# After a 50MP camera what is the next breakthrough?



## Hector1970 (Feb 10, 2015)

I'm sure at some point every piece of technology reaches it's point of perfection and can't be improved upon to any great extent.
What's next for Canon Cameras.
I know people want a great dynamic range but how else can cameras improve.
Will we have 30 FPS.
Will Lytro style photographs which can have their point of focus changed after in processing become the norm.
Will we have incredibly high ISO capability.
Will it be electronic view finders, better white balance, reduced size, in camera processing?
I am just wondering what people's ideas are of where the future lies in terms of camera technology.


----------



## martti (Feb 10, 2015)

Cameras are pretty damn good now and we are witnessing the phenomenon of diminishing returns.
The technology is not the rate limiting step. We are. 
There are too many photographers in the world right now. 
Taking pictures has become more important than living a life. It is all about apparences.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> I am just wondering what people's ideas are of where the future lies in terms of camera technology.



One idea would be actually delivering the products you announce, so in fact the 50mp is "next" as it isn't here yet


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

More DR.  ;D


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 10, 2015)

55mp?

;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 10, 2015)

What ever the camera manufacturers feel the customers will be willing to buy. 
Camera manufacture's are no longer primarily limited by technology, but by marketability and profit these days.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 10, 2015)

Affordable medium format  A man can dream, can't he ;D? 

If the Pentax 645Z proves successful sales wise, I think the line between a digital MF and 35mm DSLRs will continue to blur.


----------



## Zv (Feb 10, 2015)

I doubt we'll see anything so revolutionary in the next few years that it will change the way we shoot forever. The mirrorless movement hasn't really taken hold like it was predicted to. It's more of an accompaniment than a game changer. It's 2015 and we are still shooting with relatively large boxy looking cameras. And we love them!

Maybe the next big thing will be ergonomic improvements. Lighter, stronger more durable cameras? But then they'd last too long and people would be reluctant to upgrade. 

Perhaps it will be customization in a way that you can easily chop and change parts to suit your needs? A DSLR is already kind of modular with different lenses, focusing screens and battery grips. So that seems redundant. 

Personally I'd like to see improvements in how we move data around. Connectivity is still clunky and slow. I want instant transfer to my PC not snail pace wifi. I want to connect a smartphone in one step not ten. That puts me off. 

For me improved user experience is what they should focus on. It's good but it could be even better one day.


----------



## iso79 (Feb 10, 2015)

Probably continue to work on minimizing noise.


----------



## martti (Feb 10, 2015)

iso79 said:


> Probably continue to work on minimizing noise.



On the images or on the forums?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 10, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Will we have incredibly high ISO capability.



Um, we do already.


----------



## mjardeen (Feb 10, 2015)

Better Pixels.

I am sure we will see some creep on MP, but better pixels means more Dynamic Rage, and better iso performance. I also think that mirrorless will end up dominating the marketplace over time. Only in the US does the traditional SLR still rule. Size and weight are the reason I am going over to SONY shortly. The new cameras are simply too little, too late (June?), and simply too expensive. 

When I say pixel improvement I think DR will be dealt with by doing several things. We will see pixel level exposure that captures more data to give us greater control similar to what Adams created with the Zone System. Foveon type color collection will also become commonplace. Lenses will also need to move forward to take advantage of the newer higher MP levels.


----------



## oonlo (Feb 10, 2015)

What i personally would LOVE to see is a 4K ready camera WITH slow motion. Now, the C300 may come close but no 4K. Id also like to see a 6D revamp. that sucker is getting old. 

But in all reality. I think theyre going to try go mirrorless with EF lens compatibility.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 10, 2015)

I think a one-stop improvement on 5D3 high ISO would be pretty significant. Imagine ISO 3200 being as clean as the 5D3 1600 which is already amazing..."wow" just thinking about it! You could even begin using lenses like the 100-400 indoors in good light. 

And if they can add a few more pixels on top of that? It's going to take at least that to convince me to upgrade to the 5D4 anyway, the 5D3 is already a hell of a camera...


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 10, 2015)

V8Beast said:


> Affordable medium format  A man can dream, can't he ;D?
> 
> If the Pentax 645Z proves successful sales wise, I think the line between a digital MF and 35mm DSLRs will continue to blur.


Especially if pentax releases LS Primes and those old 645D bodies have a new use.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 10, 2015)

With people like Dilbert complaining endlessly about how Canon is screwing them, then showing work that is reminiscent of sub-par iPhone photography and demanding that they need 27 stops of DR when they can't use even 6... nothing will ever suffice. It kind of like dogs barking and chasing cars, what will they do when they catch them... they never learned to drive. It never stop the dogs from trying though.


----------



## bgran8 (Feb 10, 2015)

My vote is also for more dynamic range (at least cleaner shadows). It's really nice to be able to use just one shot instead of combining multiple shots in PS.


----------



## RGF (Feb 10, 2015)

iso79 said:


> Probably continue to work on minimizing noise.



I think there will be a numbers game. Easy to market, makes get sound bites, ...

High MP - got that
FPS - video give us 30/60 FPS but only 4K which is < 10 MP
High ISO / low noise - can shoot by candle light and hand hold the camera/stop the action


----------



## crashpc (Feb 10, 2015)

Lenses with aperture not causing diffractions, or at least limiting it greatly.
Miniaturization
Resolution up to best lens resolving power (256Mpx or more for FF)
Af speed and Burst shooting increase
Better prices
Other sensor enhancements like greater DR, global shutter etc.
Locking and antitheft system using scanning users eye when put in viewfinder.
4k high FPS and FullHD Slo-mo.
And one could.go on and on. There are things to improve. The question is how much are people willing to pay for all this....


----------



## unfocused (Feb 10, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> ...Will Lytro style photographs which can have their point of focus changed after in processing become the norm...



This.

Not saying that I necessarily want it, but it's coming eventually. When it finally approaches the quality we now have with traditional digital cameras, it will upend the industry almost to the same degree as digital did with film.


----------



## toodamnice (Feb 10, 2015)

Could the next big thing be 16 bit color?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2015)

toodamnice said:


> Could the next big thing be 16 bit color?



To make the 11.5 stops of dynamic range shine :-> ? ... btw, if you want to try it: Magic Lantern's dual_iso module produces 16bit raw files.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 10, 2015)

I wouldn't exactly call 50MP a breakthrough. I see it more as an evolution of existing technology. A breakthrough is a solution to a problem that everyone has been struggling with and no one has been able to tackle. 

If you look at high MP as resulting in improved detail, well then there are a number of methods to achieve detail in shots. There is stitching with panoramic photography as well as with Tilt-shift lenses. Even today with the 70D and a tilt-shift lens you can quite easily create incredibly detailed panoramas that are in excess of 50MP. With a pan head you can create gigapixel images if desired. If you really desperately wanted high detail in a single shot then you could look into medium format options also. So in summary, I don't see 50 MP as a breakthrough.

On the positive side though, when DxOmark eventually test the camera with lenses we'll finally see the Canon lens scores improve. 

The next logical step I'd like to see is updates to Canon's 35L and 50L or 50/1.4, heck Canon should just update all the 50mm primes they all have issues that can be improved upon.


----------



## bcflood (Feb 10, 2015)

4K video in DSLR bodies will likely become the next thing to blossom throughout the camera line-ups. It seems like other innovations will be incremental improvements for the near future.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 10, 2015)

kraats said:


> I want to throw away my nd grads. They suck. So more dynamic range and iso 12.



Bad news Im afraid even at 20 stops of DR their will be situations where people will want to use ND grads, forget how many stops unless something drastically changes your need polarizing filters and to get creamy water extended exposures with filters (up to 20 stops is possible, the Big Stopper is 10 stops). Ive always seen filters as an artistic tool not a hindrance if they were so I doubt the worlds greatest Landscape Photographers would use them. Unless CMOS sensor design changes IRNDs for 2/4K video are also here to stay.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 10, 2015)

To me, the ultimate breakthrough will be the insertion of a chip in your brain which is able to take stills and video directly from your memories or directly as your eyes see it.
Downloads would be accomplished wirelessly.
This same device could also be your cellphone and do other things we can't even imagine yet.

But realistically for today, clean super-high iso, more dr, improved general iq and much cheaper costs.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> kraats said:
> 
> 
> > I want to throw away my nd grads. They suck. So more dynamic range and iso 12.
> ...




