shutter speed limit is 1/32,000 of a second. Fuji also just provided firmware updates for two of their previous models to incorporate this new electronic shutter feature. Now, how great is that?

My point is, it can be done and is being done now with some manufacturers. The electronic shutter is totally silent.


----------



## grahamcopeland (Jan 22, 2015)

There could not be better news. If canon could take the lead here, many a photographer or cinematographer would rejoice


----------



## jrista (Jan 22, 2015)

Jerome said:


> Would this allow to sync flash at any shutter speed if we have a flash trigger that is quick enough?




There is no reason why not. Would be very interesting if they did...the trend lately seems to have been to reduce the sync speed instead of increase it, which has been disappointing.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 22, 2015)

jrista said:


> Jerome said:
> 
> 
> > Would this allow to sync flash at any shutter speed if we have a flash trigger that is quick enough?
> ...


Agreed! Especially when you try to compete with that natural continuous light from above.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 22, 2015)

cellomaster27 said:


> What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?



The mirrorless cameras (like every other EOS with video) use a mechanical shutter for stills and an electronic shutter for video.

The problem with the electronic shutter is that is reads off line by line in a progressive wave accross the sensor.

Whilst it is easy to make the read of each individual read very fast (thereby equivalent to only being 'exposed' for 1/50th, 1/250th, 1/2000th of a second) the speed at which the scan passes over the entire chip is relatively slow.

This means that the moment of the last line being scanned is visibly behind the first and intermediate lines being scanned.

You may also have heard this being called 'jello shutter'. 

If you have a dslr with video mode, do a whip pan left or right. Vertical lines become diagonal lines as the slow scan rate of the sensor is betrayed.

In a global shutter the entire frame is read in the one instant. So these diagonal lines disappear.

Now the if it's doing that to diagonal lines, what else is it doing to other details in the image?

So why is it a problem?

Well, increasingly press photographers have to also provide video, and with the advent of 4K video decent frame grabs become viable. You could fill a magazine cover with an 8MP frame grab from UHD footage.

But not if all the details are wavy and distorted.

So, there are two benefits... it will make video a lot better, rapid camera movements are now possible ...it will make video grabs a lot better too. Something Canon must see a requirement for in certain user segments.

And I think they are right.


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 22, 2015)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> This is a step in the right direction for Canon and I'm hoping a firmware update 'might' bring this to the table.
> 
> Fujifilm just released their new line of mirrorless cameras that have ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL shutters. You can either use one or the other depending on shutter speed needed. Their shutter speed limit is 1/32,000 of a second. Fuji also just provided firmware updates for two of their previous models to incorporate this new electronic shutter feature. Now, how great is that?
> 
> My point is, it can be done and is being done now with some manufacturers. The electronic shutter is totally silent.



The electronic shutter on the X-T1 is neat but it causes pretty severe rolling shutter effects even with relatively minor motion. Global shutter is a completely different animal.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 22, 2015)

cellomaster27 said:


> What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?



Various points:

18+MP is a LOT more detail (with a LOT more reach for sports and wildlife too) captured than 2MP or 8MP.

As far as compression and RAW and so forth, you could of course allow those all as video options too so nothing gained there per se.

The big thing is, aside from the detail and reach, that none of the DSLR have global shutter so you get issues that are not acceptable from stills from video in too many important scenarios.

The 1DC definitely does do anything this would at all because: no RAW video so you'd be stuck with essentially in camera processed 8bit JPG images for stills! it applies compression, no lossless modes. 8MP is simply a lot less detail 18+ MP, especially after the compression.


----------



## canonvoir (Jan 22, 2015)

A Global Shutter would keep Canon out front no doubt and every strobist I know would be all over that (more so in 5D4 form not 1DX of course). 

30 fps would be great! I just hope they can get a better select and delete function "in camera".


----------



## Frage (Jan 22, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?
> ...



Shutter speed is a very good point, but I do not believe 1/8000th will be possible by now.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 22, 2015)

Frage said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > cellomaster27 said:
> ...



