# Big Megapixel Camera in 2014



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A new EOS-1 body in 2014

</strong>The latest we <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1D_Xs.html" target="_blank">and others</a> are hearing is that a large megapixel camera from Canon won’t be coming until 2014. This coincides with information that Canon <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/01/canons-roadmap-for-2013-cr2/" target="_blank">would be releasing 3 DSLRs in 2013</a> and none of them outside of the APC-S segment.</p>
<p>Prototype cameras with sensors beyond 40mp do exist and are in the hands of very exclusive testers. However, we’re also told that a few lenses in the lineup will need updating before a large megapixel camera hits the market for Canon. No specific lens was mentioned, but I would imagine a full frame ultra wide zoom is one of those lenses.</p>
<p>From the same source as above, 4 new EF lenses will be coming in 2013.</p>
<p>Canon’s announcement date for a new EOS-1 may be dependant on when Nikon announces the rumoured 36mp D4x, Nikon cannot have two such cameras on the market while Canon remains quiet in my opinion.</p>
<p><strong>EOS 5D X?

</strong>A faster update? One suggestion from a known source is that Canon has loose plans to replace and/or update the EOS 5D Mark III quicker than the previous iterations. Could we see one some time in 2014? I would think a direct replacement would be unlikely, however a small, high performance & higher megapixel DSLR would probably have a place in the market.</p>
<p><em>*Notice how I didn’t say “EOS-3D :)”</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Jesse (Feb 7, 2013)

Gimme my 45mm TS-E L !!!


----------



## heptagon (Feb 7, 2013)

Let me re-phrase that: *[CR2] No big megapixel or new sensor in 2013.*


----------



## candyman (Feb 7, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> A faster update? One suggestion from a known source is that Canon has loose plans to replace and/or update the EOS 5D Mark III quicker than the previous iterations. Could we see one some time in 2014? I would think a direct replacement would be unlikely, however a small, high performance & higher megapixel DSLR would probably have a place in the market.




I understand that at one point there will be a replacement for the 5D MKIII. It doesn't bother me that it will come faster than in previous cycle. The 5D MKIII is a GREAT camera that has at least a lifecycle of 5 years. I am not in the professional league that may require latest technology to get the job done. EDIT: I am sure that professionals also not always require the latest technology to get the job done


----------



## Apop (Feb 7, 2013)

quite interesting, do you guys think they started development after the d800 was announced ( or they found out some months prior to it's release).

I would have expected canon to ''rush'' it and try to release one mid/late 2013.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2013)

I love the idea of a 5DX, and I really hope that Canons high MP body brings some improved DR and IQ together with all that resolution. If they release a high resolution camera with the same old low ISO DR and banding issues from the 5D2 / 5D3, it will be a complete waste.

I also hope they follow Nikon's example with the D800E, and give us a special edition without the image softening AA-filter. I couldn't care less about video performance, and the occasional moiré in photos can easily be removed with new tools in Lightroom.


----------



## Menace (Feb 7, 2013)

Looking forward to the high mega pixel body


----------



## M.ST (Feb 7, 2013)

The big megapixel prototype from Canon is outstanding in image quality, a little bit to slow for me, but the bottle neck are some lenses. 

The D4X is also a very good camera. If Nikon maybe put the D4X this year on the market, then Canon has to change the plan to update some lenses before or some/many photographers get lost. But the best camera is worthless with lenses that are not up to date.

After my mail to the Canon development department a week ago they are now very hectic and want to accelerate their developments.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2013)

M.ST said:


> After my mail to the Canon development department a week ago they are now very hectic and want to accelerate their developments.



yes but that was last week!
after my mail to canons head of R&D and my explanation why i need a better S110 they will focus on that. they are in a real hurry now to make better P&S cameras.. DSLRs are on ice....


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Feb 7, 2013)

Yes... And people said it wouldn't happen... 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12606.msg224974#msg224974

I don't think development of the big-MP camera started when Canon got wind of the D800. I think the sensor technology R&D may have been delayed due to the tsunami. So now they are behind Nikon. 

Canon HAS to come out with brand new tech to keep the FF market profitable. Or go into the MF market. And it doesn't look like they want to do that. Once this new sensor tech. is released, don't be surprised in three to five years that they stop making APS-C cameras and go solely FF for DSLRS.. Even the Rebels. There is only so much more tech they can cram into the Rebel. Don't be surprised if the next Rebel is the last with an APS-C sensor.

