# 5D4 @ 30 MP X 7 fps --> enough upside from the 5DS for you?



## ahsanford (Aug 11, 2016)

If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.

That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:

1DX2 = 20.2 MP x 16 fps = 323.2 MP/s*
5DS = 50 x 5 = 250 MP/s
5D4 = 30 x 7 = 210 MP/s
7D2 = 20.2 MP x 10 fps = 202 MP/s

One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.

Agree/disagree?

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 11, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> 
> That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:
> 
> ...



I'm surprised by the 7fps.
I expected at least 8fps.


----------



## Talley (Aug 11, 2016)

would of loved 8 but we all know that 7 was the highest they would go... gives enough reason to justify a 7D2 or 1DxII


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 11, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> 
> That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:
> 
> ...


Agree. Will be a deal breaker for me? Not in itself. And the 5DIV has some other nice features. 

However, this puts a premium on the 5DIV's high iso quality as fps is no real reason to supplement the 5DSR with a 5DIV for me. YMMV.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 11, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> 
> That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:
> 
> ...



I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.

In my opinion, each of the three cameras have their own market niche including personal budgets. 10 FPS with Compact Flash/SD Card slots is a far cry from the 1DX Mark II with 14 FPS in viewfinder mode and 16 fps in live view plus Cfast/CF card slots.

There are all kinds of differences between all three cameras. Many seem to think that FPS between the two FF cameras is the decider.

Personally, if the 5D mark IV and the 1DX Mark II were even on my radar right now (In my budget range) and the Mark IV had 10 fps I'd still get the 1DX mark II.

That's just me.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 11, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.
> 
> ...
> 
> There are all kinds of differences between all three cameras. Many seem to think that FPS between the two FF cameras is the decider.



It's not the decider at all -- it's just another piece of the value proposition. 

But knowing that Canon can absolutely increase the throughput over 30 x 7, one could presume that they are _choosing_ not to do this for some profit-related reason. 


There might be a non-stills-related reason why Canon doesn't put a 2nd DIGIC in the body -- perhaps if some video-centric hardware needs to take the place in which more processing horsepower might reside.


At a certain fps, the shutter / mirror setup gets dramatically more expensive for Canon to build.


We don't know the market research that Canon has. Canon may very well know from extensive market research that 1DX2 sales would legitimately plummet if the 5D4 was (say) 30 MP x 10 fps. You say no to this phenomenon -- and yes, there's a TON more to a 1D rig than fps -- but I think that if you got the fps high enough (say, 10-12 fps), folks will take 90% as good a camera for 55% of the price.

Whatever the reason, 30 x 7 = Canon offering the 5D# community less throughput than the 5DS model from a year ago. That doesn't make sense at face value unless there's a gulf in price between the two.

- A


----------



## Talley (Aug 11, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.
> ...



5Ds has a slower buffer to CF. Glad they kept it to the same total bandwidth as the 7D2... it means faster buffer dump.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 11, 2016)

Talley said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever the reason, 30 x 7 = Canon offering the 5D# community less throughput than the 5DS model from a year ago. That doesn't make sense at face value unless there's a gulf in price between the two.
> ...



Yeah. The throughput of the 5Ds comes at a price - a max burst of only 14 RAWs. Of course, it's not exactly an action camera so that's not too bad. With the 5D4, however, I'm sure Canon wants a bit more buffer depth than that. I'm reminded of a rumor that claimed the 80D would get 8fps but with a shorter burst compared to the 70D - turned out to have just 7fps but with a deeper buffer instead.


----------



## j-nord (Aug 11, 2016)

My very first thought when I saw 30x7 was... could have easily done 8fps maybe 9 and if it were, I'd be much more inclined to upgade to a 5DIV. 

The 7fps on the 5DIV leaves me to believe that the 6Dii will only be 5 or maybe 5.5 at best (6D is 4.5). Now I'm pretty convinced Ill be looking at a used 5DSR or 6Dii for upgrade. 7fps + 30mpix just isn't a compelling enough to justify the significant increase in cost (unless they've included a tilty screen and kept it under the radar... really hope the 6Dii has one).


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But knowing that Canon can absolutely increase the throughput over 30 x 7



actually we do NOT know the reasons behind it yet.

for example;

- the CIPA rating may be quite a bit better from the 5Ds 700 shot CIPA rating.
- canon could be doing 16 bit raw (they hit the limit of 14 bit raw with the 1DX Mark II)

and even though the 1DX can do 14 fps with AF and AE (since we're comparing apples to apples!) - it has three processors. the 5D most likely still remains with two.


and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.

canon's on RECORD as saying it totally supports internal competition and there's no fundamental logic to stat that canon cares if you purchase a 1DX versus a 5D.

as a matter of fact, people claimed that before the 5d mark II came out versus the 1Ds Mark III - what happened there?


----------



## j-nord (Aug 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.
> 
> canon's on RECORD as saying it totally supports internal competition and there's no fundamental logic to stat that canon cares if you purchase a 1DX versus a 5D.
> 
> as a matter of fact, people claimed that before the 5d mark II came out versus the 1Ds Mark III - what happened there?



I agree that I don't think Canon consciously nerfs bodies because they are worried they will sell better, instead its a matter of comfortably hitting a price point. They know they can do w+x+y but if they add z they are going to go over the price point. They build the body to the price/margin point they are trying to reach. Canon could always do more but that means higher prices. This is how product development works, at least for well established companies/markets.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.
> ...



Well, many people in this thread and all over this board think FPS is the decider and place what I think is undue weight on it... including you.  You say below that a higher frame rate on the 5D Mark III could be a threat to 1DX Mark III sales



ahsanford said:


> One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.
> 
> - A



You do it again here and even say that 10 fps would make the 5D IV 90% as good at 55% less in price... just because of shutter speed alone. WHAAAAAAAAATTT?



ahsanford said:


> Canon may very well know from extensive market research that 1DX2 sales would legitimately plummet if the 5D4 was (say) 30 MP x 10 fps. You say no to this phenomenon -- and yes, there's a TON more to a 1D rig than fps -- but I think that if you got the fps high enough (say, 10-12 fps), folks will take 90% as good a camera for 55% of the price.






ahsanford said:


> - A



Then Mr. Talley does it here.



Talley said:


> would of loved 8 but we all know that 7 was the highest they would go... gives enough reason to justify a 7D2 or 1DxII



Then you say this as to the 1D line:



ahsanford said:


> People might want to get over the notion that high FPS is 'why you buy a 1D rig':
> 
> High fps does not define the 1D line, it's just the eye-popping spec everyone dwells on. 1D bodies have a TON of exclusive stuff that has nothing to do with speed and landscape / studio folks would give their left nut for it.
> 
> - A



Then there is this:



ahsanford said:


> At a certain fps, the shutter / mirror setup gets dramatically more expensive for Canon to build.
> 
> - A



Mr. Sanford, how do you know the price for the differing shutter / mirror setup is dramatically more expensive for Canon to build?

Especially after saying this:



ahsanford said:


> So why would one cost more than the other? Do explain, I'm honestly curious -- I'm fairly ignorant of cost & fab considerations.
> 
> - A



Canon makes far more money from the 5D line than the 1D line. I can't prove that. However the sales volume of the 5D line must be far higher than that of the 1D line.

I don't personally do not believe a 10 fps 5D would hurt the 1DX II sales in any appreciable manner. What Canon decides to do is only known to the deciders at Canon.

I am speaking to the idea that the 5D with a faster frame rate would be a threat to the 1DX II. I don't believe it. I also don't understand the undue weight placed on fps between the two.

I rather agree with rrcphoto:



rrcphoto said:


> and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.
> 
> Canon's on RECORD as saying it totally supports internal competition and there's no fundamental logic to stat that Canon cares if you purchase a 1DX versus a 5D.
> 
> As a matter of fact, people claimed that before the 5d mark II came out versus the 1Ds Mark III - what happened there?



Mr. Sanford, you and I both know that there are people all over these boards saying that 10 fps on a 5D III body would kill 1DX II sales. I've seen it scores of times. That is all they dwell on. 

Fact is, the same could be said for the 7D Mark II... except that it would be said it takes sales from the 5D and 1D lines. It may be a choice for birders, but I suspect many of those same people either choose not to spend on a 1DX II because they can't afford it to begin with.

I wonder how many birders with a 1DX would be just as happy with a 7D Mark II? Especially when the mythical "reach advantage" is thrown in.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 12, 2016)

Don't forget silent shutter. For many 5D users (wedding photographers in particular, but others as well) this is far more important than frames per second. I'm still having some adjustment shock from losing the 5D silent shutter with the 1Dx II. There is absolutely nothing silent about that shutter. Keeping the shutter silent in the 5D may limit just how fast the frame rate can be.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.



Respectfully disagree. Folks in the market for a 1D rig that instead opt for a camera that costs half as much is _very bad for Canon_ and -- not shockingly -- Canon gives pricier models more/better/nicer/exclusive features than the cheaper rigs to discourage those sort of purchases. This is fact. (I'm harping on fps in this thread, but it's not just limited to that specification. A 1D rig has a boatload of exclusive goodies that a 5D has never had before.)

For instance, can you tell me why it's 2016 and spot metering at any AF point is still an exclusive feature to the 1D line? ...when Nikon offers it on their Rebel equivalent? _...when most cell phones offer that feature?_ The only reasonable explanation is that Canon has nerfed non-1D rigs to protect 1D sales.

So do various lines 'compete' in some sense at Canon? Absolutely. The 7D2 got anti-flicker before the 1DX2 got it, and the 6D line got -3 EV AF before the 5D line got it. But Canon will _not_ undermine it's priciest / most prestigious rigs to the point that folks will pay 50% of that pricier model for 90% of the functionality. They will engineer a relatively smoothly climbing 'continuum of value' in their portfolio where there are no obvious bargains and there are no clearly overpriced ripoffs.

- A


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 12, 2016)

You'll have to pry my 5D3 from my cold, dead hands!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, many people in this thread and all over this board think FPS is the decider and place what I think is undue weight on it... including you.  You say below that a higher frame rate on the 5D Mark III could be a threat to 1DX Mark III sales
> 
> 
> 
> ...



FPS is just one aspect of a camera's value proposition. You may not give a damn about it. But some person on the fence of going for the 1DX2 because they have a need for crazy high FPS may not care a lick about other 1D goodies, and _a 'budget 1DX2' of a 5D4 clocking in at 10-12 fps might get their money instead.
_
Putting this another way, let's imagine that you had an Canon internal projection of 5D4 vs. 1DX2 sales and you were allowed to play with feature-based Excel sliders to jazz up what the future specs on the 5D4 might be. *If you keep increasing the 5D4 FPS value, eventually you'll find an inflection point at which 1DX2 sales would suffer. * That's common sense, isn't it?

So, no, FPS isn't everything. FPS isn't the only reason to get a 1D rig. But having a clear gap between the 5D line ad 1D line on this feature helps Canon defend its asking price of the 1D line. So does having a gap in metering, having a gap in build quality, having a gap in AF, etc. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> - the CIPA rating may be quite a bit better from the 5Ds 700 shot CIPA rating.



Forget to comment on this. Excellent point. Single DIGIC rigs are leaving some throughput on the table compared to dual DIGIC rigs, but the battery life is clearly better.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 12, 2016)

New models from Canon improve or evolve each area of the cameras performance. Just looking at the number of MP is being short sighted.

The performance of the sensor, communications, autofocus capabilities, video capabilities, Canon tweaks them all to provide a improved product I'm almost every area.

This means that some will see no reason to buy because their desired tweak is not there, but many will buy a product that is upgraded in every area which Canon believes is the best solution that has worked for them in the past.

So, we may see a improved sensor with on chip A-D converter, maybe dual pixel, Wi-Fi, GPS, better autoexposure, better autofocus, a few more MP, better video, you get the point.

If your current camera does the job, unless there is a badly needed new feature, you might skip a model before upgrading. I shoot in very low theatrical lighting, often at ISO 25600, so unless that is substantially better, I'd be inclined to pass. A Good used 1DX can be had cheaply which might be a low light improvement enough for me to switch at little cost.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > - the CIPA rating may be quite a bit better from the 5Ds 700 shot CIPA rating.
> ...