If we place relatively non-photosensitive capacitors under each photosite, but electronically after the immediate amplifier (so strong signal and hence less impact by a stray photon), and implement a sample and hold function around it, then you can have a global electronic shutter. The problem is that you'd need to do this low down in the silicon and still build the photosites above it.

Doing that would allow you to have very very fast shutters.. well over 1/8000th as there's no moving parts.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 22, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?
> ...



I imagine that you could probably do it with a buffer associated with each photosite, so that the buffer could be read independently of the sensor currently acquiring data. That would allow data to be acquired globally but read into the processor sequentially.


----------



## Lars (Jan 22, 2015)

30fps? Would that be in Live view only?

Because having the mirror flip up and down 30 times per second is going to be ... interesting. And wear out the mechanism pretty fast, I would think.


----------



## preppyak (Jan 22, 2015)

Tinky said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of having 30fps when you have video shot at 30fps? Doesn't the 1DC cover this? Or is this basically what the mirrorless cameras have, just faster? they have very fast frame bursts.. slightly confused?
> ...



And implement Global Shutter on a camera that shoots 4k RAW video and suddenly you have a camera that can take 8-10mp stills, in RAW, at 24-30fps. Your limitation is no longer the shutter, its the buffer. 

How this works within the confines of auto-focus is, I'm sure, it's own interest problem. Its a non-issue on most 4k production cams because you are pulling manual focus anyway. But if that comes with auto-focus, thatd be impressive as hell, even at 24fps


----------



## NancyP (Jan 22, 2015)

Maybe I have this wrong, but my concept of "global shutter" is that all pixels are turned "on" to collect photons simultaneously (a microsecond), then turned "off" simultaneously. The pixels hold charge and are dumped line by line into the buffer. Some pixels have to hold onto their charge longer than other pixels, assuming the process of data dumping (reading) takes some appreciable unit of time (10 to 50 microseconds). Pixels should be devoid of charge at the end of the data dump. 

If that is so, there should be no "rolling shutter effect".


----------



## Tinky (Jan 22, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The 1DC definitely does do anything this would at all because: no RAW video so you'd be stuck with essentially in camera processed 8bit JPG images for stills! it applies compression, no lossless modes. 8MP is simply a lot less detail 18+ MP, especially after the compression.



8MP sounds a lot less than 18mp. But remember we are talking about areas, inverse square. It might be more than double the area, but the difference isn't as stark, orientation for orientation as you may think. For newspaper print resolutions (far lower than 300dpi) 8MP is huge, for glossier magazines, it's still all you need to more than fill an A4 page.

And besides, for press work, in fact, for most work going online, even 8MP is serious overkill. 

I can't argue for a second that raws are inferior to jpegs on any technical level, but I would say that in my experience of working along side press photographers for 8 years, the guys shooting for a national UK newspaper never shot RAW even in the studio. There wasn't the time to process, there wasn't the time for picture editors to download the latest versions of camera raw etc. It was all well set up cameras and jpegs to be sent over 3G phone networks.

As hobbyists we have the luxury of time on our hands to get things exactly the way we want them. For news professionals you have to rely on experience and an expeditious workflow. Sometimes 8bit jpegs are all you need.


----------



## Andrewccm (Jan 22, 2015)

I believe some people don't fully understand the difference between shutter speed and frames captured per second. Not this same thing. Using video for stills in relation to DOF produced by aperture/shutter/ISO ratios does not pertain to FPS. Maybe I am stating the obvious. I saw a couple of comments earlier that made me wonder.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > cellomaster27 said:
> ...



Sorry. Incorrect.

This would be true of a traditional eng camera with dichroic prism and 3 image devices dedicated to each wavelength, on a dslr you don't. You have a bayer array sensor with some computing hi-jinx to smooth out the bumps. This is true for stills and for video. There is some arguement that the downsampling helps to smooth out the bumps further, but in fact you have the same starting point. A bayer array. 