A solid ND filter like the big stopper is different than an ND grad. You could use that fine on a camera with unlimited dynamic range, as it has nothing to do with dynamic range. It has to do with allowing you to expose for longer (much longer) than you normally would...blurring motion. 


A camera with 20 stops of DR would pretty much eliminate the need for graduated nd filters. That is a LOT of dynamic range. Remember, every stop DOUBLES the range of the previous. Going from 11 to 12 stops DOUBLES the range of light your camera is simultaneously sensitive to. Going from 12 to 13 stops DOUBLES the range again. Going from 13 to 14 stops DOUBLES it again. Double it six more times, and you finally reach 20 stops. 


That is a truly massive amount of dynamic range. About the only thing you couldn't do with that much dynamic range would be imaging the sun setting behind a mountain well enough to pick out sunspots and flares, while simultaneously pulling out full detail in the deepest shadows of that mountain. There are a couple of celestial objects that could probably use that kind of dynamic range as well...say Orion Nebula or Andromeda Galaxy...both of those are extremely high dynamic range objects, with ultra bright cores and ultra faint outer regions.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 10, 2015)

Built in RF for off-camera flash and WiFi. I want to walk around with my tablet adjusting flash power/ratios/zoom in all my groups, as well as camera settings, while checking composition in Live View, snapping photos and reviewing all from my tablet - all from the same program. Sadly, all the technology is already there, I guess there just isn't enough of a market to put money into development.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 11, 2015)

For me the next breakthrough will be a 100 Megapixel camera (or 200, anywhere up to 500 is good).

DR is great, but not a game changer for me (it would be for those who think it is, but for me it's as good as 100+MP is for them).

Bigger sensors are an inevitability. The EOS mount is even big enough for a 50mm sensor as-is, if you remove the mirror.
All Canon has to do is make the sensors, and be able to sell a pro-mirrorless body.

If they make a new mount and forget about backward compatibility, I hope the sensor is at least 4x3" or at the very least IMAX (70.41x52.63mm).
I'm sick of seeing these puny 55-60mm sensors that provide barely any increase in surface area being called "Medium Format".


----------



## SoullessPolack (Feb 11, 2015)

Act444 said:


> I think a one-stop improvement on 5D3 high ISO would be pretty significant. Imagine ISO 3200 being as clean as the 5D3 1600 which is already amazing..."wow" just thinking about it! You could even begin using lenses like the 100-400 indoors in good light.
> 
> And if they can add a few more pixels on top of that? It's going to take at least that to convince me to upgrade to the 5D4 anyway, the 5D3 is already a hell of a camera...



There are already reports from testers that there is a 1.5-2 stop gain in dynamic range, however, only at low ISO, with the 5Ds compared to the 5D Mark 3. On the flip side, they had to sacrifice high ISO quality, and the dynamic range is reduced in comparison to the Mark 3. So in other words, you're sacrificing high ISO in order to get great low ISO quality. Truly a landscape/studio camera, as usually in those settings, you stay as low an ISO as possible. I believe you can read more about in on the Northlight website.


----------



## pwp (Feb 11, 2015)

After thinking about all this for a while, and after high initial enthusiasm for the 50 Mp offerings, I think I'll be sitting tight for the lower Mp 5D Mk4 later this year. I'm expecting deeper buffer, modestly better high iso performance, low light AF boost and some incremental, generational, across the board improvements. I'll be happy if the sensor is in the 20-25 Mp range.

My main workstations would easily handle the bigger 50 Mp files as my set up is in the awesome category for effortless 4K video editing. Maybe I'll avoid the need for another higher storage capacity NAS, my current CF card capacity will still do the job and to be honest, the 5D3 files still knock my socks off and have a quality surplus that none of my clients have come anywhere near exceeding. 

Canon engineers may have had it right pulling up MP counts in the low 20 Mp's with the 1Dx and 5D3. But pressure from the marketing team and a braying public to "beat Nikon" was just too strong. 

-pw


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

9VIII said:


> For me the next breakthrough will be a 100 Megapixel camera (or 200, anywhere up to 500 is good).
> 
> DR is great, but not a game changer for me (it would be for those who think it is, but for me it's as good as 100+MP is for them).
> 
> ...




Umm, a 60mm wide, 45mm tall medium format sensor (same size as 6x4.5cm large format film) has *3.125x *the surface area of a 35mm sensor. How can you possibly call that "barely" any increase in surface area? Even a 44x33mm medium format is twice the surface area, which is significant. Twice the surface area, twice the light gathering capacity. A 35mm FF sensor is is just a bit more than twice the light gathering capacity of APS-C...and look at how much that improves performance right there. Imagine having four times the light gathering capacity of APS-C...or with a 6x4.5 a whopping 6.25x the light gathering capacity. 


As for IMAX-size medium format. Where are you going to get lenses that perform optimally across that entire surface area? How are you going to afford such lenses? The "normal" lens for such a sensor would be a 90-100mm lens. That would make a 300mm equivalent lens on IMAX a 540mm lens. At f/4, such a lens would still require a minimum 135mm objective...which is pretty huge. That's larger than a 300 f/2.8, it's even larger than a 500 f/4, for 35mm FF!!


Medium format cameras are expensive for a reason, and they are rare for a reason.  I'd be surprised if Canon came out with a 44x33mm camera, let alone 60x45 or 72x53mm. Such a niche product...


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 11, 2015)

I would love to see a fully automated, real time afma that changes immediately with any focus point used. Couple that with improved AF speed and accuracy, that would be awesome.

sek


----------



## pwp (Feb 11, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> I would love to see a fully automated, real time afma that changes immediately with any focus point used. Couple that with improved AF speed and accuracy, that would be awesome.
> 
> sek



Yes, that's the sort of feature we should be looking forward to rather than an on-going megapixel race. Good one!

-pw


----------



## SoullessPolack (Feb 11, 2015)

pwp said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see a fully automated, real time afma that changes immediately with any focus point used. Couple that with improved AF speed and accuracy, that would be awesome.
> ...



Again, this is mind-boggingly narrow sighted, to a level that almost defies belief.

For _you_, those are the features that are important and you are looking for. To others, we want more megapixels over other things. I myself want more megapixels than dynamic range or focus. You know why? Because I print large a lot. I love minute details in my prints. I've never had an issue with dynamic range that I couldn't correct by bracketing (remember, I'm talking about myself, not others). I focus manually using live view, so improved auto focus is not important to me. 

So you need to absolutely stop making such blanket statements. Just because this is not what you want, does not mean it is not a great product for many other people. I won't be complaining when Canon introduces a lower megapixel, high ISO capable, premiere auto focus camera. Why? Well, I'm smart enough to know that even though it won't benefit me, it will benefit others.


----------



## Machaon (Feb 11, 2015)

We've got to get rid of these Bayer filters. They reduce sensor efficiency and colour accuracy and make moire more prominent. They've got to go. There's big gains to be made from alternate colour sensing technologies.

I'd like to see Canon taking the multi-layer sensor concept, a la Sigma Quattro, and implement it really well in their existing system. Bring noise / sensitivity on a par with existing bodies, but surround the sensor in all the EOS lens, AF, ergonomic and RAW goodness. Canon could turn this sort of technology into a stunning mainstream camera, rather than the Sigma cult classic it currently is.

Cameras will all end up mirrorless. It is the natural architecture of a digital camera, with so much to be gained from metering, focussing and composing directly on the sensor plane. However, there are still major viewfinder and AF performance issues to be solved, so the DSLR architecture will continue to rule for a while yet. If and when the Canon flagship cameras turn mirrorless, there will be a strong incentive to preserve the EOS EF interface so the implementation might be as simple as making "live view" the exclusive mode of operation with an extremely fast EVF of imperceptible lag, on-sensor AF and electronic shutter. If the mirrorless architecture truly is superior, it will inevitably follow that the performance of high-end mirrorless, on-sensor architectures will truly surpass that of the best DSLRs. This is a little way off yet... but not far. If and when the technology is mature, mirrorless will become the norm for the most demanding photography, including medium format.

We might see pixel-level control of sensitivity, allowing on-sensor implementation of various ND filters at time of capture.

I'd like to see Canon Apple-fy its software, maintaining a firm grip on the integrity of EOS firmware but opening the system to software add-ons / apps. There's a lot to be learned from Magic Lantern functionality and Sony's approach to apps. The corporate giant just can't harvest the same imaginative innovation that a bunch of tiny software development houses can bring at their own risk. It's not just a gimmick for consumer photography, but has the capacity to integrate all sorts of functionality and information into the camera to make for better photos. It might break system ergonomics, though. Making WiFi standard would allow flagship cameras, like camera-phones, to join the ubiquitous networked world.