I'm fine with the big-MP Canon coming out in 2014... But Canon has gotta hurry it up a bit. That rumored Nikon D4X looks to be my perfect big-MP camera and its going to look very juicy to many. The 1Dx is a fine camera. But its a sports-shooter. For us fashion-types, we want more MP and DR. I would bet that nature-types are in the same boat.

I don't think the longer-term Canon pros would switch, but this could put Nikon in a really good spot in the market for the next several years... Canon should announce and the big MP camera before the D4X. That would take some of Nikons thunder when they release the D4X. 

Please Canon, come out with something that there is no question what is the best big MP-FF pro cam out there.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> There is only so much more tech they can cram into the Rebel. Don't be surprised if the next Rebel is the last with an APS-C sensor.



yeah.. sure.... :




> The 1Dx is a fine camera. But its a sports-shooter. For us fashion-types, we want more MP and DR. I would bet that nature-types are in the same boat.




well some time ago i asked david noton (who switched from nikon to canon years ago) if he will switch back to nikon if canon does not produce a high MP DSLR.

he wrote back .. NO he wont.. he don´t need a 36 MP camera.
and the investment he had to make for this switch would not make sense.

well david noton is a professionell landscape photographer... what does that say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Noton_(photographer)


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

Interesting about a quicker sideband "refresh" of the 5D line. I wonder if that is because Canon is finally ready to move to a newer 180nm process, and want to get all of their cameras on it sooner rather than later. I, for one, would happily spend a few grand on a high MP, high frame rate, 5D X (or whatever it ends up being called) if it had reduced read noise and competitive DR (i.e. at least 13 stops).


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting about a quicker sideband "refresh" of the 5D line. I wonder if that is because Canon is finally ready to move to a newer 180nm process, and want to get all of their cameras on it sooner rather than later. I, for one, would happily spend a few grand on a high MP, high frame rate, 5D X (or whatever it ends up being called) if it had reduced read noise and competitive DR (i.e. at least 13 stops).
> ...



I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else. I have also been poring over Canon patents for the last month, and they seem to have quite a number of parallel readout and parallel pixel processing patents for high speed readout of high megapixel count sensors. Canon has also prototyped a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate using some combination of block and row/column parallel readout and on-die image processing. 

I see no reason why that technology could not be applied to a "measly" 30-40mp FF sensor to achieve at least 6-8fps. I also see no reason why ISO range would have to suffer. High ISO capabilities are not mutually exclusive with low ISO capabilities. On the contrary, high ISO is limited by physics, while low ISO is limited by electronic noise sources. Canons maximum well capacity is already more than high enough to fully exploit 14 bit data, as well as fully exploit 16 bit data...the only thing in the way is their high read noise. That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance.


----------



## FunPhotons (Feb 7, 2013)

I'm looking forward to it, and will certainly buy one. Canon does a careful job of maintaining its product line and leaking out features, so in another year we'll have another round of features and high MP to boot. What's not to like?

I hope its in a 1D body too, I've always wanted one of those. Given its targeted at the Studio/Fashion/Landscape shooters it makes sense.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Thanks for your post, jrista.

Now THAT sounds logical... and promising!

I keep my hopes up. Currently a happy 7D user, but always looking to technological advances helping my future photography.

Paul


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2013)

Look at all the pieces of the puzzle....

Clue 1: With the pixel density of the the 7D, only the top Lglass lenses are able to outresolve the sensor.
Clue 2: Canon has recently been upgrading it's high end lenses to outresolve said density.
Clue 3: Canon has said that the new 7D will be significantly above the current one.
Clue 4: Canon has said that more high end lenses will be released before the big megapixel camera.

What this sounds like, at least to me, is that the people at canon realize that a camera is a system... not just a sensor. That they realize that a high megapixel camera will be useless without the appropriate lenses to take advantage of it.... That this has been in the planning for a long time....

Thinks do not progress smoothly... there are leaps ahead and there are stumbles. Sometimes one stumbles before leaping. Sometimes one tests the waters with one's toe before they jump into the bathtub..... I think that the new 7D will be that test... newer technology, perhaps different user interface, who knows? Hopefully it works well and is received well, and lessons learned get applied to a string of updated FF camera models..

Clue 5: The 5DIII may get updated sooner than expected.

I am looking forward to see what happens.... it should be interesting.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> I'm looking forward to it, and will certainly buy one. Canon does a careful job of maintaining its product line and leaking out features, so in another year we'll have another round of features and high MP to boot. What's not to like?
> 
> *I hope its in a 1D body too, I've always wanted one of those. Given its targeted at the Studio/Fashion/Landscape shooters it makes sense.*


Does not make sense at all. I am a landscape and studio photographer, and I want the high MP body to be 5D-sized. If I could have it 100% my way, the high MP body would be rebel sized, but well built and weather sealed.