Think of it this way, if video was unique in having RGB components, then why would your DSLR have adobe RGB or sRGB options? Why wouldn't all your still images just be in black and white.

When Sony or Sigma put three of their sensors round a massive s35 dichroic prism I will get excited. Bayers leave me just a little cold in the meantime.


----------



## benperrin (Jan 22, 2015)

It has certainly been great watching innovations happen like hss and hypersync so that we can push our equipment further, a global shutter that increases sync speed and possibly reduces noise would be most welcome. I thought this rumour has been around for a while though. Certainly 1/200 and sometimes not even that fast has felt slow compared to nikon.


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 22, 2015)

cpreston said:


> This rumor seems farfetched, though. If Canon could create a self contained camera that could continuously record RAW and compressed images at 30fps on a global shutter, it would have a huge impact on both the video and photography markets. Nothing comes close right now. The 1DC is a pale imitation since it can only record non-continuous 12fps RAW and 24fps compressed at APS-H crop on a non-global shutter.



The Dragon records 6K at 100fps, or extrapolated to 8k and a 3:2 aspect ratio still 40fps at full resolution. Or the rumored 52MP at 30fps. Global shutter included,the target audience isn't to fond of yello (behind the lens at least).
Or in the more consumer orientated segment you get 6700MP/s capacity, enough to go through 8K at >120fps, in a package smaller then the 1-series.

For raw storage you'd need a breakout to an SSD-raid though.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 23, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> cpreston said:
> 
> 
> > This rumor seems farfetched, though. If Canon could create a self contained camera that could continuously record RAW and compressed images at 30fps on a global shutter, it would have a huge impact on both the video and photography markets. Nothing comes close right now. The 1DC is a pale imitation since it can only record non-continuous 12fps RAW and 24fps compressed at APS-H crop on a non-global shutter.
> ...



Near as I can tell, the Motion Mount add-on is what gives the Dragon its global shutter via a liquid crystal shutter. It costs an extra $4k and eats a stop of light as an ND filter. That's only useful in bright natural light or controlled light. How is that comparable to GS on a stand-alone 1DX successor?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 23, 2015)

The Red Dragon does not natively have a global shutter its a rolling shutter as is the Arri Alexa. The Sony F65 has a global shutter as does the Sony F55. Skew is produced by rolling shutters NOT global shutters. If say your shooting with a global shutter and you pan down quickly shooting a chandelier you will get the light dragging down but overall a global shutter is superior to a rolling shutter. In practise we have found the Sony F55 has the least shutter induced artefacts. 
If Canon are contemplating a global shutter this may lend more weight that the sensor maybe a Sony sourced sensor, and I would agree CFast would make a better recording medium for the write speed. Arri were the first to adopt CFast with the Amira. 
What is going to be interesting is if the camera has a Anti Aliasing filter or not given this could be the weakest link.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 23, 2015)

Um... global shutter... AWESOME!


----------



## Perio (Jan 23, 2015)

No, no, no. I'm honestly hoping Canon won't release this camera. Otherwise my gf would get crazy when she knows I'll purchase it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 23, 2015)

I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.



I blame all these high iso cameras haha. Whats the point of having f1,4 lenses and 106,000 speed if you never use it?

I wish somebody would bring out a camera with a lower base iso instead, 12, 25, 50? Super clean. I don't need a high iso much more than 3200 in any case...

I know I could ND, but I like a bright viewfinder and fast af...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.



Yah, it's limited. Shooting for foreground detail (e.g. faces) with the solar disk in frame at narrow DOF is one such usage. But if the capability is there as an artifact of development (specifically the rumored frame rate goal), I won't complain. Chances are I'd use higher than 1/200 fairly often, but 1/1000&faster sparingly.


----------



## Skirball (Jan 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.



Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason. 

A lot is happening between 1/160 (real world max sync of 6D) and 1/500; long lenses can be problematic at that slow a speed, normal movement and certainly sports can blur, etc. Having that flexibility would have a big impact on my photography, and I'm sure many others.