Keep in mind apparently this has all the bells and whistles that suck battery life. Wifi, GPS, NFC, etc.

DPAF is also a CPU / battery life drainer as well.

It could be that to include all they wanted and maintain the heat and power management, FPS and data throughput had to be relaxed.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ... throughput here in comparison:
> 1DX2 = 20.2 MP x 16 fps = 323.2 MP/s*
> 5DS = 50 x 5 = 250 MP/s
> 5D4 = 30 x 7 = 210 MP/s
> ...


I would have preferred some 8 FPS with maybe just 28 or less MP but it is as it is. 
To me both new 5D4 numbers are higher than I mostly needed them. 

And as I stated here before several times I am not the crowd to buy the 5D4 because I don't expect too much improvement in IQ over the 5D3, especially at higher ISO numbers. And the other new features are not important in my buying decision.

One point could be a big IQ improvement in the new 24-105L II and a good discount in the kit with this lens. 
(I still might need a backdoor argument  )


----------



## Eldar (Aug 12, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> New models from Canon improve or evolve each area of the cameras performance. Just looking at the number of MP is being short sighted.
> 
> The performance of the sensor, communications, autofocus capabilities, video capabilities, Canon tweaks them all to provide a improved product I'm almost every area.
> 
> ...


I agree with this. 30MP is a a good improvement from the 5DIII and it should be plenty for the vast majority. If you need more, you go for the 5DSR. In line with what Mt S.P. says, I would prefer other sensor improvements than resolution beyond 30MP. No banding, better noise pattern, improved low light performance, and DR would be much higher on my list than more resolution. 30MP with on-chip ADC could well indicate that this is realistic.

I hope the 7fps, even though that would be enough for me, is not just to limit internal competition, but an indication they have a mirror design that will provide the best silent shutter in the Canon lineup. 

Significant improvements to me would be better manual focus capability (changeable focusing screens or something more advanced), DPAF ala 1DX-II and metering locked to AF point. Next level down would be more shots/charge, wifi and built in radio for flash. Even though I have not yet bothered to use the GPS on my 1DX-II yet, I believe it is a nice feature.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 12, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Mr. Sanford, you and I both know that there are people all over these boards saying that 10 fps on a 5D III body would kill 1DX II sales. I've seen it scores of times. That is all they dwell on.
> 
> Fact is, the same could be said for the 7D Mark II... except that it would be said it takes sales from the 5D and 1D lines. It may be a choice for birders, but I suspect many of those same people either choose not to spend on a 1DX II because they can't afford it to begin with.
> 
> I wonder how many birders with a 1DX would be just as happy with a 7D Mark II? Especially when the mythical "reach advantage" is thrown in.



I get the distinct feeling that if the AF on the 7DII were as solid and reliable as the 1Dx2 then it really would be a serious challenge.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Respectfully disagree. Folks in the market for a 1D rig that instead opt for a camera that costs half as much is _very bad for Canon_
> 
> But Canon will _not_ undermine it's priciest / most prestigious rigs to the point that folks will pay 50% of that pricier model for 90% of the functionality. They will engineer a relatively smoothly climbing 'continuum of value' in their portfolio where there are no obvious bargains and there are no clearly overpriced ripoffs.
> 
> - A



Mr. Sanford, with all due respect, do you really think that 10 fps on a 5D Mark IV would bring it to within being 90% the camera that the 1DX Mark II is? Do you really? I don't think you do, but you keep saying it. What gives? 

With that very statement you are putting huge weight on 14 fps as being the most important reason to get a 1DX mark II. A 5D body at 10 fps is 29% slower than the 1DX II.
At 9 fps a 5D body would be 36% slower.

And why, when you mention fps do you keep upping the ante for this supposed 1DX II killer to 12 fps? Besides you, the upper range mentioned was never more than 10 fps.

With all you've said in mind: 



ahsanford said:


> People might want to get over the notion that high FPS is 'why you buy a 1D rig':
> 
> High fps does not define the 1D line, it's just the eye-popping spec everyone dwells on. 1D bodies have a TON of exclusive stuff that has nothing to do with speed and landscape / studio folks would give their left nut for it.
> 
> - A



*It is that ton of exclusive features you talk about that protects 1DX Mark II sales (as if it needs protecting). Upping the 5d to 10fps (Still 29% slower) wouldn't hurt the 1DX II.*

You say fps does not define the 1D line. That the fps is "just the eye-popping spec everyone dwells on." Then you say 10 fps on a 5D would eat 1DX II sales.

So which is it?

Finally, 



ahsanford said:


> Folks in the market for a 1D rig that instead opt for a camera that costs half as much is _very bad for Canon_
> 
> - A



Why is that "*very bad for Canon?* What are the profit margins for each camera? Selling the 5D instead of the flagship 1DX Mark II might very well be more profitable per unit.

Not picking on you. I just like to watch people go 'round in circles saying something isn't important, then that it very important, then not important... claim manufacturing a shutter box for 10 FPS would be extremely costly when they have no idea (by their own admission) that they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to fab and manufacturing costs. For all we know the existing shutter/mirror might handle 10 fps already.

It is the ton of exclusive features you talk about that makes the 1DX Mark II special. That is the reason to choose it over the 5D Mark III... not 4 frames per second difference.

Have a good day buddy.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> This is what the 5DIII should have been.



Yeah, right.
Put in the 5Dii a load of technology that hadn't been developed at the time.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > - the CIPA rating may be quite a bit better from the 5Ds 700 shot CIPA rating.
> ...


How much are you getting out of a Canon battery? 

I have never had anything even close to only 700 pic on my 5DS/R. My best guess is that I get around 1.200 on a fully charged Canon battery. I do get less with non-Canon batteries - and its the first camera where I notice any difference to the originals.

I don't know how the CIPA testing is done, and I'm sure shooting styles, screen usage and conditions play an important part - so YMMV and have very little relevance to what I see + I'm not tracking this in a systematic way except that based on experience as my guide line is that I normally feel comfortable with only one spare with me.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I agree with this. 30MP is a a good improvement from the 5DIII and it should be plenty for the vast majority. If you need more, you go for the 5DSR. In line with what Mt S.P. says, I would prefer other sensor improvements than resolution beyond 30MP. No banding, better noise pattern, improved low light performance, and DR would be much higher on my list than more resolution. 30MP with on-chip ADC could well indicate that this is realistic.
> 
> I hope the 7fps, even though that would be enough for me, is not just to limit internal competition, but an indication they have a mirror design that will provide the best silent shutter in the Canon lineup.



Agree -- I think a vast majority of prospective 5D4 folks are hoping for better DR/noise than they are the 'horsepower' top-line specs of pixels/fps/AF.

I simply bring up FPS b/c I believe Canon could give us more without limiting the potential of the sensor (they are relatively decoupled). But you and others have reminded me of the silent shutter, which is a key feature. Perhaps that does put a ceiling on the fps.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Have a good day buddy.



No worries -- I appreciate the depth and thoughtfulness of your responses, I really do.

I, you, and many here understand that FPS isn't the sole differentiator between the 5D and 1D lines. I've said this many times in many threads. This is a nuanced market and one spec doesn't dominate it -- but one spec can influence it.

I'm arguing that FPS is a nontrivial reason why people opt for the 1DX/1DX2. Of that slice of 1DX/1DX2 users (let's completely guess and say it's 20% of the 1DX2 userbase), they might opt for a smaller / lighter FF rig with higher resolution and X FPS at 50-60% of the cost. I'm just saying that when X is high enough, the predominantly speed-driven side of the prospective 1DX2 market -- that previous swag of 20% -- might take the much cheaper option.

I am not saying that the world will end for 1DX2 sales. I am saying the cheaper product will erode the sales of the pricier product because of that 5D4 FPS decision, that's all.

But again -- that's not what this thread is entirely about. *I want to know if everyone finds it interesting/correct/fair that this future 5D rig is not worthy of the same throughput as last year's 5DS.
*
- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> So, no, FPS isn't everything. FPS isn't the only reason to get a 1D rig. But having a clear gap between the 5D line ad 1D line on this feature helps Canon defend its asking price of the 1D line. So does having a gap in metering, having a gap in build quality, having a gap in AF, etc.



AF point-linked spot metering. You've hit the nail on the head, _that's_ Canon's differentiation strategy for the 1-
series. 

That...and maybe they'll make only 1-series bodes compatible with the limited-edition 50mm f/1.4 IS they're about to release.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So, no, FPS isn't everything. FPS isn't the only reason to get a 1D rig. But having a clear gap between the 5D line ad 1D line on this feature helps Canon defend its asking price of the 1D line. So does having a gap in metering, having a gap in build quality, having a gap in AF, etc.
> ...



I would honestly pay $300 right now for AF-linked spot metering on my aging 5D3. I've considered going to ML to get this feature, but (a) I don't want to brick my main rig and (b) I am too used to the Canon menus/interface at this point.

But this is a throughput thread, Neuro. Stop dangling 50 prime catnip at me.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But this is a throughput thread, Neuro. Stop dangling 50 prime catnip at me.



Lol. But don't tell me you're not asking for it...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 12, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> New models from Canon improve or evolve each area of the cameras performance. Just looking at the number of MP is being short sighted.
> 
> The performance of the sensor, communications, autofocus capabilities, video capabilities, Canon tweaks them all to provide a improved product I'm almost every area.
> 
> ...


I'm with you on this one I would like to see better DR in low light for me far more useful than a slightly faster FPS its why I use the 6D. For sports / aerial I get the FPS argument but 1 FPS better than the MKIII is still better than they currently have. Cleaner images via an A-D converter would also herald better useful images.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 12, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



it's all relative.

the 5D Mark III had a CIPA rating of 950
the 5Ds .. 700

So I suspect that canon wants it to be closer to the Mark III than the 5Ds.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 12, 2016)

drmikeinpdx said:


> You'll have to pry my 5D3 from my cold, dead hands!


They don't have to take yours. I willingly put mine on the market ...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> it's all relative.
> 
> the 5D Mark III had a CIPA rating of 950
> the 5Ds .. 700
> ...



Sure. As I posted before, with just one chip, your battery life is far better. The 5D2 and 5D3 had only one chip.

If IQ was the same, would you rather have the 5D3's +250 shot capacity *or* +3-4 fps above the 5D3 at the same battery life as the 5DS?

I'm rarely shooting the full 6 FPS on my 5D3 today yet even I would take the latter were it offered. Battery life has never been a problem for me, and I gladly would sacrifice _some_ of it (not down to mirrorless levels!) for a boost in performance for those odd times I need high framerate.

- A


----------



## Phil Lowe (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> 
> That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:
> 
> ...



7fps will be fine so long as Canon takes the arbitrary (and ridiculous) write speed limiter off the SD slot (capped at 133x on the 5D3) and increases the buffer. For my money, 6fps would be fine on the 5D3 were it not for the handicapped SD slot. I shoot the 7D2 and Nikon D500 when I feel the need for speed.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 12, 2016)

Phil Lowe said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> ...


I used a simple spreadsheet to estimate buffer performance for different initial buffers for the given 30MP, 7fps and CF write speed:


----------



## jdavis37 (Aug 12, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> ...



Everyone of course has different triggers and not everyone is driven by the same wants/desires. I seem to be an outlier in that my eyes just prefer larger pixels, even when cropping. I find feathers hold up better when shot with larger pixels. So going to 30MP did NOT excite me while I am sure others are still wishing it were more.

But given I am a hobbyist who primarily shoots birds and critters, a larger buffer and higher frame rate is very important. When I bought my 5D3 I knew it was NOT a dedicated action camera, but found it to be a wonderful does everything well body that I have thoroughly enjoyed.

That said if the 5D4 had offered 10 fps (assuming the 30 MP sensor looks good) I would certainly buy it. As it stands now I am saving for the 1D-X2. I want faster frame rate and a bigger buffer. The 5D3 is an "almost 6 fps" camera in that as the batteries discharge frame rate drops, and fairly quickly. The 5D4 at 7 fps for me was a fatal.