When I am out and about, I want my gear to be as light and portable as possible, especially when I'm hiking for some landscape photos. When / if I want the extra size, I can easily add a battery grip.

I had the 1DS before, and I swear it was my first and last camera of that size.


----------



## Ivar (Feb 7, 2013)

Replacing the 5D3 faster seems logical. The mirrorless are developing on full speed and this is where a lot of R&D is going. Just being big (the camera) will not cut anymore, there has to be a reason behind. The biggest showstopper for mirrorless is AF, but it seems to be the area of attention - the phase detection on the sensor is another step towards equalizing. 
What is left for bigger cameras? More light thus better sensitivity. However, as said more R&D goes to advancing smaller sensors. Rapid product cycles give advantages - as soon as new tech is available it shows up - rather than by waiting things to accumulate, while others may be already using it. 

Yeah, might be complete bluffing. BUT the trend is here.


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else.
> ...



You make some very good points, and I generally agree. I think one thing you may be leaving out is the advancements in Analog to Digital Conversion over the last four years or so. It is indeed true that as ADC frequency increases, so to does it's contribution to noise. However, the current approach to ADC taken by all manufacturers except Sony is to parallelize buckets, rather than each individual row or column, and process each of those buckets by separate "global" ADCs. Additionally, readout is usually performed on-die in a parallel fashion, however it still is not row or column parallel...usually it is a bucket of columns. Both of those are prime causes for the introduction of banding noise.

Canon currently uses an eight channel per DIGIC 5+ chip approach to ADC. There are two issues with that. First, there are only 8 channels total in most cameras, or 16 channels in the 1D X. That is significantly lower than the 5000+ channels you would have with a true column-parallel ADC approach. Additionally, the ADCs are off die, beyond a bus, on separate chips. That has the consequence of requiring a high speed bus as well as ADCs that operate at a significantly higher frequency than would be required for true CP-ADC. If you put the ADC on-die, you eliminate the bus and the need for high frequency ADCs. You still need a bus for transferring the digital signal out of the sensor, but at that point it is digital, so the signal would not be susceptible to additional noise due to the electronics.

So, yes, a higher frame rate can indeed exacerbate problems with noise. I would agree that the difference between the 7D and the 60D is partly due to the higher frame rate. However, Canon does have a number of patents for parallel readout and image processing on the image sensor die. I am 100% certain they have a form of block bucket readout, which divides the sensor into two dimensional blocks for parallel readout. They also seem to have a form of column-parallel analog readout and amplification with power disconnect, which is apparently capable of nearly eliminating electronic noise that is normally introduced during amplification and read. According to the press releases that announced the 120mp APS-H prototype, they also have on-die image processing. I have not found any patents that seem to describe what that is in detail, but it sounds suspiciously similar to Sony's CP-ADC with Digittal CDS (which is the primary reason Exmor is such a low read noise sensor.)

If we apply current generation technology to the 7D, I it should be more than possible to achieve a high frame rate readout with significantly lower read noise. I cannot say if it could be as low as Exmor (Sony did themselves good with the design of that sensor), but with hyperparallel low frequency on-die ADC and on-die image processing (i.e. noise reduction a la Sony Digital CDS), next-gen Canon sensors could perform at a high frame rate, offer good low ISO performance (maybe not quite as good as Exmor, but certainly a hell of a lot better than any current Canon sensor), good high ISO performance (they already solved that problem, and read noise doesn't play a significant role above around ISO 800), with higher density, higher megapixel designs.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 7, 2013)

Don't care about any bodies. 135mm f/1.8L IS and 14-24L. Then I'm done with equipment.


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Look at all the pieces of the puzzle....
> ...