So my bet is that within 10 years the Canon EOS 1-series camera will be a very different sensor technology, mirrorless, and heavily software-defined.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 11, 2015)

Machaon said:


> We've got to get rid of these Bayer filters. They reduce sensor efficiency and colour accuracy and make moire more prominent. They've got to go. There's big gains to be made from alternate colour sensing technologies.
> 
> I'd like to see Canon taking the multi-layer sensor concept, a la Sigma Quattro, and implement it really well in their existing system. Bring noise / sensitivity on a par with existing bodies, but surround the sensor in all the EOS lens, AF, ergonomic and RAW goodness. Canon could turn this sort of technology into a stunning mainstream camera, rather than the Sigma cult classic it currently is.
> 
> ...



+1
mirrorless is likely to have the next increment large enough to be considered a breakthru and that'll likely be in further improved AF tracking performance and, maybe, improved battery life.

I'd like to see a bit more competitive pressure in the crop MF or, dreaming, real MF sensors too, made suddenly affordable by a new sensor mfg process that delivers high sensitivity, hi DR and excellent color fidelity using a low cost, non-silicon based substrate. Maybe some kind of plastic with thin layers of photo-sensitive chemical layers applied to it.  but NOT film! 
Seriously, you read it here first. electronically-sensed, photo-chemical sensels that are responsive to very narrow bands of light from near IR to near UV which can provide a hi-fidelity color response and organized in such a way (like the Foveon) that aliasing/moire doesn't occur. You expose them like film, read them like a resistance, reset them with a voltage pulse for the next shot.
Somebody get on that and sign me as co-patent holder.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2015)

I'd like to see an open source firmware that can be amended with 3rd party or personal modules to end the "firmware crippling" game and "Rebel users are too dumb to be able to copy with a complex fw".

Magic Lantern has great add-ons for the stock Canon firmware, but it's a pita to program because Canon's DryOS is not documented and camera calls change all the time with newer models. With a documented sdk, even midrange users would be able to script their camera and programmers could just about everything they like with it.

Won't happen with Canon, of course, that's why some ML people are currently trying to move away from the Canon system towards a 4k axiom platform they have real access to: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/10/apertus-axiom-crowdfunding-succeeds-magic-lantern-support


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 11, 2015)

A global shutter from Sony.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 11, 2015)

SoullessPolack said:


> [
> Again, this is mind-boggingly narrow sighted, to a level that almost defies belief.
> 
> For _you_, those are the features that are important and you are looking for. To others, we want more megapixels over other things. I myself want more megapixels than dynamic range or focus. You know why? Because I print large a lot. I love minute details in my prints. I've never had an issue with dynamic range that I couldn't correct by bracketing (remember, I'm talking about myself, not others). I focus manually using live view, so improved auto focus is not important to me.
> ...



I take it that you don't understand that this is a forum designed for people to post their *personal* opinions on Canon related topics. That's all that is ever posted here -- a person's personal opinion/viewpoint. 

The fact that you are surprised that someone posted what they would like (an opinion) questions whether you understand the purpose of these types of internet forums.

You have the ability to post *your* opinion on the topic, as do other members of this forum. 

You don't have to agree, or even understand, someone else's opinion, just like we don't have to agree, or even understand, your opinion. But all opinions are welcome here.

No one, other than the Mods/owner of this site, has any authority to mandate what a forum member can and can't post.

"So you need to absolutely stop making such blanket statements" is really totally out of line. 

Let's play nice and recognize that people have different opinions. An opinion you don't agree with is not necessarily "mind-boggingly narrow sighted, to a level that almost defies belief".

Would you like it if someone called your opinion that?


----------



## Floydian (Feb 11, 2015)

A real breakthrough would be, Zeiss glass/quality for a Canon price, that would be really something!
50 mpx is already way too much (yes i am going to buy the 5Ds-R), more focus on the glass with BIG improvements, that should be the focus instead of even more pixels. I don't care about video at all!
Oh, and lets not forget, clean (and i mean iso 100 clean) iso 3200 images!
Lets keep on dreaming ;-)


----------



## Sunnystate (Feb 11, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



+1000

Wont even go there to analyze the SoullessPolack statements like this one: 
"So you need to absolutely stop making such blanket statements" because they are screwed on so many levels, pathetic...


----------



## bestimage (Feb 11, 2015)

is it really a "breakthrough", having same quality of sensor with just more pixels


----------



## Machaon (Feb 11, 2015)

bestimage said:


> is it really a "breakthrough", having same quality of sensor with just more pixels



I would say yes, to manufacture it economically & actually get it to market at a profit. Otherwise it would've been done before now.


----------



## tphillips63 (Feb 11, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > SoullessPolack said:
> ...



Also agree, maybe the OP was trying to be clever but did not come off as such, more trolling but who knows.


----------



## n1000 (Feb 11, 2015)

Would be nice to see a 4K internal DSLR with flat profile for high DR, way better ergonomics comparing to a7s, dual-pixel like AF and a good low light picture with no aliasing and moire closed in max 4000$ 5D-like box. Something similar to a7s, focused more on 4K video. I'm sure that move would bring Canon closer to it's competition. Hope they will carry out something new in August (considering the recent 1DC price drop) as rumors say.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 11, 2015)

Everything is going to be evolutionary until a new sensor technology (materials science) becomes available. The organic sensors are in the wings. There are super-sensitive sensors out there. Yaaah, 20 stops DR would be nice! Jrista, think about a megaISO for deep sky objects. 

Back to the past ??? : a fast (real time, not one row scanning) 4 x 5 back. Something like Better Light, but with capture time of seconds rather than minutes.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 11, 2015)

next breakthrough? 

Sony A7R II or A9 with 

50+ MP sensor w/ 1.5 stops more DR at ISOs up to 800 and equal performance at ISO 1600+ 
in a smaller, lighter mirrorless body 
with a 14+ Whr battery pack for 700+ shots
at least as good AF-performance and fps as 5DS/R
electronic global shutter, absolutely vibration-free operation 
at a significantly lower price ... maybe USD/€ 2,799 
8)


----------



## K (Feb 11, 2015)

Don't know what they next big thing will be - but what I'd like to see is....


Increased dynamic range, and reduced high-ISO noise. 

Megapixels are great and all, but it could be argued that 20-24mp is more than enough for just about anything. Well, now with 36 and 50MP sensors - I think the product, stock, landscape, and studio photographers who want 35mm are set for a long time to come. In my view, megapixels is sort of reaching a practical limit here. Improvements can always be made on how much resolution a sensor can get out of a given number of megapixels. But it becomes harder and harder to argue that 60 or 70 megapixels will be an improvement over 50. Diminishing returns for practical use.

Megapixels are covered. It is dynamic range and low noise that has room for improvement. Now, not being ungrateful or anything - relative to recent years, we have pretty amazing ISO performance now. However, that is the best frontier for progress.

AutoFocus is great. Advancements in dual-pixel and sensor focus is next. What is keeping the DSLR alive? The fact that mirrorless is weaker on focus (and also viewfinder). When a sensor can focus as fast and accurately as a DSLR - there is only the issue of viewfinder left. They aren't far from that either. 

Speed - you can get a 10fps 7D2 for $1,800...speed in DSLR's is good. Increases in FPS yields less and less benefit. Example, the advantage of 16fps over say 12fps isn't nearly as big as 10fps vs 5. FPS has reached a good place. Canon coming up with dampened mirrors to reduce vibration is a good area to continue progress. 

Metering - now this could be improved. As highly advanced as they are today, they still aren't very smart. Meters or metering systems that can more accurately predict or find the subject and expose correctly is an area for big improvement.

Electronic shutter - this is an area that could be of big benefit.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

V8Beast said:


> Affordable medium format  A man can dream, can't he ;D?
> 
> If the Pentax 645Z proves successful sales wise, I think the line between a digital MF and 35mm DSLRs will continue to blur.



If it weighs the same as mirrorless, then I'm all for that


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...