Not criticizing, just analyzing as to how it pertains to me. Everyone will be uniquely different but for this buyer the frame rate was a fatal error. Had it been 9 fps I would have had to give it more thought. At 10 fps it would have stolen at least 1 DX-2 sale!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > it's all relative.
> ...



the same battery life of the 5Ds would net 8fps instead of 7fps.


----------



## Vern (Aug 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Don't forget silent shutter. For many 5D users (wedding photographers in particular, but others as well) this is far more important than frames per second. I'm still having some adjustment shock from losing the 5D silent shutter with the 1Dx II. There is absolutely nothing silent about that shutter. Keeping the shutter silent in the 5D may limit just how fast the frame rate can be.



Agreed. I just purchased the 5DSR for use w wildlife/landscape where max res is desired and when fast action isn't anticipated, and I love the super quiet shutter - unfortunately, the skittish mammalian wildlife I have in mind also would be best shot with a higher ISO capable body. I have the 1DX I that I use for BIF and indoor sports but have tried it for deer/fox on the 'silent' shutter mode and they always jump/bolt unless the wind is howling. Not had this problem with the 5DIII on silent shutter. I'm sure the 1DX II would be fine on a safari with animals accustom to mechanical sounds, but in the eastern forest of the U.S., "click" is more likely to be a trigger pull than a shutter release and natural selection has left its mark. If the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter setting, I would upgrade for that and the other improvements over the 1DX I. 

5D4 sounds great, but seems to fall right between my current bodies and I doubt I would compromise to use it - though if I only had one body, it might be the one.

As always, critical features are in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

jdavis37 said:


> But given I am a hobbyist who primarily shoots birds and critters, a larger buffer and higher frame rate is very important. When I bought my 5D3 I knew it was NOT a dedicated action camera, but found it to be a wonderful does everything well body that I have thoroughly enjoyed.
> 
> That said if the 5D4 had offered 10 fps (assuming the 30 MP sensor looks good) I would certainly buy it. As it stands now I am saving for the 1D-X2. I want faster frame rate and a bigger buffer. The 5D3 is an "almost 6 fps" camera in that as the batteries discharge frame rate drops, and fairly quickly. The 5D4 at 7 fps for me was a fatal.
> 
> Not criticizing, just analyzing as to how it pertains to me. Everyone will be uniquely different but for this buyer the frame rate was a fatal error. Had it been 9 fps I would have had to give it more thought. At 10 fps it would have stolen at least 1 DX-2 sale!



You are _*exactly*_ the person I've been talking about for three pages on this thread. You are real, hooray! (Phew -- I'm not crazy.)

Thanks for the post.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 12, 2016)

Vern said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget silent shutter. For many 5D users (wedding photographers in particular, but others as well) this is far more important than frames per second. I'm still having some adjustment shock from losing the 5D silent shutter with the 1Dx II. There is absolutely nothing silent about that shutter. Keeping the shutter silent in the 5D may limit just how fast the frame rate can be.
> ...


For silent shooting with the 1DX-II what about using 4K MJPEG?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jdavis37 said:
> 
> 
> > But given I am a hobbyist who primarily shoots birds and critters, a larger buffer and higher frame rate is very important. When I bought my 5D3 I knew it was NOT a dedicated action camera, but found it to be a wonderful does everything well body that I have thoroughly enjoyed.
> ...


An earlier rumor hinted that the 5D-IV might shoot faster (9fps) in mirror-lock-up. If it has DPAF then it would have useful AF in such a mode so not all hope is lost.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> 
> That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:
> 
> ...



I would have liked to see 8 fps or better.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 12, 2016)

jdavis37 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I know exactly what you are saying and I can appreciate that. 

Especially: 


jdavis37 said:


> Everyone of course has different triggers and not everyone is driven by the same wants/desires. I seem to be an outlier in that my eyes just prefer larger pixels, even when cropping. I find feathers hold up better when shot with larger pixels. So going to 30MP did NOT excite me while I am sure others are still wishing it were more.
> 
> At 10 fps it would have stolen at least 1 DX-2 sale!



I have found that just removing the SD card greatly increases the buffer depth and holds the fps much, much better. That is if a person has a fast CF card. I use a SanDisk Extreme Pro 160 MB/s. The buffer is extremely deep when I do that, even in RAW. I also have a very fast SD card, but I don't think the 5D Mark III supports that card. The SD card slows things down a lot. I'm a hobbyist like you. I agree the 30mp might end up being a problem with feather detail. That remains to be seen.

So I agree that some may have decided to buy a 1DX II simply for frame rate and costs be damned.

I was speaking more to the idea posted around suggesting that 10fps would kill 1DX II sales. I don't believe it as there are so many other features that make that camera the only possible choice for a large number of buyers.

So while 10FPS on a Canon 5D body may cost Canon a 1DX II sale, there are other people saving for a 1DX Mark II for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with fps. I think it all balances out.

I think Canon was looking forward. In the 5D mark V they can still add more FPS.

If I had the money, I'd buy the 1DX also and for the same reasons you state.  Bigger pixels and fps, also f/8 focus point assignment. I'm sure there are other reasons.

Your points are very well taken.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 12, 2016)

jdavis37 said:


> That said if the 5D4 had offered 10 fps (assuming the 30 MP sensor looks good) I would certainly buy it.



that actually would have been pretty much impossible.

the 1DX Mark II doesn't even do that throughput with 3 DIGIC processors and a 30WH battery. (14x20=280MP/sec or 9 fps at 30MP)

now you have to fit all that into a smaller 5D camera body.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

And not being a 1DX-level shooter, I haven't followed developments on that rig. Had no idea the 1DX2 silent shutter is not as silent as the 5D3.

So here is the current potential list of reasons why it's only 7 fps:

1) Only 1 chip to keep costs down / profit up
2) Only 1 chip to leave room for other necessary (video?) hardware
3) More than 7 fps might alter the quiet 5D3 silent shutter
4) Canon intentionally nerfed it to avoid undermining 1DX2 sales (seems less likely at only 7 fps)
5) More than 7 fps (with full frame) might drive a costlier / heavier / less battery friendly shutter/mirror setup
6) Any other reasons?

And again -- I don't need high fps, and this isn't a rant at a rumored spec I don't like. I'm just surprised that it's only 7 fps given that the prior model was 6 fps and a 50 MP rig churns out a very respectable 5 fps already.

- A


----------



## jdavis37 (Aug 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> jdavis37 said:
> 
> 
> > That said if the 5D4 had offered 10 fps (assuming the 30 MP sensor looks good) I would certainly buy it.
> ...



The truth is (for me) if I want 1 series performance I just cannot expect to steal it at the 5D price point. Nikon has a different culture in how it shares features between bodies (though they did make a mistake with D700 and D3 that was NOT repeated when D3S came out.. never was a D700S) so in the end it is what it is.

The 5Series bodies are incredible bodies and I have thoroughly enjoyed my 5D3. I knew its frame rate and buffer when I bought it. But I would enjoy having more of both

So that leaves with accepting the price tag of the 1D-X2 or waiting this one out. It is difficult to justify $6K for a hobby but then in long run it is far cheaper than golf 

I am certain the 5D4 will be a great body for many people. But I'll just continue to save and await the joy of F8 AF all over the place, 14 fps and an unlimited (almost) buffer (after I save to buy the Cfast cards!).


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

jdavis37 said:


> I am certain the 5D4 will be a great body for many people. But I'll just continue to save and await the joy of F8 AF all over the place, 14 fps and an unlimited (almost) buffer (after I save to buy the Cfast cards!).



At least two folks on this very thread have stated that the plurality of f/8 points is part of the goodness of getting a 1D rig, but given the likeness of the 1DX --> 5D3 AF system, would it be unreasonable to expect the 5D4 AF setup to resemble the 1DX2 AF setup?

In my mind, 10+ fps isn't happening with the 5D4, but the AF system should be (nearly) top of the line. I'm expecting the f/8 options to make it to the 5D4 as well. If they rehash the 5DS setup into the 5D4, I would be disappointed.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> At least two folks on this very thread have stated that the plurality of f/8 points is part of the goodness of getting a 1D rig, but given the likeness of the 1DX --> 5D3 AF system, would it be unreasonable to expect the 5D4 AF setup to resemble the 1DX2 AF setup?
> 
> - A



Funny, I just said something like this on another thread. I'm betting we see a fairly good copy of the DX2 AF system on here, just not as fast or a accurate given the lesser processor and lesser power source. Otherwise, I can't fathom Canon not putting in the multiple f8 points on this. I think between that and the points being further spread out like the DX2, we should have a nice little step up here


----------



## jdavis37 (Aug 12, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > At least two folks on this very thread have stated that the plurality of f/8 points is part of the goodness of getting a 1D rig, but given the likeness of the 1DX --> 5D3 AF system, would it be unreasonable to expect the 5D4 AF setup to resemble the 1DX2 AF setup?
> ...



I did not mean to imply the same F8 setup would not be part of the 5D4. I just know it is part of the DX-2 and I coupled things together.

I never understood the lack of Spot metering associated with chosen AF sensor decision (the lack of) for 5D3. This has been a source of frustration for me at times (rubs even worse when you do realize entry level bodies from other brands have this feature). Is hard to say what AF on 5D4 will be like. I suspect similar to the DX-2 at least in setup/application. Spot AF or F8 across the spectrum time will soon tell.

I expect it to be a very good camera given the 5D3 was incredible overall.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 12, 2016)

I may be mistaken, but the AF and Metering systems are two separate systems altogether, so I imagine linking the two isn't an automatic. Probably something that could be done in firmware though. I also imagine there has been so much (righteous) complaining about this that Canon will be implementing it. I believe we have this in the DX2, yes?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I may be mistaken, but the AF and Metering systems are two separate systems altogether, so I imagine linking the two isn't an automatic. Probably something that could be done in firmware though. I also imagine there has been so much (righteous) complaining about this that Canon will be implementing it. I believe we have this in the DX2, yes?



Yes, the 1DX2 allows this. Spot metering linked to the selected (non-center) AF point has been around in 1D models -- and _ONLY_ 1D models -- for some time.

The Nikon D5500 (an $850 camera) has this feature.

My _iPhone_ has this feature. 

So, yes -- metering and AF are separate systems, but designers of far far far lower price point offerings have girded their loins, thought big, clenched their teeth with their tongue sticking out like a determined 9 year old in the batters box and solved this diabolical, Sphinxian riddle. 

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> So, yes -- metering and AF are separate systems, but designers of far far far lower price point offerings have girded their loins, thought big, clenched their teeth with their tongue sticking out like a determined 9 year old in the batters box and solved this diabolical, Sphinxian riddle.
> 
> - A



Yes, this is one of those points we probabl (almost) ALL get frustrated about with Canon. It really is a simple firmware/software sort of thing that is otherwise widely saturated into that product market.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2016)

Boy this thread is sure more sane than the "other " one. Having shot with the 1D4 (10 fps) I'm not thrilled with a choice of 7 fps but I rationalize that BIF etc. are a smaller portion of what I've been doing. However, some of that hinges on the ownership of only a 6D for most of that time. 

30 MP for reach limited cropping is what has my frustration level growing. It frustrates me that I'd still have only 20 MP going across to the 1DX II. I've compared a lot with my friend who shot 1DX, and 6D IQ held up pretty good when I compared our results from shooting together. So now to go from 20 to 20 is not thrilling me. Of course all the other things about the 1DX II, do.

Jack


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 13, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Boy this thread is sure more sane than the "other " one. Having shot with the 1D4 (10 fps) I'm not thrilled with a choice of 7 fps but I rationalize that BIF etc. are a smaller portion of what I've been doing. However, some of that hinges on the ownership of only a 6D for most of that time.
> 
> 30 MP for reach limited cropping is what has my frustration level growing. It frustrates me that I'd still have only 20 MP going across to the 1DX II. I've compared a lot with my friend who shot 1DX, and 6D IQ held up pretty good when I compared our results from shooting together. So now to go from 20 to 20 is not thrilling me. Of course all the other things about the 1DX II, do.
> 
> Jack



I own a 6D (love it) and used a 1DX2 extensively for several days (rented from LensRentals). Apart from all the obvious hard feature upgrades the 1DX2 offers, the sensors of the 2 cameras are obviously identical in terms of resolution. I will say the new sensor tech on the DX2 did allow some latitude I didn't have in the 6D near the lower ISO range. Noise performance was a little better (maybe a stop or so) in the upper registers. This was just my personal observation. I didn't do any scientific tests to really dig in.. I didn't have the time. I'd guess the only reason to really get a DX2 over a 6D is if you need the speed and the AF capability (which I certainly do) and the additional video capabilities.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2016)

I love the 6D but not for BIF obviously. Sure you can use it but after the 1D4, it's not for me for any action. I never felt a strong need for more than 10 fps but the high ISO of the 1D4 coupled with cropping was bad news. 