Obviously you're going to run into limitations, well before 1/1000. I find (unscientifically), my flashes at full power seem to be somewhere around 1/200 - 1/300 range. So there's limits of what you could do. Many flashes might be down to 1/4 power by 1/1000... but it's still better than HSS.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 23, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Obviously you're going to run into limitations, well before 1/1000. I find (unscientifically), my flashes at full power seem to be somewhere around 1/200 - 1/300 range. So there's limits of what you could do. Many flashes might be down to 1/4 power by 1/1000... but it's still better than HSS.



I did a moderately careful test of a 580EX. It's flash power tails off, obviously, but most of the light is emitted in about 1/800th-1/1000th at 1:1. That's why I think faster than 1/1000th has very limited usefulness, at least with that flash.

And I'm not knocking the difference between 1/250th or so and 1/1000th! That's still two stops of ambient light quenching and motion freezing. I'm just questioning the usefulness of going to 1/4000th or 1/8000th. You're going to start quenching the flash power too, just in a different way than HSS does it.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 23, 2015)

I just had this idea on the high frame rate shutter.

What if you combine an EVF (Electronic View Finder) with an optical one.

When you press the shutter and the mirror pops up the EVF takes over from the optical, the shutter releases continuously without the mirror comming down between shots, and the EVF updates with each image as it comes off the sensor.

This would save the time it takes to raise and lower the mirror between each shot.

Could Canon be bringing something like this?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 23, 2015)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> This is a step in the right direction for Canon and I'm hoping a firmware update 'might' bring this to the table.
> 
> Fujifilm just released their new line of mirrorless cameras that have ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL shutters. You can either use one or the other depending on shutter speed needed. Their shutter speed limit is 1/32,000 of a second. Fuji also just provided firmware updates for two of their previous models to incorporate this new electronic shutter feature. Now, how great is that?
> 
> My point is, it can be done and is being done now with some manufacturers. The electronic shutter is totally silent.



I have the xt1 and regularly use the electronic shutter. I don't quite understand the science behind the differences between an electronic shutter and a global shutter. But I do know that they are not the same. 

Also, re flash sync, you cannot use flash with the electronic shutter on the xt1. Rolling shutter is also an issue. Also, simply shooting stills indoors with some fluorescents, will yield visible lighting patterns in the shot. 

The Fuji electronic shutter for all intents and purposes is basically just a good tool for shooting in the bright sun with fast lenses. Kind of a moot point indoors.


----------



## Diko (Jan 23, 2015)

A global shutter - a long awaited AWESOMEness!

SONY had it for some time already ;-)

Lovely if true!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 23, 2015)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I have the xt1 and regularly use the electronic shutter. I don't quite understand the science behind the differences between an electronic shutter and a global shutter. But I do know that they are not the same.



One is for both curtains (start and end of the exposure), electronic is for just one.


----------



## DudeInTheSky (Jan 23, 2015)

CFast 2.0 is mentioned in the article. Thought I'd chip in with some facts:

CFast 2.0 will max out at approx 520Mbytes/s write (real throughput), with no future upgrade path. So once you need anything faster it's a whole new memory card standard and form factor with no backward compatibility with CFast.

CFast is based on Serial ATA which is not being developed past the current 6Gbit/s. Read for yourself at http://serialata.org http://www.compactflash.org

Once you add up all the bits and the bytes and the 50+ Megapixels at 30fps or more it seems like choosing CFast 2.0 could be a short lived decision for Canon. There are other memory card standards with roadmaps to much higher speeds. F.ex. XQD should scale to 4000Mbytes/s or more (currently at 1000Mbytes/s).


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > I have the xt1 and regularly use the electronic shutter. I don't quite understand the science behind the differences between an electronic shutter and a global shutter. But I do know that they are not the same.
> ...



Ah. Makes perfect sense and explains a few things regarding my indoor use of the electronic shutter. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 23, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.
> ...



+1

There is a lot in between today's typical max flash sync speed and 1/1000th. You summed it up nicely.