What I've not married up Jon, and maybe you have, is I use light to focus the viewer in pictures. If there's too much range in the shot, is there not a chance that it impacts the effectiveness of the shot? Some increase in DR, good. Too much ie 20 stops? Not so sure.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

scottkinfw said:


> I would love to see a fully automated, real time afma that changes immediately with any focus point used. Couple that with improved AF speed and accuracy, that would be awesome.
> 
> sek



Agree. Mine, including the best posted so far are

- AFMA in camera. Real time, would be better.
- Global Shutter
- 8K video so you can extract single frames at good resolution
- SDK
- Better integration with other systems (smartphones & computers)
- Lytro style focusing
- Sensor cleaning which works (how about something which really protects the sensor when I'm changing lenses but disappears when I want to focus.
- Eye focus - cause the brain is still quicker than the finger
- Removable backs / sensors. I want a 5D Classic updated with amazing light capture capabilities, I want 100MP, I want B&W, I want Infra-red.
- Same quality - smaller and lighter please. MF body is fine, but not if it weighs even more than 35mm. Ditto lenses
- Different sensor tech no more bayer, no more moire, no aliasing...
- Even better zooms (faster & lighter, so I dont need to carry 5 lenses with me)
- EVF (as an add-on when I need it), and when it's better than my optical, again with programmable display
- ISO 3 all the way to ISO 100 (we already have the high end stuff)
- Exposure support for > 30 seconds. Bulb isa legacy from film days. Work it out, then take the shot. Then subtract for hot pixels. Rather than me sit there and calculate it, and time it 
- Depth mode from the film-camera days. Here's 2 points (selected by eye), now work out the sharpest aperture based on the lens i have attached.
- Diffraction warning based on the lens I have attached. Just like exposure blinkies.
- Auto ETTR. If that gets me the best exposure for the sensor then do it automatically for me, without clipping.
- Minimum shake warning based on lens, sensor size and whether you have a tripod attached. Or auto-adjust ISO.
- Lenses sharp at the edges as well as at the centre. A lot of improvement made, but still a lot to cover.

Sure I can do lots of that already, but if the camera does it, then it makes it easier for newbies, leaves the technicalities for the camera makers, and lets photographers concentrate on the pictures....


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> What I've not married up Jon, and maybe you have, is I use light to focus the viewer in pictures. If there's too much range in the shot, is there not a chance that it impacts the effectiveness of the shot? Some increase in DR, good. Too much ie 20 stops? Not so sure.




I'm not sure what your getting at... I don't see how more dynamic range could ever be a problem. Certainly not for focusing. Hell, if you had 20 stops, and an in-camera stretching function, you could lift the shadows by orders of magnitude to check focus there as well. Or pull down ultra bright highlights and check focus there. How could that possibly be bad?


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > What I've not married up Jon, and maybe you have, is I use light to focus the viewer in pictures. If there's too much range in the shot, is there not a chance that it impacts the effectiveness of the shot? Some increase in DR, good. Too much ie 20 stops? Not so sure.
> ...



Focusing the viewer. The eye is naturally drawn to bright elements in a picture, so too much DR is not perhaps always a good thing. Having elements of the picture without too much detail means the eye ignores it and focuses on where you want them to....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Focusing the viewer. The eye is naturally drawn to bright elements in a picture, so too much DR is not perhaps always a good thing. Having elements of the picture without too much detail means the eye ignores it and focuses on where you want them to....



In most images we view, we only see 5-10 stops (depending on medium). If you have 20 in the bag, you can creatively choose which to display. Start with more to end with less, since the opposite isn't possible.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

SoullessPolack said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > scottkinfw said:
> ...



Soulless, how about you stop suppressing and oppressing people's right to free speech and their own personal opinions? Hmm? This forum is truly crazy in the way it allows one particular group of members to suppress the opinions and statements of other groups and individuals.

I think the demands that people stop expressing their opinions or personal preferences or what they would like to see Canon do needs to stop. Seriously. They are OPINIONS!!

Soulless, you state that other people should stop asking Canon to stop focusing on megapixels, and focus more on the things they need. You berate them and dive right into demanding that Canon continue focusing on megapixels because it's what you personally need because you personally print large...then you make demands and insist that everyone else suppress their opinions. Hypocrite much?? Seriously. Your attempts to stop people from expressing their own opinions is simply a form of oppressing free speech. When the hell did that become acceptable? An entire country was born out of the desire to get out from underneath the thumb of oppressors such as yourself...civil wars were fought to beat back that thumb when it reached out to crush people once again. So why not knock off your own oppression and suppression of other people's opinions? People here are tired of it, from you and everyone else who does it.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 11, 2015)

An EVF that looks as good as an optical finder. That could be the death of the slr. But we're still quite a ways away to my eye.


----------



## reczey (Feb 11, 2015)

*The next breakthrough will be a 5D X with only 12 MP, with large pixel size and excellent low light (high ISO) performance... With dual DIGIC 6 it could have 20 FPS and high (13EV) dynamic range... *


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Focusing the viewer. The eye is naturally drawn to bright elements in a picture, so too much DR is not perhaps always a good thing. Having elements of the picture without too much detail means the eye ignores it and focuses on where you want them to....
> ...



Ah, if I can chose that at the time of taking the picture then great. And I get having the added flexibility. But doing that post-processing? Hmmm...

Surely the same is for video (as is more is not always better). And with video then reducing it post-processing is more complex ?

And finally, how many screens and printers have a DR of 20 stops?


----------



## nvsravank (Feb 11, 2015)

What is already there (maybe not in canon cameras) that i need in a 5D III style Full Frame Body / Price
- AF point based exposure
- Wider/denser coverage for the AF points and all cross type (like the 7D Mark II). Wider and Denser can both be achieved through more AF points.
- Touch based focus point selection (ala smartphone) for Live view picture taking.
- AF screen that can work better for manual focus without live view. Maybe a zoom in the top assembly like is available in the angle converter - cant figure why nobody asks for that!
- Built in variable ND filter (It is in the higher end Cine style cameras today)
- use only central area for video and reduce read out time to allow for 240 or higher frequency slow motion video.
- Global electronic shutter
- Cleaner shadows.
- 70-200 F 2.8 IS Zoom with an inbuilt 1.4x converter that can be switched.
- Larger buffer
- Dual card slots of the same type (I hate this CF and SD combination and have stopped using it altogether)

What is not there but would like
- Exposure based on where the face is. The system tracks faces for AF but does not use it for exposure measurements
- 2 Stop reduction in noise levels so that i can get ISO 6400 at the same noise quality as ISO 1600.
- Automatic focus stacking using autofocus mechanism.
- Lytro style focus shifting capability using DSLR level mega pixels. (I find 4 MP too low for my taste)
- More T/S Lens which can be used in AF mode. Why i cant i pick two AF points and the camera drives the tilt angle and tilt amount to get it right. This is similar to the ADEP mode but with the drive to the T/S lens that is electronically controlled for tilt angle and tilt amount. Or identify two edges and drive the tilt to make those edges parallel automatically. I think shift can stay manual as is.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Ah, if I can chose that at the time of taking the picture then great. And I get having the added flexibility. But doing that post-processing? Hmmm...



Tonemapping is part-and-parcel to image processing, whether the camera does it automatically (JPEG conversion), or whether a RAW editor does it (could be manual or automatic).


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...




I think you are just misunderstanding what DR is, and why it's valuable. It's not about printing an image with 20 stops. It's about having the cleanest, most accurate data possible out of the camera, so that you do no have limitations when you do process the image. 

Noise is just useless information. It reduces how much of the numeric space we are representing the original analog signal in that we can use. That's it. More electronic noise == less usable data. 

Remember, DR is just a way of describing a ratio. FWC/RN. That's all we are talking about here. Maximum Allowed Signal over Noise. DR is different than SNR, and also different than contrast ratio. You can achieve whatever contrast ratio you want even if you have 20 stops of DR (or more)...that's all in the processing (and truly, you don't want that much DR in an image? All you need is a tight contrast curve, and your done.  ). More DR simply means that you start out with better data when you begin processing...that's all. 


Also remember that noise contributors are additive. The noise contributors add together, then the square root is taken, to get the total noise:


```
DR = MaxSignal / SQRT(DarkCurrent + RN^2)
```

In most daytime photography, dark current is negligible. It might account for an electron or two, which results in 1-1.4e- additional noise at most. That makes read noise and photon shot noise the primary contributors to noise in most daytime photography.

The total noise is added to the signal. So, if you have a maximum signal of 30,000e-, 13e- RN, and 2e- dark current:


```
DR = 30000/SQRT(2 + 13^2) = 30000/SQRT(171) = 30000/13.077 = 2294.16:1
```

I am showing the raw ratio here rather than decibels or stops, as it gives us an important bit of information. Tonality. The number of discrete tonal levels that can actually be discerned in a file with 13.077e- noise is 2294. That is barely more than 11 bits worth of information, barely more than 11 stops. That tonality could be easily represented by a 12-bit file. You wouldn't lose anything with a 12-bit ADC.