As the odd other person has expressed there must be some market for a 1 series body with the MP/fps trade off in reverse. The reality is about 90% of my shots get cropped at least a little and often a lot in spite of shooting 300 X2 and so that 30 MP spec is pretty appealing. However, I really want illuminated AF points and I'd really like metering of spot AF and .......

Jack


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 13, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> I love the 6D but not for BIF obviously. Sure you can use it but after the 1D4, it's not for me for any action. I never felt a strong need for more than 10 fps but the high ISO of the 1D4 coupled with cropping was bad news.
> 
> As the odd other person has expressed there must be some market for a 1 series body with the MP/fps trade off in reverse. The reality is about 90% of my shots get cropped at least a little and often a lot in spite of shooting 300 X2 and so that 30 MP spec is pretty appealing. However, I really want illuminated AF points and I'd really like metering of spot AF and .......
> 
> Jack



Had the 1DX2 landed with 22 or 24MP, it would have been completely perfect, even with 1-2 fps less But that's in no way to suggest I'm complaining about the 20.2 it has. It's a great camera, and I'm buying one very very soon


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> I love the 6D but not for BIF obviously. Sure you can use it but after the 1D4, it's not for me for any action. I never felt a strong need for more than 10 fps but the high ISO of the 1D4 coupled with cropping was bad news.
> 
> As the odd other person has expressed there must be some market for a 1 series body with the MP/fps trade off in reverse. The reality is about 90% of my shots get cropped at least a little and often a lot in spite of shooting 300 X2 and so that 30 MP spec is pretty appealing. However, I really want illuminated AF points and I'd really like metering of spot AF and .......
> 
> Jack



I never understood why everybody clamours for AF linked spot metering. I found it to be of very limited value.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I never understood why everybody clamours for AF linked spot metering. I found it to be of very limited value.



I would agree with you in probably most shooting conditions for most photographers. I tend to shoot manual most of the time anyway, so I'm setting my exposure based on my read anyway.

When I shoot fast action like dance competitions with highly variable lighting conditions etc... spot metering while shooting in Servo (in Aperture mode with my shutter value in a limited range or auto ISO in manual) ... Damn that would be SO helpful. Granted, I realize this is a very unique situation, but it certainly provides a very simply implemented, simple convenience for general shooting as well, but particularly when shooting anytime in servo mode


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 13, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I own a 6D (love it) and used a 1DX2 extensively for several days (rented from LensRentals). Apart from all the obvious hard feature upgrades the 1DX2 offers, the sensors of the 2 cameras are obviously identical in terms of resolution. I will say the new sensor tech on the DX2 did allow some latitude I didn't have in the 6D near the lower ISO range. Noise performance was a little better (maybe a stop or so) in the upper registers. This was just my personal observation. I didn't do any scientific tests to really dig in.. I didn't have the time. I'd guess the only reason to really get a DX2 over a 6D is if you need the speed and the AF capability (which I certainly do) and the additional video capabilities.



Or spot metering at any AF point.

#justsaying #illbehereallweek

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I never understood why everybody clamours for AF linked spot metering. I found it to be of very limited value.



Candids

Rule of thirds small DOF work shooting against a bright background

Having a wife who only gives you 2-3 seconds to nail a shot on vacation

In short, it's great for shooting unscripted / fleeting moment situations with lighting conditions that are constantly changing -- vacations, street, candids, etc.

It's a niche thing, but it's gold for me and what I shoot.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 13, 2016)

Best example I have on hand, granted an extreme one. Moving in and out of radically different EV while Servo tracking. Imagine if this was one girl moving through all the spots. Or imagine if I wanted to snag one particular girl in this group who of off center frame. There is no time to meter her and then recompose the shot. This was a 1DX and 70-200 2.8 IS II. Spot metering that is moving with my 61 servo points would be enormously helpful


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I never understood why everybody clamours for AF linked spot metering. I found it to be of very limited value.
> ...



Sorry, don't buy it. How much have you actually shot all those scenarios with AF point linked spot metering? I'd guess little or none.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 13, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > jdavis37 said:
> ...


...and with touchscreen auto focus it would be doing rather well indeed!

(Not getting my hopes up here however)


----------



## tron (Aug 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> jdavis37 said:
> 
> 
> > That said if the 5D4 had offered 10 fps (assuming the 30 MP sensor looks good) I would certainly buy it.
> ...


With mirror lock I think it shoots 16fps so its electronics can manage 16 x 20 = 320Mp/sec


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 13, 2016)

Yes 16fps with the mirror locked up and NO AF after it locks on for the first shot


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Sorry, don't buy it. How much have you actually shot all those scenarios with AF point linked spot metering? I'd guess little or none.



Obviously, the answer is never. Canon doesn't give me this functionality with my 5D3.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, don't buy it. How much have you actually shot all those scenarios with AF point linked spot metering? I'd guess little or none.
> ...



LOL! You gotta give ahsanford some points for that one. ;D Well played.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 13, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



But to answer PBD's question indirectly, the _scenario_ comes up often in my manner of shooting, which is 95% unscripted handheld without a flash. I capture my life. That's what I do. 

My life can't wait for the good light with landscapes -- I shoot when I have time to shoot. At my niece's alternatingly blinding/dark tae kwan do gymnasium, I have to pan as she's running through an absolute exposure nightmare behind her and I don't always want her in the middle of the frame. The moment my wife makes one of her signature absurd faces is often in front of a blown out background and I will not get a second chance to capture it.

So... no. Someone doing dedicated, scripted, deliberate and methodical work -- portraiture, macro, landscapes, etc. -- does not need this feature. But I do think _I_ need it, and I'll continue to voice that need.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I do. Not because he points out Canon hasn't put a feature he considers "golden" in his model of camera, but for his honesty in admitting he has never actually used the feature he considers "golden".

As for your dance image, I contend AF linked spot metering would be ineffective in that scenario without constant heavy and accurate EV compensation. On the other hand if you just used Center Weighted Average you'd get a darn good exposure for all your dancers even though they have very different skin tones.

Here is your image with a heavy center weighted Gaussian Blur layer (in color then B&W). I think this illustrates that just because we consider this a difficult metering situation when you look at the scene as the camera metering would it really isn't that tough. These are very close to what the meter 'sees' in the Center Weighted Average mode, the RGB values are 119-99-159, 18% grey in sRGB is 119-119-119. 

Of course Canon believe that Evaluative metering is smart enough to work out what your subject is, it's workings are proprietary but we do know distance information is passed to the camera so it could be considered an intelligent linked AF point weighted metering mode. Obviously the 'problem' with Evaluative metering is it is proprietary and we need to learn what to expect from it, and it had changed as the cameras have got smarter.

Don't forget one severe limitation with AF point linked spot metering that those who haven't used it forget when they site heavy backlight situations and difficult exposure scenarios, you are limited to +/-3 stops of EV, tricky lighting, especially backlighting, often needs more than that.

Another is the supposed 2.5% area of the spot, how close is that to covering your subject? How much backlight or dark is impacting the meter reading? It is difficult to calculate your needed EV when you can't be sure how much of that metering spot is on what part of the scene.

Personally in 'difficult' lighting situations I have always considered M mode with Evaluative metering the best of the bunch, even after using AF point linked Spot meteringTo illustrate I am not just talking the talk here I include four images I consider tough from a metering point of view that I found AF point Spot metering really didn't help with, it just got in the way. M mode and Evaluative metering worked very well and left me to do my thing. I know #4 has camera shake but it was a 300mm f2.8 at 1/80sec handheld on a 1D, so give me a break. 

So #3 and #4, black singer with a black mic wearing black with a black background, and rapidly changing lighting. #5 and #6, black singer wearing very white suit with rapidly changing light.

I hope this post helps people think a little more about metering, it is not intended to be a bitch slap or putdown of anybody, just an honest exchange of thoughts about a feature few seem to have used but many seem to crave.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2016)

Here is an example of three images one after the other with AF point linked Spot metering enabled, the exposure is all over the place! As was he!


----------



## Lenscracker (Aug 13, 2016)

Not enough upside for me. I have a 5D3, 5DSr, and 7D2. If they include the features of the 5DSr and add a few new ones like a shutter at the eyepiece as on the old FD FN1 series, and a tiltable LCD screen like on the Pentax K1 I may reconsider. A switchable AA filter would help too. If it has a greatly increased dynamic range and greatly decreased noise at high ISO, I will consider ordering a 5D4. Otherwise I skip this new 5D for the first time since the series started.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I have only one problem with all this! I need to learn a whole lot in short order and PBD doesn't accompany me on my nature hikes. I think that anyone who is very talented and has become expert at what they do will have work-arounds for difficult situations. It's an altogether different story when you're a beginner struggling to get better and not getting any younger and then throw in perfectionism to boot and it can get pretty frustrating. To quote our local sports sage, "I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin"

When I was shooting my vertical shots of the Pileated woodpecker, all black with a red/white head using the upper focus point my 6D metered off the body. So, AF point linked metering would have helped hopeless old me in that case. I can barely think fast enough to switch a focus point let alone do all the other fancy pro tricks like PBD! 

So, Scott, you are here-by invited to Alberta to teach an old dog new tricks. Then we'll see what your work-around is for an old dog. You'd probably end up just saying, "put the camera on auto". 

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I do. Not because he points out Canon hasn't put a feature he considers "golden" in his model of camera, but for his honesty in admitting he has never actually used the feature he considers "golden".
> 
> ...
> 
> I hope this post helps people think a little more about metering, it is not intended to be a bitch slap or putdown of anybody, just an honest exchange of thoughts about a feature few seem to have used but many seem to crave.



A+. Love the insight and examples. I can only speculate how that feature performs, and you've gone and shown me. I did not presume it would solve all my problems, and I'm not surprised your mileage may vary with it. I was not expecting a panacea. 

That said, I still would like to have this feature and learn & fail with it on my own. A $3000+ rig should have this feature, IMHO.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 13, 2016)

Does the AF-linked spot-metering circle move on the 1DX and 1DX-II or do you use a 9-pt cluster to guestimate the size of the area being metered?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2016)

Jack, Id meter the tree below the bird and use that exposure value in manual.




StudentOfLight said:


> Does the AF-linked spot-metering circle move on the 1DX and 1DX-II or do you use a 9-pt cluster to guestimate the size of the area being metered?



No the circle doesn't move you have to guestimate where it is. On the older 45 point AF based systems you can link it to 19 of the 45 points.


----------



## K (Aug 13, 2016)

Canon could have easily kept it 6 FPS and some would accept that based off the increase in MP. Or given a token upgrade of 6.5fps.

I'm happy with 7. 7FPS is the right thing to do. 8 would have been fantastic and perhaps the stand-out big feature of the 5D4. Instead, touch screen, dual pixel and other stuff will be the main attractions.

If the 5D4 has a better silent shutter than before, that will be very welcome too. And a worthy reason to not have 8fps if it's a matter of deciding between the two. Those who don't value a silent shutter haven't been in enough situations where it does come into play. The D810 has a very quiet shutter and that is important to many. I suspect Canon will answer this in the 5D4.


Do notice though...

5D3 = 6fps, 1DX = 12fps 
5D4 = 7fps, 1DX2 = 14fps

5 series is 50% the speed of the 1 series.


Another reason 7fps was predicted.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 13, 2016)

Good info! Thanks PBD!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 14, 2016)

PBD, an easy solution if I can only keep my wits about me. You know I get so excited when the great shot seems to be within reach!  I can see the advantages to shooting in manual but I also see some serious challenges for the person who is just learning. However, every bit of advice is taken to heart!