In fact the 1/160 of the 6D bother's me more then the crappy focus system or limited frame rate. Fine, is is not a sports camera, I get it, but crippling it's usage with flash does hurt a bit for what many could use this camera for.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 23, 2015)

DudeInTheSky said:


> CFast is based on Serial ATA which is not being developed past the current 6Gbit/s. Read for yourself at http://serialata.org http://www.compactflash.org



16Gbps SATA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_revision_3.2_.2816_Gbit.2Fs.2C_1969_MB.2Fs.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA_Express


----------



## DudeInTheSky (Jan 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> DudeInTheSky said:
> 
> 
> > CFast is based on Serial ATA which is not being developed past the current 6Gbit/s. Read for yourself at http://serialata.org http://www.compactflash.org
> ...



It's not 16Gbps SATA, it's 16Gbps SATA Express. Which is different. SATA Express is essentially SATA software stack on top of electrical PCI-Express. (So different connector, etc, etc) Would of course be great with a 16Gbit/s SATA Express host that can also take CFast 2.0 cards, but so far there is no evidence that is happening. I have no idea if that's even possible as there are limited number of connector pins one can fit inside a camera. (They make dual host connectors for PCs that can take both types.)

Should also mention that SATA Express is largely viewed as a transitional standard. So far it has rather few takers, and a lot of companies are looking to bypass SATA Express all together and jump to the next thing. So it doesn't appear at this point that SATA Express will gain the widespread adoption and support that SATA has.

So, IMHO CFast 2.0 appears to be the last iteration of that memory card standard. With whatever that means for widespread adoption, residual value and support. If that is not the case, and CFast 3.0 that is backwards compatible with CFast 2.0 cards is in the works, the players who support that should publish a future roadmap ASAP!

There is of course something to be said about what works here and now! Even if it isn't upgradeable in the same way we have become accustomed to with CF cards.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 24, 2015)

DudeInTheSky said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > DudeInTheSky said:
> ...



Yes, SATA Express is the follow-on to SATA, and XQD is the follow-on to CFAST.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XQD_card

Successors aren't always backward compatible.


----------



## Jester237 (Jan 24, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.


Its not fantastic, not even incredible  Canon has 1D (4Mp, mk I) camera with CCD sensor and electronic shutter. And 1/500 sync speed. I test it on 1/1000 with studio flash and it work.
Still, cant find sure info about sensor maker.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 26, 2015)

Jester237 said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.
> ...



The sensor was made by Kodak this business unit was sold and was renamed Truesense.


----------



## Skirball (Jan 26, 2015)

Jester237 said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.
> ...



No, I'd still say it's fantastic - the 1/500 sync that is. But all the drawbacks make the camera not an option for me. I don't consider myself a tech junky, especially with photography, but that camera would be several steps back from the current options - for my work. I suppose if you mostly shoot for the web, at low ISO, it would be fine.


----------



## Jester237 (Jan 26, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The sensor was made by Kodak this business unit was sold and was renamed Truesense.


Are you sure? I think about Kodak, too. But even Canon official not confirmed this. There was rumors about Philips sensor.


----------



## Jester237 (Jan 26, 2015)

Skirball said:


> No, I'd still say it's fantastic - the 1/500 sync that is. But all the drawbacks make the camera not an option for me. I don't consider myself a tech junky, especially with photography, but that camera would be several steps back from the current options - for my work. I suppose if you mostly shoot for the web, at low ISO, it would be fine.


This camera hold its place in my personal camera museum  Its too old for real use now and i don't recommend to buy it. Only say, that Canon can do camera with such x-sync and electronic shutter. And already do


----------



## Tinky (Jan 26, 2015)

and of course tbe humble nikon d40....


----------



## Andrewccm (Jan 27, 2015)

Jester237 said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.
> ...



If I am not mistaken, the Nikon D70 had a 1/500 sync speed too..