Now, let's say we had a 30ke- FWC and 3e- read noise:


```
DR = [SIZE=2px]30000[/SIZE]/SQRT(2+3^2) = [SIZE=2px]30000[/SIZE]/SQRT(11) = [SIZE=2px]30000[/SIZE]/3.317 = 9044.317:1
```

Just with the reduction in noise, tonality has increased by a factor of four. We now have 13.2 stops of DR, and definitely need 14 bits to represent this number of discretely discernible tones. What if we double the FWC:


```
DR = 60000/SQRT(2+3^2) = 60000/SQRT(11) = 60000/3.317 = 18088.634:1.
```

Double the tonality, and we have 14.2 stops of DR. We need 15 bits to represent this number of discretely discernible tones. 


If we wanted to get that same tonality without increasing FWC (which generally requires larger pixels), then the only other option is to reduce noise even further. Let's say we reduce dark current to the point where we get only 1e-, and reduce our read noise to 1.32e-, with a 30ke- FWC:


```
DR = 30000/SQRT(1+1.32^2) = 30000/SQRT(2.74) = 30000/1.66 = 18072.29:1
```

We are just talking about pure, raw, unadulterated numbers here. ;P There isn't a lot that's special to dynamic range. It's a ratio that ultimately determines how many discrete tonal levels we can discern within our data. Because noise is added to the signal, it eats up the least significant bits, basically rendering them useless. It's effectively the same as using fewer bits. Because of the way gain works, increasing bit depth when the system generates a certain amount of noise does not actually increase tonality. If you lose one LSB with a 12-bit ADC, you'll lose two with a 14-bit ADC, four with a 16-bit ADC. You don't actually gain anything by increasing bit depth unless you also reduce noise. When you do reduce noise, as you can see, you make more effective use of the number space required to represent the given tonality as represented by a direct DR calculation like those above. 


What would we need to get 20 stops out of a 30ke- FWC? We would need total electronic noise (read noise and dark current noise) to be 0.03e-:


```
DR = 30000/0.03 = 1000000:1 == 20 * log(1000000) / 6 = 120dB / 6 db/stp = 20 stops
```

If we had 20 stops of DR in a camera like the 5Ds, all that really means is that it basically has no electronic noise. It would mean we get a pure signal out of the camera. That signal would have photon shot noise (which would still limit tonality by limiting SNR), but it wouldn't be limited by electronic noise.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 11, 2015)

Hey look, jrista !

This has been made especially for you !


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > For me the next breakthrough will be a 100 Megapixel camera (or 200, anywhere up to 500 is good).
> ...



sorry, I was mixing formats and actually talking about the 44 by 33 millimeter sensors that you mentioned.

At wost Full Frame is 2.58x bigger than the Canon APS-C sensor, and 44×33 is at best 1.7x bigger than Full Frame.
I call that incremental.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Maybe I am indeed getting confused. The Dynamic Range of a scene is surely the difference between the lightest and darkest point. The DR of a sensor would then be it's ability to capture the scene as close to the live scene as possible. Noise in the camera's various systems as you describe limit the sensors' ability to capture it completely. Remove those limitations, and I may sometimes end up with more DR than I desire (I have to reduce post-capture).

And that's what your maths is demonstrating, how you can improve the tonal ranges you can record through the ability to capture more photons, or have less noise. All good, thank you for taking the effort.

But if I don't need 16 stops, let alone 20, and my sensor can capture say 15 - and thus the tonal range required, then I'm not sure I appreciate why I need the other 5?


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...




Ok, I can understand that a little better. I still think gathering 170% more light is meaningful, but it certainly isn't as big as gathering several hundred percent more light with something more like 6x4.5cm size. 


Even with a 44x33mm sensor, though, the optics are going to become significantly more expensive if you want corner to corner performance. I think that is where the major value in 35mm format is...you can get excellent optics at relatively reasonable prices. The larger the sensor gets, finding excellent optics at even relatively reasonable prices, let alone affordable prices, becomes exponentially more difficult. 


If you have the funds for medium format, I say go for it. There are some excellent and "relatively affordable" options out there right now. It wouldn't be any different than Canon doing it, since Canon would need a new mount anyway.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Maybe I am indeed getting confused. The Dynamic Range of a scene is surely the difference between the lightest and darkest point. The DR of a sensor would then be it's ability to capture the scene as close to the live scene as possible. Noise in the camera's various systems as you describe limit the sensors' ability to capture it completely. Remove those limitations, and I may sometimes end up with more DR than I desire (I have to reduce post-capture).
> 
> And that's what your maths is demonstrating, how you can improve the tonal ranges you can record through the ability to capture more photons, or have less noise. All good, thank you for taking the effort.
> 
> But if I don't need 16 stops, let alone 20, and my sensor can capture say 15 - and thus the tonal range required, then I'm not sure I appreciate why I need the other 5?




Well, now your getting into personal need. I honestly cannot speak to that.  


In a scene, dynamic range is the range of tone from brightest to darkest. In hardware, dynamic range is the range of tone from the brightest that can be captured before clipping, to the amount of read noise in an image entirely devoid of light. In a photo, dynamic range is really not a thing...I think it's better to call it contrast ratio or tonality or something like that, since an actual image has a signal to noise ratio. If you don't utilize all of the dynamic range your camera has to offer, you can still have a good S/N. 


As for not needing DR...well, if you don't need it, it's really pretty much as simple as attenuating your contrast curve more. That's all it really takes to discard parts of a signal you do not need or did not use.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



For sure 35 millimeter is never going to go away (whereas APS-C might), but in the landscape and portrait range, large format lenses would not be overly expensive. The cheap ones would probably start at around $1000, but if Canon thinks people are willing to pay $3000 for a nice landscape lens, I don't think the idea is unreasonable.
I just think it makes sense to make a new mount as large as possible, because chances are they're never going to do anything like that ever again. It would be the absolute best of its type that there ever will be, so this isn't the kind of system that comes and goes, the idea is they would be making something that would be built upon for potentially many generations.
The attractiveness of the system is undeniable, the practicality of making it happen (affordably) is the question.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I am indeed getting confused. The Dynamic Range of a scene is surely the difference between the lightest and darkest point. The DR of a sensor would then be it's ability to capture the scene as close to the live scene as possible. Noise in the camera's various systems as you describe limit the sensors' ability to capture it completely. Remove those limitations, and I may sometimes end up with more DR than I desire (I have to reduce post-capture).
> ...



Personal need - lol. It's all about personal need. Does the tech do enough to allow you to portray the scene how you want to. But you and I hope most others know this 

Thanks for taking the time to explain further. I'm with you in the most, and perhaps using DR for the scene and S/N for the sensor might be indeed simpler, but without labouring the point. If portraying a scene, a landscape from your earlier example, I dont necessarily need 16 stops let along 20. That was my point. It's good to have a clean image ie S/N ratio, but just because a scene has 24 stops of range, doesn't mean I as a photographer require a sensor capable of capturing it. And that's what I was trying to say (albeit not as elonquent or succinctly as I should), technology advancement has to have a point. Wasn't the same said about hi-fi devices in the 80s which strived for the lowest THD and ended up being "too clinical / without soul" to some people?

Appreciate that every time I use a grad I'm acknowledging the scene is greater than the sensor. I guess I'm trying to figure out how much more the sensor needs to have. Is it 15 stops (based on using a 3 stop grad on a 12 stop sensor?).

I'd also love to know how much the average person would look at a picture and dismiss it because it _only_ had 12 stops of DR. Clearly a side by side, you'd hope they notice....


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Hey look, jrista !
> 
> This has been made especially for you !




Yeah, that's making some waves on astro forums. It's got significantly more Hydrogen alpha sensitivity than any other DSLR on the market...significantly more than even the 60Da. The long exposure modes are nice as well. 


The price seems out of touch, unless it can also double as a landscape camera, though. An extremely good mono CCD camera with filter wheel and filters is only a couple hundred bucks more.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Surely until they improve materials, the bigger the sensors, the bigger the lenses? APS-C and 4/3 will exist because not everyone wants to carry around that much kit. Bigger lenses are more expensive - all other things being equal.