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 14, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> PBD, an easy solution if I can only keep my wits about me. You know I get so excited when the great shot seems to be within reach!  I can see the advantages to shooting in manual but I also see some serious challenges for the person who is just learning. However, every bit of advice is taken to heart!
> 
> Jack



Jack I mentor for my local camera club which is something I really enjoy.

In my experience people try too many different things and read too much advice/opinions on how to do stuff. i always suggest choose a Mode for both exposure and metering and work with that one setup for a while. If you stick to one method you will learn when that method fails, it then isn't difficult to work out why and apply any corrections to your methodology or choose another Mode that will work better for that situation, but be methodical and don't be afraid to fail. 

Oh, and practice, even now I shoot many pictures every week that are just tests, either lights or lenses or modifiers. Just last night I was shooting nightscapes with the 15 fisheye, TS-E17 and 11-24 purely to compare the looks and exposure requirements 'just in case'. The day before I realized I could mount my EOS-M with 22mm f2 to my 1DS MkIII hotshoe and if I used the 35 f2 I could get close to equivalence. I love that M with the 22mm but the aging 1DS and 35 f2 blow it away for character and mood.

P.S. In short, shoot the tree before the woodpecker gets there! Indeed shoot everywhere you often see wildlife and get a feel for what works and what doesn't before 'the shot' comes along. Then when it does come around you don't have so much stuff to worry about.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 14, 2016)

As always your advice is much appreciated! I have various obstacles but the one that really bugs me is chronic migraine headaches. I could be so much better with the camera but regardless it gives me great pleasure and I'm simply having fun. 35k shots with the 6D thus far and a few are good. 

Jack


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



spot for people is pretty useless in a multi-ethnic environment as well.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 15, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I use spot all the time. The reason spot is useful to me is that it is completely unambiguous. Spot metering is measuring what is inside the circle. No algo-rythmic-gym-mathstics going on in camera. (Sorry I had to throw in Olympic reference) 

My approach is 
1) Set white balance and proper exposure (easy with live view)
2) find in-field reference (e.g. partner's T-shirt, patch of dry grass, patch of dry sand etc...) 
3) measure the reference, 
4) check your reference patch periodically
5) adjust ISO or exposure controls(aperture/time value) if necessary

If I point my camera with evaluative metering at a landscape scene and it says +0.3, I really have no idea what the result means. If I point my spot meter at fully illuminated green grass (or blue sky perpendicular to the sun, or grey sand) and that says -0.7 I know exactly what that result means.

I love spot. It's beautifully simple.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 15, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That isn't what we were talking about though. We were specifically talking about AF point linked spot, where the metering area is not obvious. In your metering situations multi spot is a very powerful tool.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 15, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> That isn't what we were talking about though. We were specifically talking about AF point linked spot, where the metering area is not obvious. In your metering situations multi spot is a very powerful tool.



My need is a pretty pedestrian one: put face or subject or object at rule of thirds positioning with fairly small DOF (say f/2, 35mm or 50mm, 5-7 feet away) under inconsistent/changing light conditions (use walking down a busy city street and popping into a few buildings as an example) and nail the shot on the first try.

Options (in my Aperture-priority means of shooting):

1) Decouple metering and focusing: Spot meter the face from center AF point --> AE lock --> recompose + focus --> shoot. Downside: I don't typically decouple focus and exposure when shooting on the run like this. I rarely use AE lock or back button AF, so in the odd instance I need it, I forget to rub my belly and pat my head and hit the button combo out of order. 

2) Nail focus _and_ spot meter using the center point --> hold shutter halfway down --> recompose --> shoot. Downside: Though simpler, this is obviously perilous for focusing with smaller DOF work -- you'd lose critical focus in the pan when shooting (say) f/2.8 or wider, so I'd stop down to f/4 or so and lose the point of the subject isolation I was gunning for. This is a cop out, albeit a practical one if you are pressed for time.

3) Put your subject in the center and accept your camera's limitations. Again, my cell phone says yes to this need where my 5D3 says "Sorry, please consider a 1DX". Fail.

4) Roll the dice that another metering mode or shooting fully manual will cope with the changing light conditions on a shot by shot basis. Sorry, unless I'm prowling an event with clear light and dark spots, compensating on the fly isn't going to work for me -- there's too much variability when I travel, when we're on walkabout, when we're at events, etc.

5) _If I had spot metering at any AF point_, it would be: move AF point to subject --> press shutter. That's easy peasy.

Method (5) easily trumps the others, provided the metering is accurate and I understand how wide that circle is.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 15, 2016)

ahsanford, may I offer this. I'm new to all of these things and challenged more than you I'm sure and I'm getting close to 70. However, when I read carefully enough to fully appreciate the commentary, I determined to go with back button focus. It was driving me nuts that if I happened to hit the shutter button for various reasons, the 300 X2 could go off on a 2 second hunt for focus. Once I switched it has become so quickly intuitive to hit the back button for focus (only when I actually want focus) that I find it easier than all the other need to do items. Having AI servo or one-shot via the thumb is the cat's meow.

Just set it up and stick with it, you'll soon love it! 

I too like the idea of having my selected focus spot being the one I will use to judge my exposure, not some removed from my attention, center region. Of course, I have a lot to learn and don't speak with any authority.

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 15, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> I too like the idea of having my selected focus spot being the one I will use to judge my exposure, not some removed from my attention, center region. Of course, I have a lot to learn and don't speak with any authority.
> 
> Jack



Fully appreciate the feedback. Back button AF -- which I have been politely clubbed over the head to start using for some time now -- is a do-it-all-the-time-or-don't-bother sort of proposition for me. I only see value in complicating my current shutter use for the odd specific thing I need (like what I listed), which is clearly the exception to the rule for me. I want to keep metering and shutter work linked for most of what I do -- it is simpler, faster, less things to screw up -- so I've resisted jumping in the pool for this need.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I too like the idea of having my selected focus spot being the one I will use to judge my exposure, not some removed from my attention, center region. Of course, I have a lot to learn and don't speak with any authority.
> ...



Club, club, club, exactly -Just set it up and stick with it, you'll soon love it!  

However, it is a free country so I'm thankful you don't have to listen to me! 

Jack


----------



## retroreflection (Aug 16, 2016)

When someone asks for exposure linked to AF point, I think they are looking for that system where you can select any one of many AF points all over the frame, change their size, meter off of that area (size included), check the histogram, evaluate blown highlights, adjust if necessary, then take the shot. 
The fact that all of that requires a mirrorless camera is no barrier to the desire. It might be a barrier to implementation, but so what.
Is there space for more effective exposure control in mirrorless cameras? While tough to write, I do think "get me as much light without blowing highlights, unless you have to" and other squishy principles could be programmed. 
As long as a dslr has a separate sensor for exposure, the data for all of that fun just isn't available. Unless you want to put another full image sensor on that side of the mirror.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 16, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> When someone asks for exposure linked to AF point, I think they are looking for that system where you can select any one of many AF points all over the frame, change their size, meter off of that area (size included), check the histogram, evaluate blown highlights, adjust if necessary, then take the shot.
> The fact that all of that requires a mirrorless camera is no barrier to the desire. It might be a barrier to implementation, but so what.
> Is there space for more effective exposure control in mirrorless cameras? While tough to write, I do think "get me as much light without blowing highlights, unless you have to" and other squishy principles could be programmed.
> As long as a dslr has a separate sensor for exposure, the data for all of that fun just isn't available. Unless you want to put another full image sensor on that side of the mirror.



I don't need the kitchen sink. I don't need the mirrorless realtime histo super-tuner version of this. I just need that one feature (linking off-center AF to spot metering). Again, it's on a much cheaper SLR in another mount, the D5500. The implementation is undoubtedly vanilla/coarse/simplified, but it's there.

The problem is that if Canon offers this in the 5D4, I'll have a much harder time waiting out this cycle like I planned. 

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> When someone asks for exposure linked to AF point, I think they are looking for that system where you can select any one of many AF points all over the frame, change their size, meter off of that area (size included), check the histogram, evaluate blown highlights, adjust if necessary, then take the shot.
> The fact that all of that requires a mirrorless camera is no barrier to the desire. It might be a barrier to implementation, but so what.
> Is there space for more effective exposure control in mirrorless cameras? While tough to write, I do think "get me as much light without blowing highlights, unless you have to" and other squishy principles could be programmed.
> As long as a dslr has a separate sensor for exposure, the data for all of that fun just isn't available. Unless you want to put another full image sensor on that side of the mirror.



I sometimes wonder how they managed before auto-metering.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 16, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Boy this thread is sure more sane than the "other " one. Having shot with the 1D4 (10 fps) I'm not thrilled with a choice of 7 fps but I rationalize that BIF etc. are a smaller portion of what I've been doing. However, some of that hinges on the ownership of only a 6D for most of that time.
> ...


I too own a 6D and my biggest frustration with the camera is banding. Mainly blue skies, grey skies particularly shooting 24mm or wider and they are dam difficult to correct. The 5DS doesn't have this issue, the 760D doesn't have this issue, the G7 X (Sony sensor) doesn't have this issue, but Ive seen it on the 5D MKIII. So hopefully and given its cost the 1D MKII doesn't have it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 16, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> retroreflection said:
> 
> 
> > When someone asks for exposure linked to AF point, I think they are looking for that system where you can select any one of many AF points all over the frame, change their size, meter off of that area (size included), check the histogram, evaluate blown highlights, adjust if necessary, then take the shot.
> ...



Well, going back to 1974 with my Canon F1, metering was easy. Just look around for something close to 18% grey equivalent and line up the circle to the meter needle. Now, focus OTOH was a bummer with even modest action. It's AF, even 6D level AF that is totally amazing coming into the DSLR realm. 

I had no idea until a friend showed me what he was getting shooting BIF. Shortly thereafter I was off with him to the Camera store to buy my expensive Nikon D5100 and 70-300 with stabilization. And 3 years later I'm hooked after we both switched to Canon for the glass. In three years I've gone from shooting nothing basically (F1 embarrassment) to being on the verge of a 1DX II if the 5D IV doesn't blow me away.

So, given that Sept. 1 is my self imposed deadline, where are the specs we are waiting for?!  

Jack


----------



## tron (Aug 16, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > retroreflection said:
> ...


Will you get blown away by specs or by IQ? If by specs then patience: 10 more days! 
If by IQ you will have to wait past your deadline...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 16, 2016)

Tron, hmm I never thought of that. Actually I did and my decision is that if the specs and related samples are really impressive I'll wait, even if it kills me. It's tough to call because my heart is with the 1DX II being 1 series. However there is glass I'd like too.

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 16, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Tron, hmm I never thought of that. Actually I did and my decision is that if the specs and related samples are really impressive I'll wait, even if it kills me. It's tough to call because my heart is with the 1DX II being 1 series. However there is glass I'd like too.
> 
> Jack



Tron's dead on. 

If a feature-based decision (does it have X or not) is what tips the scales for you, you'll know on the day of release. But if you need SenScore / DXO / DPR / etc. nerdy little noise/banding comparisons or real world use reviews from TDP and others, it's going to be a while. 

You probably won't get that until around the time of shipping as those reviewers prefer to look at production units.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 16, 2016)

Well, at least I know I'm not alone in this regard! 

Jack


----------



## pwp (Aug 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Don't forget silent shutter. For many 5D users (wedding photographers in particular, but others as well) this is far more important than frames per second. I'm still having some adjustment shock from losing the 5D silent shutter with the 1Dx II. There is absolutely nothing silent about that shutter. Keeping the shutter silent in the 5D may limit just how fast the frame rate can be.


Since the 5DIII was released I was amazed how quickly I came to value the silent shutter mode. It gives you a _lot_ more reach into sensitive situations. My 5DIII is set to silent as default, as is my 7DII. I value the silent shutter function far more than FPS rates.

Yesterday I had a good long test drive of the 1DXII. It's just amazing. I'll probably get one. It's value is far broader than it's blistering FPS numbers which I'd access half a dozen times a year, it's lack of silent shutter is regrettable but hardly a deal breaker when you look at the long, long list of attributes. 