----------



## DudeInTheSky (Jan 28, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> DudeInTheSky said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I don't see XQD 2.0 as a 'follow-on' standard to CFast 2.0. Both cards are available today at similar speeds. The question is why bother putting CFast 2.0 in a DSLR today if you need to upgrade to a PCI-Express based memory card standard anyways in the near future?


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 28, 2015)

Skirball said:


> No, I'd still say it's fantastic - the 1/500 sync that is.



Well, while the D8x0 officially only goes to 1/320 a fast trigger also allows for 1/400 - almost there. Or up to 1/640 in crop mode


----------



## Joe J (Jan 29, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.





1/1000- to at least 1/2000 sync works for one primary situation- freezing action in mid-day ambient light, without an impractical car-battery sized power source. Any good portable strobe (i.e. Einsteins) will put out enough output at a fast enough t.1 duration to properly light a subject at lower apertures. Jester237 nailed it with the 1D Mark I mention. Electronic shutters and higher sync speeds aren't new; just Canon and other manufacturers choose to ignore the possibility of advancing them and making better tools for photographers, like the holy grail of true fast sync speed built into cameras. All the HSS nonsense is still flawed (Profoto B1's latest update is the closest to perfection to date) and shouldn't be necessary anyway!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 29, 2015)

Joe J said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.
> ...



The issue there is that you need to be very, very close to your subject for the flash to make any real contribution to the ambient light. So this tends only to work for macros.


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 29, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> The issue there is that you need to be very, very close to your subject for the flash to make any real contribution to the ambient light. So this tends only to work for macros.



Lets see, a Move1200L/Para222 nets me f/[email protected]@10m, about 3 stops over ambient at high noon when used with the LS lenses. With recharge times about in line with the frame rate of the back.
Not my definition of very close or macro.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 29, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The issue there is that you need to be very, very close to your subject for the flash to make any real contribution to the ambient light. So this tends only to work for macros.
> ...



I agree, I can get f16 at 100iso at 10' with a single $500 Einstein. What we don't get is short flash duration at that power, the Einstein is around 1/666 sec t1 duration so much faster than that and you are losing flash power anyway, the Broncolor is an even slower 1/375 sec t1 duration at full power.

In these situations, where the flash exposure becomes the shutter speed, we are still not gaining much because nothing puts out huge amounts of light fast enough. This will change over time, until we get true global shutters there is no inherent need for full power flashes to be short duration most of the time, when there is then the gear will be made, but it is going to cost! Or we need to use more smaller heads for faster t1 times.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The fish........

Below, midday Florida sun, f16, 100iso, 10'. 640Ws.


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



That's why I used numbers one gets in speed mode (at 400Ws, not full power), resulting in a t0.1 better than the sync speed of the lenses and the triggers. Helpswith the recycle time as well.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 29, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Joe J said:
> ...



But note it doesn't meet one of the original requirements (bolded).
(Granted you could get a lot closer than 10m and use a substantially smaller pack)


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 29, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> But note it doesn't meet one of the original requirements (bolded).


So much for spec reading vs. actual experience - the latter says it meets the requirement. Compared to speedlights it's actually a reduction in bulk and weight. thats if your intent involves taking pictures.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 29, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > But note it doesn't meet one of the original requirements (bolded).
> ...



I don't doubt it. It's just silly to respond to a desire to avoid a car battery-sized power source with a rig including a car battery-sized power source.


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 29, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> I don't doubt it. It's just silly to respond to a desire to avoid a car battery-sized power source with a rig including a car battery-sized power source.



Do you really believe the Move is the size of a car battery?! So much for preconceptions...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 29, 2015)

Lawliet said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't doubt it. It's just silly to respond to a desire to avoid a car battery-sized power source with a rig including a car battery-sized power source.
> ...



Heh, climb down from your horse, realize that not everything is literal nor serious, but that a 500in3 battery may not power a Tesla P85, it's not small by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 29, 2015)

Posted by LuckyDude in another thread, makes sense to post here too as there is a very good demonstration of global vs rolling shutter, and why it's important, towards the end...

http://youtu.be/CmjeCchGRQo


----------