Mirrorless produces a smaller body, but not necessarily a smaller set of lenses.

Until they come up with "lighter" materials for the optics & and lens itself, or massive improvements in the long range zooms (the xx-xxx type), then I figure I'll still be carrying 4 or 5 lenses with a couple of bodies and a tripod, or for wildlife less lenses but even heavier. And for me, that weight in addition to the cost is probably the deal breaker.

Ironically, Michael Richman over at LuLu has been downsizing for years - lighter is better, which based on him not being a young man makes sense. And then he takes the 645Z and does a bit of a u-turn. I think Pentax has got it pretty good in terms of pricing and specs. 3 years ago, at that price, I would have been tempted. I still am. Just wrestling with the notion of heavier and therefore less. Which may be no bad thing...


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Hey look, jrista !
> ...



Can't you just add a filter to block out those wavelengths which it's allowing? I thought it was the same sensor, different filter in front? You just want to block some of those wavelengths for normal landscape, and allow them for astro?


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> I'd also love to know how much the average person would look at a picture and dismiss it because it only had 12 stops of DR. Clearly a side by side, you'd hope they notice....]




I figure I'll address this question first. Personally, I think about DR entirely differently than this...however, it seems that this is more how most people think about it. To put it simply, the answer is: no one. A little more complex than that: some people (mostly other photographers.  )


That said, having more DR isn't about what the user who sees your final, processed image things. At least as far as I see it, having more DR is about making your life as a photographer easier, simpler, with less work. You already know one case for how that works: you could stop using GNDs!  


I use GND filters myself...but I have a hard time with them. Not because they are hard to use, but because of how they are limited in the ways they can manage contrast in a scene. For one, they have a flat gradient, and as such, they only work best when you have a flat horizon. Say, a sunset photo on a beach, with a clear sky. THAT would basically be THE epitomy of ideal use case for a GND. The moment you add clouds...or have that nice big rock out a short ways from shore, or are photographing mountains with a deep valley between them, or are photographing a forest with an uneven boundary with the sky, etc....then the use of a GND filter breaks down. You end up having to make additional compromises, you either end up lightening the use of the GND, and thus are still DR-limited, or you heighten the use of the GND, and suffer funky dark shading across the top of your image (you've seen those landscape photos where the mountain peaks fade into pitch black at the top, silhouetted against a bright orange or pink sky...ugh.) 


You can always do HDR, bracket your shots, blend in post. That also has limitations. Images don't always blend well, sometimes you have ghosting artifacts that are impossible to correct properly, some have funky artifacts in the shadows. HDR is less applicable when there is movement within the scene. HDR is also still additional work. Sometimes HDR is the only option, and even when you have high DR thanks to low read noise, if you still have a limited FWC, you might still need to use HDR anyway (because photon shot noise will still dominate the shadows.) 


More dynamic range, the way I see it, is all about simplifying life for the photographer. Your viewers may not know the difference in the end...but you will know the difference, because the journey from point a (taking the photo) to point b (sharing the photo online/printing the photo) was quite different...simpler, faster, more efficient, more enjoyable, even?



Stu_bert said:


> Thanks for taking the time to explain further. I'm with you in the most, and perhaps using DR for the scene and S/N for the sensor might be indeed simpler, but without labouring the point. If portraying a scene, a landscape from your earlier example, I dont necessarily need 16 stops let along 20. That was my point. It's good to have a clean image ie S/N ratio, but just because a scene has 24 stops of range, doesn't mean I as a photographer require a sensor capable of capturing it. And that's what I was trying to say (albeit not as elonquent or succinctly as I should), technology advancement has to have a point. Wasn't the same said about hi-fi devices in the 80s which strived for the lowest THD and ended up being "too clinical / without soul" to some people?
> 
> Appreciate that every time I use a grad I'm acknowledging the scene is greater than the sensor. I guess I'm trying to figure out how much more the sensor needs to have. Is it 15 stops (based on using a 3 stop grad on a 12 stop sensor?).




There are a couple things here. First, no one would always need 16 stops of DR every time they took a photo. There are often times when I don't even need the 10.97 stops of DR my 5D III has...say when I am photographing a misty landscape under and overcast sky. Heh, I probably need a mere 6 stops tops for such scenes. Conversely, I could easily use several more stops of DR than I usually have when photographing wildlife in certain ways at certain times of day. Most of my birds and wildlife are shot head-on, light almost directly behind me, fully illuminating the subject. That leads to very flat contrast. It's easy to to get great photos up to as high as ISO 12800 that way, because DR is low...but, such photos are not really the most flattering or best. A lot of the time I would prefer to get at a more interesting angle to my subject...but doing so rapidly increases contrast between the shaded side of the subject and the illuminated side. My DR needs can jump several stops with only a few degrees change in angles between me, my subject, and the sun. 


I do believe it is entirely appropriate to say that a camera has dynamic range. I was saying before that _images _don't really have DR...they have a contrast ratio. The camera, though, does have dynamic range, as it has a maximum allowed signal and a relatively fixed amount of electronic noise. So, scenes and cameras have dynamic range...images have contrast. One might be able to make the argument that a RAW image has dynamic range...I guess what I'm getting at is once the image signal in the sensor is digitized, you are locked into what you have, and can no longer get any more out of what _the camera_ may have to offer (i.e. you couldn't overexpose, without clipping the highlights, more than you did to preserve more shadow detail...once you have the RAW, you can lift the shadows, recover the highlights...but they are what they are, they have the noise they have, you cannot change that.)


My question is...if you periodically DO need (or, maybe less controversially...periodically "could make full use of") 15 or 16 stops of DR, would you settle for a camera that had only 12?


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 11, 2015)

Ah... I'm not sure the question is as simple as you pose it

Would I like more DR? Sure. Would I like sharper lenses? Sure. Across the frame? Yes please. I care about corners as much as the centre as my subject isn't always there. Would I want Canon to invest heavily in this and less in other areas? Would I want DR and Canon to go under in 5 years?

The camera makers haven't figured out where the bottom of the market is for them and therefore what their financial position is going to be next year, let alone 5 years, which is probably how long a return on investment would be for a new sensor fab. Finance people tend to control companies more in a declining market, and Japanese tech companies are more cautious. Even Sony, but it is clearly deriving a lot of money from sensors not just in the photo industry. I would also guess they never had a 500nm fab...

Nikon would not be where they are without Sony tech. Nor would Pentax who I believe use them. That to me suggests the cost for Nikon to design and deliver a new sensor with a new fab was too much for them. And Nikon has less headroom financially than Canon.

Where am I going with this?

Canon talk most to Pro photographers. I reason that the average Pro would like to edit pictures quicker, but as long as they can produce something which sells, then DR isn't burning for them. As in sufficient for them to jump ship. That's for landscapes through to wedding photographers. And that's why I asked you about the average user noticing Jon. Not to catch you out, I also agree with you. It's funny, I would guess more Pro's jumped ship from Canon during the 1D/1Ds MK III AF debacle than over DR. And I'm not sure that's going to change significantly more with the new release.

Canon aren't about to make the change as they dont perceive it's important enough vs the risk of investing the cost. And I would guess they aren't seeing enough churn. Maybe the 5Ds / MK IV / 1x2 will change that. I just dont think it's (DR gap) is compelling enough.

As you stated, and I agree, a decent number of scenes dont need more than >12 stops. As an aside, yup, agree about filters, but most end-users wouldnt notice.

So it comes back to what you want a camera to do for you, what are you doing with the images you produce, and is that aligned enough to the other consumers of Canon gear (Pro & Am). If you sell, then DR is broadly only an efficiency thing.

You're one of the few people who explain why and what you want it for, which I respect. I'm just not sure this is the place for you to influence Canon more, which is ultimately what more people have to do. If it becomes the #1 thing for everyone, and that gets back to Canon, well they might change (if the finance is right, and they fear losing more to Sonikon).

If it's not, then that's not a reason for you and I not to want it, and request it, but it doesn't become the be-all....


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

I totally understand what you are saying. Here are some of the things I do know.