But sheer curiosity for what the 5DIV brings to the table has me holding off on the 1DXII just a little bit longer.

-pw


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

Until the DR and sample images come out nothing is 100% sure. 

I would like to make a showcase of Canon 5Ds resolution capabilities in relation to usual print usage.
Since I am pretty sure that the *s* in 5D*s* stands for *S*tudio in this regard I will ignore _ISO _and _fps _for the sake of simplicity and as a reminder why it is not that good to compare a _*general purpose*_ body with one dedicated mainly for *studio* usage with planned and controlled light.

Let alone that both are completely different generations both in sensor and CPU (if rumors are correct). 
*5Ds* - DIGIC *6* (dual)
*5Dm4* - DIGIC *7* (single)

Anyway I take it that for TV and web we hardly go over the 10 megapixels for the stills. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast *8K* argument at me." )) Ergo concentrating on Printing only:

According to *this answer* the good rule of thumbs is: 


```
[width in pixels] / [print pixels per inch] = [print width in inches]
[height in pixels] / [print pixels per inch] = [print height in inches]
```

(Home Wall poster in landscape that you would go and look even from closer angle)
W = 8712 / 300 ppi = 29.04 in = 73.76 cm
H = 5813 / 300 ppi = 19.38 in = 49.22 cm

According to the following table (please note the dimensions are in portrait:

SizeWidth x Height (cm)Width x Height (in)A0 84.1 x 118.9 cm33.1 x 46.8 inA1 59.4 x 84.1 cm23.4 x 33.1 inA2 42.0 x 59.4 cm16.5 x 23.4 inA3 29.7 x 42 cm11.7 x 16.5 in

*Canon 5Ds* according to the *standardpostersizes.com* is moderatly good for a _*Bus Stop Poster – 40” x 60”*_ ;-) It will be with average _*150 dpi/ppi resolution*_ though.







On the other hand a regular *A3* would be:

W = 11.7 * 300 ppi = 3 510 
H = 16.5 * 300 ppi = 4 950 


That is 4 950 x 3 510 = *17* 374 500 here you go 1Dx (m*1*).

On the other hand a regular *A2* would be:

W = 16.5 * 300 ppi = 4 950 
H = 23.4 * 300 ppi = 7 020

That is 7 020x 4 950 = *34* 749 000 here Canon 5D m4 comes _in short_ with *4 MP* for the "best" quality.

And instead of a summary: 
It all depends on each one of our own needs to adequately justify the choice, whereby we need to seperate the needs in _commercial_ and *personal * categories.


----------



## philllie1 (Aug 17, 2016)

we have to wait how the cam will perform.
however from the specs the cam is not worth an upgrade for me. as an allround camera introduced in 2016 7fps also no not seem enough. i wonder, how this cam will "survive" 4 years on the market.
since canon deliberately holds the fps down... I hope, they will pay the price for it.


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

philllie1 said:


> we have to wait how the cam will perform.
> however from the specs the cam is not worth an upgrade for me. as an allround camera introduced in 2016 7fps also no not seem enough. i wonder, how this cam will "survive" 4 years on the market.
> since canon deliberately holds the fps down... I hope, they will pay the price for it.


 I was hoping for *[email protected]240* and instead getting [email protected]120. And having in mind that for some time already there's [email protected] on my phone :-((( 

It would be lovely to make all those beautiful bizarre slow mo's with a descent glass. 

IMHO they're keeping it away on purpose.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 18, 2016)

Diko said:


> philllie1 said:
> 
> 
> > we have to wait how the cam will perform.
> ...



I don't think you understand what opinions are (the "O" in "IMHO"). A statement of fact, whether correct or not, is not an opinion. If the statement is not backed by evidence, or at least reasonable arguments, it's still not an opinion, it's called "talking out of one's ass".


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

so CIPA rating of 900.

what i figured, which was the rating would be around the 5D Mark III and not around the 5Ds.

I suspect this was one reason for the 7fps.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> so CIPA rating of 900.
> 
> what i figured, which was the rating would be around the 5D Mark III and not around the 5Ds.
> 
> I suspect this was one reason for the 7fps.



I think that's more about 1 DIGIC chip than 2, but I certainly could be wrong.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > so CIPA rating of 900.
> ...



yes, but to get 8+ fps would have required dual digics?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I think so, but do not know. We don't know the throughput of this new chip, so it's only speculation.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 18, 2016)

Is anyone more involved with chip fabrication to be able to delineate what functions are performed by the processors and how 2 vs. 1 exhibits itself in a comparison between say the 1DX II and the 5D4. AF (speed) must suffer significantly I assume. It would be nice if someone who really knows could illuminate us.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Is anyone more involved with chip fabrication to be able to delineate what functions are performed by the processors and how 2 vs. 1 exhibits itself in a comparison between say the 1DX II and the 5D4. AF (speed) must suffer significantly I assume. It would be nice if someone who really knows could illuminate us.
> 
> Jack



The 1DX MkII has three DIGIC chips, two DIGIC 6+ for "image processing" and one DIGIC 6 for metering.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 18, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone more involved with chip fabrication to be able to delineate what functions are performed by the processors and how 2 vs. 1 exhibits itself in a comparison between say the 1DX II and the 5D4. AF (speed) must suffer significantly I assume. It would be nice if someone who really knows could illuminate us.
> ...



Thanks. OK, I guess I actually knew that but what I want to know is how the various tasks are divied up and what that means in terms of the various camera metrics. Would the DIGIC 6 do only metering and how would that compare with what is going on in the 5D4 etc. Perhaps you can't answer this but there must be some experts out there that know more detailed information. The obvious reason for the curiosity is to try to judge as accurately as possible just how this impacts the total performance of the two cameras.

Cause I'll be buying one of them only and it's not strictly about the cost difference since I've dedicated $8K CAD to this. I'm suffering from the 20 vs. 30 syndrome right now! 

Jack


----------



## Click (Aug 18, 2016)

Are you sure about the DIGIC 6 for metering?

It's not only two DIGIC 6+ in the MK II?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

From TDP (listed under "image processing", so this would leave out any dedicated 1DX/1DX2 metering hardware):

1DX2 = 2x DIGIC 6+ --> can handle 16 fps X 20 MP 
5DS = 2x DIGIC 6 --> can handle 5 fps X 50 MP
7D2 = 2x DIGIC 6 --> can handle 10 fps X 20 MP
1DX = 2x DIGIC 5+ --> can handle 14 fps X 18 MP
5D3 = 1x DIGIC 5+ --> can handle 6 fps X 22 MP

5D4 = we presume 1x DIGIC 6+ --> can apparently handle 7 fps X 30 MP, which is a higher percentage of the 1DX2 throughput than the 5D3 was compared to 1DX. So either the Canon engineers were rate-limited with the 1DX2 for other reasons -- buffer, shutter, mirror, card write speeds, etc. -- or they found a way to squeeze more performance out of a single chip with the 5D4.

(Full disclosure: this is bush-league level performance swag; I defer to those who actually make similar products to comment on this.)

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2016)

Click said:


> Are you sure about the DIGIC 6 for metering?
> 
> It's not only two DIGIC 6+ in the MK II?



Yep, pretty sure.......

It probably needs it to do AF point linked spot metering :


----------



## Click (Aug 18, 2016)

Thank you very much for this information, pbd.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 18, 2016)

Click said:


> Thank you very much for this information, pbd.



Yes thanks ... but I would like more detail on the whole processor situation beyond FPS and metering. Don't expect much do I? 

Jack


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> From TDP (listed under "image processing", so this would leave out any dedicated 1DX/1DX2 metering hardware):
> 
> 1DX2 = 2x DIGIC 6+ --> can handle 16 fps X 20 MP
> 5DS = 2x DIGIC 6 --> can handle 5 fps X 50 MP
> ...



IMO .. I think people forget that soon the 1DX will hit fps limits in AE/AF modes. there's only so fast apertures can open and close.


----------



## Diko (Aug 18, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO they're keeping it away on purpose.
> ...



Oh... Did I hurt your feelings? Someone is saying something against your beloved camera vendor? I am so sorry NOT! However I'd love to share a good *advice*: Please try to maintain a "bon ton" ;-)

Because if you were long enough around you would probably knew better what I meant. Or perhaps your English needs more time to practice, since AFAIK and according to my humble understanding "*OPINION*" not necessarily _is_ based on fact or knowledge.

Anyways, even the *NX1*, or my _*stupid phone*_ have [email protected] and [email protected] Now CANON failing to provide even the *[email protected]* is kind of weird. Illogical except the case with profit motives. Why not hold it for 5D mk*5* like any other feature illogically missing like the USB 3.*1*? That is something I am suggesting as probable on this forum from almost the beginning I am registered (in 2011, not the end of 2015 like you). 

Ergo in the context of how CANON will _"survive" 4 years on the market_ with the 5D series (the first video DSLR, remember) that are expected to satisfy young amateur film-makers-wanna-bes is quite strange from my POV not to include it.

So what's your excuse... I mean story... I mean argument for "_*talking out of one's ass*_"? ;-)


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2016)

Diko said:


> Ergo in the context of how CANON will _"survive" 4 years on the market_ with the 5D series (the first video DSLR, remember) that are expected to satisfy young amateur film-makers-wanna-bes



You are making the assumption that Canon see them as an important part of their market.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

Diko said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



you kind of forget the REAL market of the 5D .. it's a professional camera with a nod towards video.

it's first and foremost a stills camera.

now if you manage to wrap your brain around that, perhaps you can talk sensibility about something that right now it appears you know really little about.

fun fact.. the 5D III vastly outsells any A series camera on amazon.com (sony's major A series market) and BCN (domestic).

so it may just be that canon considers the video core.. really not that important.

here's another fun fact.

even with most of video going to mirrorless over the past 3 years.. in EU and NA .. the marketshares in those two countries hasn't changed between dslr' and mirrorless.

Perhaps .. and JUST perhaps.. it's far less important than what you think it is.

and why you are whining about USB 3.1 perhaps you can explain to me what the lane throughput of DiGiC is to allow 3.1 and clearly canon is deliberately holding it back because "you know this".

even though the amount of cameras that support USB 3.1 are none, and even the amount of cameras that support USB 3.0 are shockingly low.


----------



## Diko (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ....you kind of forget the REAL market of the 5D .. it's a professional camera with a nod towards video.
> it's first and foremost a stills camera.


 True. It's for stills but I would bet that 1/3 of the cameras sold from 5DM2 series is thanks to its cheap-for-its quality video features. And the fact it was first of its kind.



rrcphoto said:


> now if you manage to wrap your brain around that, perhaps you can talk sensibility about something that right now it appears you know really little about.
> fun fact.. the 5D III vastly outsells any A series camera on amazon.com (sony's major A series market) and BCN (domestic).


 I see nothing fun about it. It is widely known as well as the fact that for some time now 5D is the most used camera as well according to flickr exif stats. 



rrcphoto said:


> so it may just be that canon considers the video core.. really not that important.


 Depends on how you define _*that*_ in "that important". It's a matter of perspective. If the way you see it is ONLY for stills. Fine with me. 

But if you ask me why a stupid 4K camcorder that can record up to 240fps in 1080p For $899US
could do better what is technically possible for a camera that probably will cost somewhere betwen $3k-$4k I don't know.

You say camera for stills, not that important to be different, to be better, to be innovative. Why you keep insisting on 5D being for stills ONLY? Mainly? Which one it's gonna be? Cause if it's for photos (only or mainly) why even bother implementing 4k?

If you read carefully the whole history you would notice it all began with:



Diko said:


> philllie1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...as an allround camera introduced in 2016 7fps also no not seem enough. i wonder, how this cam will "survive" 4 years on the market.
> ...


 Now this catch phrase is obviously pissing you all off. 
You don't seem to mind and hope for 8 fps, but passively accepted that. Because you _*KNOW*_ (for sure) CANON couldn't do better. ;-) where I only expressed humble opinion that perhaps they might could actually do.



rrcphoto said:


> here's another fun fact.


 What's with you and these fun facts :/



rrcphoto said:


> even with most of video going to mirrorless over the past 3 years.. in EU and NA .. the market shares in those two countries hasn't changed between dslr' and mirrorless.


 Let's make things clear?
Where are the numbers for that claim of yours? And what exactly do you mean by "countries"? Continents or political unions... or actually both?!? 



 rrcphoto said:


> Perhaps .. and JUST perhaps.. it's far less important than what you think it is.


Why? Why you came to such a conclusion? 

I said I wanted. I said that CANON is not doing. And something not that important as the [email protected] is what the majority of current model smartphones already have. 

You see? I come to the conclusion that Canon is making mediocre statements about the video by assembling the known features in 5Dm4.
No CFast, No 1080p Slow Mo. But 4K - sure, why not.



rrcphoto said:


> and why you are whining about USB 3.1 perhaps you can explain to me what the lane throughput of DiGiC is to allow 3.1 and clearly canon is deliberately holding it back because "you know this".


 What exactly did I _*claim to know*_? Feel free to copy/paste it here. What is wrong with you people? I said OPINION!

I said 3.1 just to name one. But you are right. Instead take any other missing feature - You name it: Cfast, tilty-flippy screen, IBIS (really even hate the idea) and the magical higher FPS. 

Now my turn to ask questions:



rrcphoto said:


> now if you manage to wrap your brain around that, perhaps you can talk sensibility



Why do you talk to me like that? Have I done something wrong to you? Or you are the same person that wrote "talking out of one's ass".

Cause that makes me think that here there are CANON fanatics or people with emotional intellect of a little boy that need things be clearly explained. I hope you'll manage to follow.

Most of my equipment is from CANON. If you bother to check I have already written that 5DM4 is great DSLR that I intend to buy.

That in NO WAY however would change my OPINION that CANON could do better. You yourself wished to have 8fps. And when I express the idea that CANON MIGHT have hold it back.... 
"_Good Lord! That's impossible. This guy must prove with arguments why is that *so*_"

Now I make a little nightmare for you should you own 5Dm3: I was planning to buy it. Then I refrained. Because 5Dm3 no matter how many units sold world wide for *me *didn't had the *corresponding value* for its *price*. CANON SHOULD have performed better for that amount of money they wanted back then. 

And that is the idea of OPINION! Now I made NO claim about CANON. I strictly wrote IMHO. These are my humble believes and they do not necessarily match everybody else. And I don't expect it to be that way.

But what I do expect is a more civilized way of you (or anybody else) to try to persuade me in your own believes by sharing your opinion. I expect people to emotionally understand that not everyone is willing to accept that CANON is generating the best value-for-money products even when this same people have invested already heavily in CANON glass and other equipment. We all make our decisions and commit according to our believes and circumstances.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

Diko said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ....you kind of forget the REAL market of the 5D .. it's a professional camera with a nod towards video.
> ...



actually it was the second of it's kind .. and canon has been rumored at least to have said that video was researched even after the 5D Mark II has not being significantly important to the camera.

It made headlines, but headlines don't necessarily mean sales.

Canon after the 5D series also came out with Cinema EOS which has proper ergonomics for serious video, versus the hack which is to make DSLR's shoot video.

Things like IBIS will never end up on a canon DSLR .. for either legal reasons or even practical.

and your phone? you're comparing a 1/1.7" sensor to a full frame sensor in terms of heat and performance? I'm curious.. why didn't the A7RII or the A7S shoot 1080p240 if it was so easy?

as far as 8fps - I knew for instance, that the canon would not have the battery life go down to the number in which the 5Ds was .. I knew that before that was released. Was I right in my assumption? damned right. it's CIPA 900 versus the dual processor 5Ds which is 700.

and for some reason you expected it to have the same (or better) video performance as the 1Dx Mark II?

I'm curious how you expect of course that the 1DX Mark II's three DiGiC processors *AND* a 30WH battery and a massive heatsink and heat pipe can all fit in a body that is 1/2 of the size... 

I'm VERY critical on things in which canon *should* be able to do .. but this love of all things video on a DSLR.. really .. get over it. Canon's never going to look at dominating that market .. because you know what? there's far more people that want it for stills.

I have no problems about bitching about actual things that canon could have done practically. The electronic EVF hotshoe that they ALREADY have. that actually has worth just beyond the aspect of video and is a huge miss for the 5D Mark IV.

and where I get my information from? CIPA.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Diko said:


> But if you ask me why a stupid 4K camcorder that can record up to 240fps in 1080p For $899US
> could do better what is technically possible for a camera that probably will cost somewhere betwen $3k-$4k I don't know.



Does that stupid camcorder, or your stupid phone, have a 30 Mpix 36x24mm sensor with deep photosites? Of course it is easier to have 240fps or whatever if you have much less data to flush and much less heat to dissipate! And nobody expects good quality from a phone so you can make shortcuts. Yes, I guess you're right that Canon is holding that back on purpose. But instead of just doing it to piss you off (as you appear to think) they're doing that for solid engineering and business reasons. If you actually were an engineer (software, hardware, whatever) or a manager in a tech business, you'd understand that.




> And that is the idea of OPINION! Now I made NO claim about CANON. I strictly wrote IMHO. These are my humble believes and they do not necessarily match everybody else. And I don't expect it to be that way.



If you'd like the 5D4 to have 240fps or whatever, that's perfectly fine. _That's_ an opinion. But you expressly made a claim about Canon - that they're holding the feature back just because.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 19, 2016)

So now I need to hear the thoughts of those who have been holding off on the 1DX II until the 5D4 was considered. This is going to be a tough decision considering price, given I don't _really_ need the fps and I believe I really need more cropping capability, provided what there is to crop is high quality. While I like the idea of the 1DX II having impressive 4K video I shoot/share a lot more photos than video. Isn't it terrible to have to face such dilemmas in life! 

It shouldn't be long before the early testers start to reveal there experiences with the camera.

Jack


----------



## Diko (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> It made headlines, but headlines don't necessarily mean sales.


 Yeah. So I've heard as well, but everyone around me were buying it for that video.

_*EDIT*_: I've just checked, cause I recall it to be the first one. And yes - it's the first *FF* to have _video at all_ and the first in _DSRL with FULL HD_.



rrcphoto said:


> Things like IBIS will never end up on a canon DSLR .. for either legal reasons or even practical.


 Interesting. You mean for patents infringement?



rrcphoto said:


> and your phone? you're comparing a 1/1.7" sensor to a full frame sensor in terms of heat and performance? I'm curious.. why didn't the A7RII or the A7S shoot 1080p240 if it was so easy?


Honestly, I couldn't find the data nor the bitrate of h264 @240fps neither of 1080p nor of 720p. But never-the-less regardless of the size of the sensor isn't the heat problem be both 1/1.7 and FF the same? I speculate here that it should. Think about it in terms of *amount of data*, _not _*pixel size*.



rrcphoto said:


> it's CIPA 900 versus the dual processor 5Ds which is 700.


 Now, when you mentioned and I think about the battery goes faster indeed. But also it takes more time to charge.



rrcphoto said:


> and for some reason you expected it to have the same (or better) video performance as the 1Dx Mark II?


 Mostly NOT, but with some exceptions. And again. Sport photojournalists (heavy 1Dx users) would benefit the most.



rrcphoto said:


> .....Canon's never going to look at dominating that market .. because you know what? there's far more people that want it for stills.


 True that. But do you realize the tech leap they had to make to offer 4k and how little over it is needed to offer better Slo Mo?



rrcphoto said:


> I have no problems about bitching about actual things that canon could have done practically. The electronic EVF hotshoe that they ALREADY have. that actually has worth just beyond the aspect of video and is a huge miss for the 5D Mark IV.


 This is interesting.... Since it is known that there's gonna be touchscreen on the 5Dm4 I really really puzzled how this will be implemented in my way of shooting. Put EVF in that and that makes even more hard to imagine things for me. I guess you really well know how to put it in good use.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Diko said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > and your phone? you're comparing a 1/1.7" sensor to a full frame sensor in terms of heat and performance? I'm curious.. why didn't the A7RII or the A7S shoot 1080p240 if it was so easy?
> ...



It's not feasible to just read 720p worth of data from a 30Mpix sensor. You have to drain the whole thing and then decide what to do with all the electrons. Similarly, as I implied before, pixel size matters because larger pixel area means deeper wells means more electrons means more current means more power means more heat to dissipate.


----------



## Diko (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Does that stupid camcorder, or your stupid phone, have a 30 Mpix 36x24mm sensor with deep photosites? Of course it is easier to have 240fps or whatever if you have much less data to flush and much less heat to dissipate!


 For Slow Mo video they could be doing hardware crop instead of merging pixels and still have drastically better results due to bigger photosites' size, ergo 30Mpix not a problem. As for data rates: Look how nicely my phone handles the following data rates: [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected] Of course nobody expects them in 4:2:2.



Sharlin said:


> If you actually were an engineer (software, hardware, whatever) or a manager in a tech business, you'd understand that.


 You'd might be surprised to know I actually was one and can assure you that I already implied my believes about their motives: 



Diko said:


> ...*Illogical except the case with profit motives.*



However two lines later on I suggest that I believe (this can be ONLY in the realm of speculation since I haven't read their internal marketing and financial reports, based on which they supposedly make their business decisions) that they could probably cover bigger market share with so much less investment or effort. Please refer to my previous post.


Diko said:


> Ergo in the context of how CANON will _"survive" 4 years on the market_ with the 5D series (the first video DSLR, remember) that are expected to satisfy young amateur film-makers-wanna-bes is quite strange from my POV not to include it.





Sharlin said:


> If you'd like the 5D4 to have 240fps or whatever, that's perfectly fine. _That's_ an opinion. But you expressly made a claim about Canon - that they're holding the feature back just because.


 The latter I already explained. But here the _opinion _is more a wish/desire for that particular feature.

Something that I could hardly ever prove and that I claim is that Canon business behavior is quite conservative one and they play safe by leaving something in their sleeve, for just "in case of" emergency route. Or to have one more feature for the next model iteration ...And so on and so forth.


----------



## Diko (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> It's not feasible to just read 720p worth of data from a 30Mpix sensor. You have to drain the whole thing and then decide what to do with all the electrons.


 True. But not that of a huge problem to crop it by hardware, meaning using 1/4th (or even only 2 Mpixes, just throwing a number for the sake of the idea) of the CMOS and still have great results. NOT _pixel sharing_ as you might be suggesting.



Sharlin said:


> Similarly, as I implied before, pixel size matters because larger pixel area means deeper wells means more electrons means more current means more power means more heat to dissipate.


 Not sure about the wells size correlation to the the power drain (ergo heat issues). Feel free to share some info. I'll be more than glad to learn something new. 

My understanding is that ADC (the ones off the sensor) should take the heavy load. But since not the complete 30Mpix are used its load should be far easier to process. 

PS:Where is one *JRISTA *when you need him :/


----------



## Diko (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Similarly, as I implied before, pixel size matters because larger pixel area means deeper wells means more electrons means more current means more power means more heat to dissipate.


 Not sure about the wells size correlation to the the power drain (ergo heat issues). Feel free to share some info. I'll be more than glad to learn something new. 

My understanding is that ADC (the ones off the sensor) should take the heavy load. But since not the complete 30Mpix are used its load should be far easier to process. As for current usage I believe it is correlated to ISO sensitivity and fps, but still not in the case where at least half of the sensor is not used. Interesting, indeed. 

PS:Where is one *JRISTA *when you need him :/
[/quote]


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.
> 
> That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:
> 
> ...