_1. Canon themselves have blamed part of the decline in DSLR sales on lagging technological improvements_
_2. A couple years ago financials from Nikon indicated that they had gained a significant amount of DSLR growth thanks to their improved technology (can't say what technology specifically, the documents don't say), in significant part due to the D600 and D800 as well as some of their mirrorless cameras (the latter seems to have fallen off, honestly not sure about the others as there have not been more recent financial reports that state similar information)_
_3. Canon already has a 180nm fab, so they would not need to invest in a new one_

Given the above, particularly given #3, why would Canon "go under" in five years by working on improving their dynamic range? It's even simpler than that. Canon already has patents for many of the same kinds of technology that Sony used to improve DR in their Exmor sensors. The big one was going to CP-ADC, but Sony also upsells their digital CDS as well. At the very least, since Canon already has a newer and more advanced fab (this very low cost to just start using it), and since they already have patents for the kinds of technology that would improve dynamic range, the cost barrier seems very low, for the gains it could provide. 


As you can see with the math, reductions in read noise are the best way to rapidly gain more DR. Increases in FWC can help as well, but that is a lot more physics-bound...small pixels have small capacities unless you do something much more drastic (like embed CCDs into each pixel that can expand the charge capacity, called multibucketing...but that requires smaller transistors, too! )


When the D800 came out, Nikon benefited from it, according to their financial papers from the following fiscal cycle. Canon openly acknowledged that lagging technological advancements (generally speaking, they did not call out sensors specifically, but sensors are a key technology area in digital imaging) was a part of their growth problem. If Nikon, a much smaller company with more schizophrenic marketing and model naming (well...I donno about the marketing...Canon has had some STRANGE marketing lately.... ), could make gains of 45% in a single fiscal cycle thanks in significant part to the D600 and D800...why couldn't Canon, a company that has a history of excellent execution?



Something else I know:

_4. Sony is making big waves in many markets._

I used to be snugly engulfed in bird and wildlife photography. Lot of photographers there are long-time Canon users, and there is solid brand loyalty. That said, I have been seeing an increasing number of bird photographers using the D800. For certain kinds of birds...say chickadees, or common loons...birds with extremely high color contrast (deep black and bright white all on the same bird, as the case with these two), the D800 up through ISO 400 performs significantly better than the 5D III or 1D X. I was amazed at the quality of some ISO 200 Loon images from one particular professional bird photographer...very fine detail in both the bright white feathers as well as the deep black feathers on the shaded side of the bird. The lighting on the bird was more "non-standard" in that it wasn't lit broadside like usual...the light came more from the side, and the bird was angled towards the photographer...very difficult situation which usually blows the DR limit of a 5D III or 1D X.

I am now also engulfed in the astrophotography world. The D810, D810a, A7s and A7II are all making big waves in the astrophotography world lately. I'm friends with a modder, a guy who opens up these cameras (well, Sony and Canon cameras) and mods them for higher hydrogen alpha sensitivity. He has been modding A7s and A7IIs lately, and he routinely remarks about the higher build quality of the Sony cameras vs. Canon cameras, their tighter construction. Feature-wise that doesn't say anything...there are still some functional limitations on the A7 series of cameras that don't compete with Canon cameras...but it is very interesting to me the comments he makes about the superior build construction and quality of the innards of Sony cameras vs. Canon cameras (and he's taking those things apart, modding them, and rebuilding them all the time, it's one of his businesses, how he makes part of his living.) 

The D800 and D810 have been regularly demonstrated to produce much lower noise across the board, even at higher ISO, than the 5D III and 6D. This is largely thanks to lower dark current, but many users are shooting at wider fields, and using lower ISOs like 200, where they also have lower read noise. Nikon cameras have much better color discernment than Canon cameras, and also have higher natural Ha sensitivity, and tend to produce more richly colored subs right out of the camera. 

Old, used Canon Rebels used to be THE go-to camera for beginner astrophotographers. That paradigm, which has been in place for near a decade, is rapidly shifting. The D5100, 5200, and particularly the D5300 have become the new darlings of the novice. They can be picked up for similar used prices as Canon Rebels, but they have significantly lower dark current (for all except the 7D II), have very low read noise (the D5200 in particular, as it uses the Toshiba sensor and has some of the lowest high ISO dark current I've ever seen), and have absolutely no banding or blotchiness of any kind.

I know this is all anecdotes...but, it's things I've observed. I've been observing little things like this for years now. The trend keeps spreading as the years go on. I used to recommend Canon Rebels or DSLRs in general for new astrophotographers, as Canon used to take the cake on signal linearity. Today, Nikon and Sony cameras are significantly more linear. Nikon has even stopped using black point clipping in their newest models, and are now using a small bias offset of 600 natively. The Exmor sensors had very good linearity to start, but both Nikon and Sony were black point clipping. Removal of the black point clipping results in even better linearity, and consistent linearity across ISO settings (something that Canon is actually fairly poor at...there are one or two thresholds where increasing Canon ISO results in key changes in signal linearity in Canon cameras, probably due to the secondary amplifier kicking in.)

Bill Claff recently generated new plots on his charts from some Samsung NX1 data. The NX1 has some of the best linearity I've ever seen, besting even the D810. The NX1 has one of the most advanced sensors on the market, and is the first APS-C camera to get a BSI sensor design. It's got an extremely compelling featureset that directly competes with the 7D II (and the key features have nothing to do with DR)...Canon may well be losing a 7D II sale to me, as I am pretty sure I'll go with an NX1 instead.

I notice these things as I continue expanding my knowledge of photography and cameras. I also notice that I'm not the only one noticing them. I hear a lot more in recent months people questioning why Canon does the things they do. Those questions are even more significant when they come from modders who are actually in the guts of these cameras on a regular basis, seeing the differences in design and construction. 

I think Canon is right in their assessment that lax technological improvement has, in part, hurt sales. It's certainly making me hold back, consider other options. It's also certainly made me recommend cameras from different brands.

Has any of this impacted Canon's bottom line? Well, tough to say. I do know that I've recommended the D5100 or D5300 to many new astrophotographers who took the advice. I would say those are at least some sales that at the very least did not go to Canon (not sure that's a "lost" sale to Canon...but Canon did not get the sale.) I know a number of skilled astrophotographers who rave about the D800/810 for anyone looking to buy a 6D...bit of a price dichotomy, but the D600 is just as good, and priced much more like the 6D (and that's often my recommendation, for them to get the D600 instead.) Not everyone takes that advice, the 6D is one of the best astro cameras Canon currently offers, but some people do indeed take it. More sales that Canon did not get.

How long does it take for such small changes in purchasing decisions to become a big trend? I dunno, but Canon has seen falling DSLR sales. Too bad we can't get information about WHY each manufacturer is seeing falling sales... ;P What about Canon's mirrorless offerings? They repeatedly pale in comparison to the big players in that segment...such as Panasonic and Sony. Sony's A7 line is quite new to that market, but is still more highly regarded by far than any EOS-M option. The A7 series even made digital-converts out of many die hard large format film landscape photographers, the ones who said they would never, ever give up their Velvia 50 4x5. That's really saying something...

I can't say that Canon is "in fact" _losing_ sales to the competition because they don't have more DR. What I can say is that I see people questioning what Canon is doing with their cameras, and I see many of them (a growing majority, even?) ultimately buying non-Canon. It isn't just a handful of pain in the ass nutcases here on CR bitching about Canon...people are actually making purchasing decisions based on information from people like myself, like my camera-modding friend Mike, etc. and most of that information is based on the core, fundamental technology. In the astro world, basically the only piece of technology that matters is the sensor, and how it's read out...which makes sensor technology the key deciding factor for many discerning astrophotographers (which, BTW, is a growth market. )


----------



## Alejandro (Feb 12, 2015)

You'd need to ask: What they can and can't improve.

I mean, you do have the 1DX, 5D3 and 6D to replace. ¿How are they going to do that and leave enough space to consider one from the other? (And not kill the 5ds, 5dr, 7D2 and current dslr).

On the 1DX you do have 10/12/14 fps with dual cf card, high iso performance and a body that would endure hell and heaven. 

So, to improve the 1DX you'd have to: Get a better frame rate (which i don't believe this global shutter will feature 30 fps, it's too much and cf/sd cards won't handle it, unless you get), better raw/jpeg buffer, a crop mode (x1.3, x1.6), and those small features people have been asking on the 1dx.


The 5D4 (which i think it'll be announced on 2k16, since the 5DS is around) needs to make a jump good enough to justify it over a used 1DX, a used 5Ds, a cheapo 6D and cheapo 5D3.
So, better iso performance, better DR, not that much frame rate because it'll kill the 7D2, ¿2k/4k video?, small software features (intervalometer, hdr, etc).