I think that the 5D3's fps was pegged at half of the 1Dx fps. I'm guessing there's an internal Canon document that states that the 5D range will always be half the fps of the 1DX series. So I guess it's no surprise that the 5D4 is half the fps of the 1DxII. 
I think the 7fps is more than enough for most photographers. I think the 7DII's fps and crop put it into a very specific market out side of what ever the 1DX or 5D range are doing. I suspect that the 5DSR range is independent of the other cameras in the range. It's fps will always be low due to the priority of megapixel density. 
I think the 7DII is intended as a back up to a 1DXII, but offering more reach. The 5D series offer different overlaps, the 5D4 has 1/3rd more resolution that a 1DXII and the 5DSR is unmatched in sensor resolution. So the 5D4 and 5DSR make a perfect pair. I'm not saying that there is wisdom in mixing up these choices. But I think it's clear what Canon's thoughts are. A 1DxII and a 5Dsr make a great versatile package. But there is little in the way of redundancy if one cam fails, is lost, broken, stolen in a professional context. 
If I was shooting sports / wild life professionally, I would get a 1DxII and a 7DII. No question. But if I was a professional shooting landscapes and wildlife, the choices become a little more complex because we a crossing genres. I would probably get a 5Dsr, a 1DxII and either a 7DII or a 5D4 depending on which if the two genres is more important. 

I shoot a lot of weddings, a bit of wild life and a fair amount of landscapes. So the 5D4 is a logical choice for me. I can get by with a keen eye and timing to get my shots and I don't need the ultra high fps of a 1Dx series...and it's shutter is too loud for my wedding work (my primary photography consideration). Also one of my 5D3's is nearing the end of it's professional life and needs a replacement next season. My oldest 5D3 is 4 years old.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2016)

Diko said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Similarly, as I implied before, pixel size matters because larger pixel area means deeper wells means more electrons means more current means more power means more heat to dissipate.
> ...



Technically speaking, sensors work in the voltage domain. Voltage implies potential, but it does not necessarily mean current flows. Additionally, effectively regardless of ISO, because of gain, after the initial pixel amplification the total voltages the rest of the sensor (and off-die electronics, if there are any analog components off die) works with the same general total charge.

If the pixel FWC at base gain is 60ke-, then you are going to be working with a range of charge up to 60ke- regardless. If you are working at 2x the base gain, then your pixel range drops to 30ke-, however a gain of 2 will scale that back into the 60ke- range before anything else happens with it. So, the amount of current involved won't be changing much. And the current used here is minuscule to start with, it's an electronic integrated circuit with micron-scale transistors. 

The camera itself may draw 7-9 volts, however most of that potential would be for handling mechanical stuff like focus. The circuitry itself is probably operating either in the 5V or possibly even 3.3V domain (logic circuitry usually cannot work off of high voltages.) High quality, low noise regulators would be used to clean up the power and deliver a pure DC current to the logic circuitry as well.

Heat has to do with the amount of energy dissipated. That entirely depends on how much resistance is in the circuits. Resistance is intrinsic in every component, every wire, but the right use of the necessary materials can minimize resistance. Minimizing trace lengths can reduce wire resistance. If the circuitry is designed to operate with minimal resistance, using minimal trace path lengths (i.e. by locating most of the circuitry on the sensor die, as close to the pixels as possible), operating at the lowest frequency possible, it will dissipate minimal heat. That is a matter of sensor design. Canon has not been on the cutting edge of sensor design for many years, so who knows if they have been able to integrate all the necessary technology on-chip to minimize head during video readout. Most sensors that use fully on-die readout systems, with column-parallel ADC (Sony, Panasonic, OnSemi and I think Aptina all have this technology) are able to operate at lower readout frequencies to achieve the same readout performance, and the entire readout pipeline is very close to the pixels, which means less heat generated.

If Canon is still using off-die ADC units, my guess is they will have to operate things at a higher clock frequency, they will have to move charge around to much greater distances, and all of that will generate more heat under continuous readout.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2016)

There is actually another factor that can impact how much heat is generated by a sensor during readout. There are a lot of different ADC designs. You have your simple Flash ADC, however that is not the only design. You have Ramp ADC (I know Canon has several patents for this kind of ADC design), your SA-ADC (successive approximation), your single and dual slope ADCs, and your sigma-delta ADC. 

The Flash and Ramp ADCs are not necessarily the most efficient. Flash ADC can require a large amount of transistors (2^n-1 comparators, where n is ADC bit depth) so it can be quite large physically. The Ramp ADC, which I believe Canon uses, is very clock cycle heavy. It requires 2^n-1 clock cycles to properly determine how many bits a given voltage represents. So, for a 14-bit ADC, it requires as much as 16,383 clock cycles to convert each and every pixel! That means for a 30 megapixel sensor, you could burn through as many as 500 billion clock cycles just to convert one image. THAT would create a lot of heat.

A more efficient DAC-based design (the Ramp ADC is a DAC-based counter design) would be the successive approximation ADC. This kind of ADC is more complex, and can require more die area, however it only needs n clock cycles at most to determine which bits need to be flipped to properly represent the analog voltage of a pixel in digital units. So, for a 14-bit ADC, you would need at most 14 clock cycles to convert a pixel with maximum signal, meaning for a 30 megapixel sensor you would only need at most 420 million clock cycles to convert the image. This allows the ADC unit(s) to run at much lower frequency (about 1200 times slower than with a Ramp ADC), which would produce far less heat. 

There are other designs, integrators, that like a Ramp ADC require high clock cycle counts (2^n-1 cycles). I know that integrators are often used with image sensors. Until more recently with very small transistor sizes (180nm, 130nm, 90nm and even 65nm as Samsung is using), fitting a more complex ADC like the very efficient SA-ADC onto the sensor die, and particularly doing so for each and every column, was not possible. Dependong on exactly what size transistors Canon is using in their latest sensors, and with what kind of fabrication technology (I don't think aluminum wiring would be efficient enough), they may still be stuck using less efficient means to ADC. If they are using 90nm Cu BSI designs, they they should have no problem putting in at least some level of parallel SA-ADC units, which would drastically reduce cycle cost, and reduce heat for video readout. 

(Rather skeptical, though...Canon seems to file sensor technology patents here and there, but it is pretty rare considering how many patents in total they file each year, they are basically a non-entity and sometimes thought of as a joke in the world of sensor innovation, and they are excessively conservative in their approach to releasing new technology. Plus, all the ADC patents I've seen from Canon in the last few years seem to be Ramp ADC, so still clock cycle heavy.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

jrista said:


> (Rather skeptical, though...Canon seems to file sensor technology patents here and there



here and there?

using a VERY narrow search. This year canon's filed 27 sensor patents, and 100 patents since jan 2015.

using a more expanded search, it's in the 100's this year alone.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > (Rather skeptical, though...Canon seems to file sensor technology patents here and there
> ...



What was your "VERY narrow" search, and in what database? There are sensors, there are image sensors, and there are image sensors for digital cameras. Canon uses sensors in a lot of their products. They also use a lot of sensors in video equipment, particularly security video. I'd like to see what you come up with for image sensor patents that pertain to their photography business. It's "here and there"...at best.


----------



## Diko (Aug 19, 2016)

Thanks, *Jrista*! 

In recent years CANON re-invest flat amount of money in R&D. That said it is more like a regular anual commitment budget than flexible desire to improve anything. In long-term that is correct path business-wise. However the drawback is that groundbreaking industry changing innovations are almost scarce. Like Canon 5Dm4 its innovation derives from an improvement on their core tech from back 2013 DPAF concept, which perhaps was enabled thanks to their 120 MP CMOS sensor from 2010.

Some patent come out now and then, but from what I've seen. Canon's timing is perfect. Any patent that is core for a new game changing tech comes a month or two before the DSLR body itself. Having in mind that it has been published 2 years before that.... They are very good at that. Sometimes some old patent is risen from the ashes but is not the core idea of the new tech.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



very narrow search for "solid-state image senors" .. and us patent database?
sounds like you're pulling out straws now.

if you open up the search to image sensors and camera systems, it expands.

seriously .. canon files a crap ton of sensor based patents. CR / CW, egami catch 1/100th of them if that.

a core sensor patent is immaterial of usage, and you should know that.

the imaging department's R&D budget last year was 900 million USD. it's not as if they do nothing.


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



That is an excessively broad search, if that is what your actually searching. It would search EVERY solid-state image sensor patent out there from every filer. How are you narrowing it down to Canon's patents? Often you have to use the names of the engineers who filed them, as the patents often don't always specify Canon directly (or perhaps use Kwanon instead.)

There are so many uses for solid state image sensors, and Canon has multiple divisions and subdivisions within the imaging division that use image sensors. Medical imaging and security video are two huge ones, for example. Scanners, printers, etc. also use sensors. The reason there are so few patents that show up on sites like NL and CR is because those are the ones that generally pertain to DSLR imaging...the kind of technology that might actually end up in a DSLR, not the kind of technology that might end up in a flatbed scanner.

Anyway. Same old S___ here. Always. I have high hopes for the 5D IV, but, I am still in "I gotta see it to believe it" mode. After the 1D X II, my hopes are higher than they've been in years...but I can't help but be skeptical still. I spend a lot of time reading about image sensor technology...and Canon is barely a blip in the industry at large.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 20, 2016)

jrista said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



you were only talking about the what the narrow term was .. I searched for the word phrase or term and the company of canon it's really not that hard. and obviously i know enough to only include canon in the results.

and you're deflecting.

canon does a ton of R&D and files a ton of patents on core image technology and secondary (such as AF with senors, HDR, and related technologies) to try and convince others that they do not is pretty false.

and reading? I guess not.. if you though that canon barely does any sensor patents.

a few blogs don't entail all of which canon (or anyone) is really doing in the field of sensor research.

and egami doesn't catch 1/100th of canon patents.


as an example:

micro lens design for mirrorless sensors.
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20160233259

global shutter related patent
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?Docid=20160240577

sensor dynamic range patent
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20160234446

dual pixel ADC patent
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20160198110

hybrid AF on Sensor patent
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20160218127

basically that was a month. there could have been more, that was a quick scan.

That also does not include another 3-4 patents that deal with sensor manufacturing.


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2016)

You have to look at the filed date. Those patents span the last eight months, not the last month...and you've listed only five. Five out of eight months. You might be able to scrounge up some more, but the more you find, the broader the spread those filed dates will have. You can have a whole batch of patents published within a week's period, and some of them could have been filed years earlier. There were a number of sensor patents granted to Canon last year that came out of 2008, 2010, and 2011 by filed date. 

Canon is not cranking out a hundred image sensor patents a month, and at most they might file that many solid state sensor related technology patents per year, a majority of which would never apply to their photography cameras. They file about 4000 patents in total a year, across their entire company, not a chance in hell that more than a quarter of them are image sensor patents. Maybe two percent...tops. 

Anyway, irrelevant conversation. I'm not here to convince you, you are not going to convince me. Time to move on.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 20, 2016)

jrista said:


> You have to look at the filed date. Those patents span the last eight months, not the last month...and you've listed only five. Five out of eight months. You might be able to scrounge up some more, but the more you find, the broader the spread those filed dates will have. You can have a whole batch of patents published within a week's period, and some of them could have been filed years earlier. There were a number of sensor patents granted to Canon last year that came out of 2008, 2010, and 2011 by filed date.
> 
> Canon is not cranking out a hundred image sensor patents a month, and at most they might file that many solid state sensor related technology patents per year, a majority of which would never apply to their photography cameras. They file about 4000 patents in total a year, across their entire company, not a chance in hell that more than a quarter of them are image sensor patents. Maybe two percent...tops.
> 
> Anyway, irrelevant conversation. I'm not here to convince you, you are not going to convince me. Time to move on.



If your esteemed sensor analysis is as good as your reading... Since I stated 100 since Jan. :


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2016)

Always the same old bullshit here. Dear god. 

My reading is just fine:



rrcphoto said:


> as an example:
> 
> micro lens design for mirrorless sensors.
> http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20160233259
> ...



You picked five patents, said they had all been from the last month. When I looked at the FILED DATES, they spanned a period of eight months. 

Out of the supposed 100 you found for "this year"...how many were actually filed THIS year, vs. last year, or the year before, or four, five, six years ago? In terms of when an innovation, or as is often the case a simple evolution on top of an existing innovation, was made, it's the filing date that matters. 

Anyway. Same old shit. Same old arguments. So freakin tiring. I'm out.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 20, 2016)

It'll depend on the high ISO performance of the 5D4. 

If it's stagnant, or a step back from the 5D3, if I truly decide I want more resolution, may as well just go all the way to 50 and grab the 5DS(R). The 5D3 (or 1DX II - still deciding) would remain the go-to cam.


----------