And then the 6D, the one i believe will get replaced this year (¿October perhaps?), the cheapest full frame ever.
I do believe they will add 1/8000 shutter, dual sd cards, outstanding iso performance (perhaps a tiny bit worst than the 5D4 this time), and more focus points.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2015)

There is something I've said a lot, and somehow it doesn't seem to sink in. That's ok, I'm probably just not explaining it well enough. But here goes again:


*Noise affects the entire signal.*

When people hear read noise, they first think: shadows. Sure, read noise has the most significant impact on the shadows, but the shadows are not the only thing it impacts. The midtones are impacted as well. The tones halfway between an 18% gray midtone and the shadows are affected. The highlights are affected. Every single tonal level in the image is affected. It isn't just the shadows. I'll see if I can create a graphic to demonstrate, maybe that will explain better than words can (they do say a picture is the embodiment of 1000 words...)


So, for a camera like the 1D X, with over *38e-* read noise at ISO 100...could it's image quality be improved? Are we assuming that just because the 1D X has big pixels and a big FWC that it is already delivering the best IQ possible? 


The 1D X has an FWC around 91ke-. With 38e- read noise, it's got around 11.26 stops of dynamic range. What happens if Canon could reduce that read noise to 3e-? Dynamic range jumps to 14.94 stops. FOURTEEN POINT NINE FOUR STOPS. 


Ever looked at the OOF background blur of a bird photo taken with the 1D X? A wildlife image? Ever looked at the boke in a macro photo taken with the 1D X? Ever compared that background with the background of similar photos taken with the D800? Big difference....especially on a normalized basis. HUGE difference on a normalized basis. Creamy smooth, clean, practically noise-free OOF backgrounds from the D800, D810, D600, D750, A7r, A7s, etc. But even the mighty 1D X has visible noise in OOF backgrounds...


I don't deny that there are a lot of other things Canon could improve. I look at it this way, though. Canon has no problem with their AF system. Their AF systems are awesome...well designed, highly capable, top of the line in terms of frame coverage, very fast, and now meter-linked which allows even more advanced features. Canon has no problem with their metering. It's now (in the models that matter) a full color RGB meter with high resolution sensor, and advanced algorithms are hooked into the metering subsystem to enhance it's effectiveness. Canon has no problem with their ergonomics, nor their button placements (they are sublime, if I do say so myself!) Canon has few problems with their lenses (wide angles suffered a bit in the past, but Canon certainly seems to be remedying that problem.) Canon now currently holds the title for highest resolution camera...certainly no problems there. 


Could canon make improvements in those areas? Probably...they have, even. The 7D II increased the resolution of the iTR meter sensor. It also expanded the AF point count a little bit above and beyond even the great 1D X. But, how much do those improvements actually matter? Outside of a tiny bit of jitter in a couple cases, I've never even had problems with my 5D III AF/meter system, and it doesn't even have the iTR system. The biggest focus issue I have is that the lens hunts forward first, rather than outward first, when I try to photograph BIF (would love to have a little switch on the lens for that, but that's a small thing.) 


The single biggest gain for Canon, given that they already excel in every other area, would be to address the one area they don't excel at: read noise. Change that one thing, and the 1D X could skyrocket from delivering a mediocre 11.26 stops of DR, to delivering 14.94 stops of DR. Bam. Suddenly they actually have a NEED for a 16-bit ADC, because they can actually use the bit depth offered by it. Suddenly they rocket forward as the premier camera model with the highest dynamic range...but not only that, it's also paired with all the other excellent technology I just mentioned above. Who could possibly complain about that! 


I see Canon as having one single weak area. As far as I am concerned, they don't NEED to "fix" anything else, because nothing else is broken. Canon needs to improve their read noise issues, though...because, well at least in my own personal opinion, it's the one single thing that Canon really sucks at. ;D


----------



## heptagon (Feb 12, 2015)

Alejandro said:


> So, better iso performance, better DR, not that much frame rate because it'll kill the 7D2



The 7D2 is in another market segment at a lower price. Canon would be happy if the expensive 5D4 kills the cheap 7D2.

The problem would be the 1DX or 1DX2. Their sales might suffer if the 5D4 is too good in the same categories.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 12, 2015)

50MP is an evolution not really a breakthrough. It's 8K vs 7K lines. If you had say, gone 80-100MP then maybe that could be called a breakthrough. As it stands, it is just a scaled up APS-C pixel pitch density from years ago.

you want a breakthrough, here are some ideas:

-15 stops of DR, or 16 or maybe even higher DR at higher ISOs to avoid the DR nosedive at high ISOs.
-single exposure HDR by taking a high MP sensor and reading it at variable ISO per line similar to what magic lantern was playing with
-a non bayer sensor of the likes of foveon
-full readout high MP 4K video sensor. do away with pixel bins, line skipping nonsense
-a real bump in pixel pitch density. APS-C should logically go to ~40 and full frame to ~70. THAT's a breakthrough
-really, really low ISO base. I'm talking 16 or so enabling high aperture lenses with sync speeds of 1/250 under the full sun.
-while we talk sync speed, how about a new shutter, or electronic shutter that is as good as current shutters but has a sync speed of 1/8000, THAT'S a breakthrough.
-Medium format 

so on. Sorry but 50MP is just keep up. It's the next step and it was predicted long ago that it was going to happen. A breakthrough changes everything. 50MP won't. In fact I'm going to predict that a consumer friendly 80-100MP camera will show up in less than a year just because the technology is there already and higher pixel densities have been around for a long long time.


----------



## DavidD (Feb 12, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Let's play nice and recognize that people have different opinions.


Thank you.


----------



## pwp (Feb 12, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> What's next for Canon Cameras?
> I am just wondering what people's ideas are of where the future lies in terms of camera technology.


There have been some great viewpoints and features postulated over the past six pages for the direction of future Canon cameras. Over the next decade and beyond, we'll see plenty of incremental evolution and the occasional revolution with the introduction of features not yet invented.

What we have seen over the past few 1-Series & 5D-series updates is size creep. As Canon seek to pack in more functions and features, the bodies have bulked up. I'd like to see some size and weight reduction in future bodies. Personally I would leap at a 1-series level mirrorless body with a supreme EVF. Fast forward a decade and we'll be looking back at the old days when camera bodies actually had mirrors slapping around inside them. How primitive!

-pw


----------



## Redder (Feb 13, 2015)

Breakthrough?

How about make it like the F-1 camera years ago - with exchangeable viewfinders and exchangeable backs, for the photographer to choose between optical and electronic viewfinder, various sensors for low light or extreme high resolution...


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 13, 2015)

How about a _modern_ 50mm f/1.4 auto-focus lens that doesn't have auto-focus issues and isn't as large as an 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4???


----------



## dolina (Feb 13, 2015)

I want a camera that does not need me to operate anymore.

Something akin to a self-driving car.

So when someone says "you have a nice camera" then it becomes a real complement rather than an insult.


----------



## leica_f32 (Feb 13, 2015)

Redder said:


> Breakthrough?
> 
> How about make it like the F-1 camera years ago - with exchangeable viewfinders and exchangeable backs, for the photographer to choose between optical and electronic viewfinder, various sensors for low light or extreme high resolution...



This and the option of a reduced size EOS-3 AF prism to further automate the process.


----------



## Click (Feb 13, 2015)

LOL ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 13, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJBq0z2Vmu4
> 
> ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :'( :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :'( :'(   :'(    ;D ;D ;D ;D :'( :'(     :'( :-\ :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D



;D Great stuff. Reminds me of this video:

http://youtu.be/tnwf2RShNV0

My oh my how much things have changed in the last six years  Gotta love competition


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 13, 2015)

V8Beast said:


> http://youtu.be/tnwf2RShNV0



"Hitler rants about D3x"? In Germany: "This video is not available. Sorry about that." ... btw even selling Hitler's moronic book "Mein Kampf" is still verboten over here, you never know, 60 years of democracy might not have been enough, so don't let's take chances 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJBq0z2Vmu4



That's a very good one, you know actual (former?) Canon users made it :->

*DISCLAIMER*: Canon fanbois, do not watch this video!


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > http://youtu.be/tnwf2RShNV0
> ...



Wow, it's interesting that an innocuous video like that is banned. It's all in good fun, so I don't see the harm.

BTW, you speak (or type) better English than most Americans ;D


----------



## Aglet (Feb 15, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > http://youtu.be/tnwf2RShNV0
> ...



That was good for a good laugh, thanks guys.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 17, 2015)

I saw this at EOS HD and seemed funny enough for here. sorry if repost but I think this should be their next breakthrough


----------