See my visual examples of the difference between good glass (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS) vs. excellent glass (EF 500mm f/4 L II IS + 1.4x TC) in the quote below of one of my previous posts on another thread. There are significant differences between good glass and excellent glass when the 7D (or for that matter any one of Canon's 18mp cameras) are involved.



jrista said:


> To put some images behind my claims. Below are two photos of House Finches. One is the normal red morph, the other an orange morph. Same bird, otherwise, same size (maybe a slight size benefit to the orange morph) with the same amount of base detail...feathers, beak, eye. Both of these were shot at pretty much the same distance (around 7 feet...red morph maybe a few inches farther), ISO, and aperture, although the red one was up in a tree so my focal plane was shifted a bit, thus slightly blurring the top of its head and the back of its right wing. The body feathers and beaks are in focus on both birds. Both birds were positioned within the same rough area of the lens...slightly off center towards the upper left corner. Both full-scene images below are cropped to roughly the same area (few pixels difference in width and height).
> 
> Both photos shot with my 7D, ISO 400, f/6.3, in my backyard. The red morph was shot with my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens with a full stop of additional light at twice the shutter speed (1/1600s, _which should be an IQ advantage!_) The orange morph was shot with a rented EF 500mm f/4 L IS II. Both lenses had AFMA adjustments for this body.
> 
> ...


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 7, 2013)

I think the other thing they're probably concerned about updating are the corners. Remember, the 7d's crop sensor only captures the center of the image delivered by a FF lens. The FF corners (especially of the current UWA lineup) are much harder to get right, and this will be more noticeable with this pixel density on FF. Hence all the rumors about a new 14-24...


----------



## meli (Feb 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else. I have also been poring over Canon patents for the last month, and they seem to have quite a number of parallel readout and parallel pixel processing patents for high speed readout of high megapixel count sensors. Canon has also prototyped a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate using some combination of block and row/column parallel readout and on-die image processing.
> 
> I see no reason why that technology could not be applied to a "measly" 30-40mp FF sensor to achieve at least 6-8fps. I also see no reason why ISO range would have to suffer. High ISO capabilities are not mutually exclusive with low ISO capabilities. On the contrary, high ISO is limited by physics, while low ISO is limited by electronic noise sources. Canons maximum well capacity is already more than high enough to fully exploit 14 bit data, as well as fully exploit 16 bit data...the only thing in the way is their high read noise. That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance.



Doubt it. Actually 5d3's data throughput is lower than d800's or 7d's and on par with d600's. 6D's is on par with the rebels!
Oh Canon surely can do FPS better than anyone..., but its reserved for the top dog only as is a bunch of other features.


----------



## pedro (Feb 7, 2013)

Don't understand all the tech. But the current process seems promising. Will an updated 5D body (next cycle? 5DX?) provide the same high ISO IQ as my 5D3 does by now or will it be even improved although the MP count will be much higher? So, is Canon drifting away from its' 20-22 MP scheme due to much more improved senor tech? I for myself would like them to stay at these MP levels...Or will a 36+ MP sensor yield the same results as a current 22MP sensor? If they don't remain within this MP count, could the 6D type bodies possibly take the 20 MP sensor niche held by the 5Ds? Anyone? Cheers, Pedro


----------



## willhuff.net (Feb 7, 2013)

Will Canon's planned "big" megapixel camera in 2014 still be considered "big" by the time it hits the shelves over a year from now?


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 7, 2013)

Will be good development to have 3 5D variants; one the classic 22mp (current), one 40mp with AA Filter and one without hopefully Canon can retain the same fps as the current one.

Will be a winner and just need few of the older lens need updating 

What I cannot see is a market for a D4x being same sensor as the D800/e and being 2-3 more expensive just for a pro body and few more fps.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 7, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> A faster update? One suggestion from a known source is that Canon has loose plans to replace and/or update the EOS 5D Mark III quicker than the previous iterations.



Speculation: The 7DII will have newer sensor technology. The 6D has lower read noise than the 5DIII and the 1Dx has lower read noise than the 6D. If the 7DII is even better, then the 5DIII will be looking very dated compared to the rest of the lineup in this area. So they might want to put out a 5DIIIn or something with just a sensor update.


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

meli said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else. I have also been poring over Canon patents for the last month, and they seem to have quite a number of parallel readout and parallel pixel processing patents for high speed readout of high megapixel count sensors. Canon has also prototyped a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate using some combination of block and row/column parallel readout and on-die image processing.
> ...



Well, I am not saying they would let the 7D II pound out 30fps. I figure it will be in the 8-10fps range at 24-25mp range. My hope is that it will be 8-10fps with better IQ at both low and high ISO...but that is just my hope. The 1D X definitely has better noise characteristics compared to the others, and it does not seem to exhibit the oscillating +/- 1/3rd stop ISO quirk (which is a big improvement IMO). It does, however, still have the low ISO DR issue, and while its noise characteristics are better than the rest, it does still have over 38 electrons worth of read noise at low ISO settings, which is actually higher than the 5D III. 

(I am not sure why it works that way, but whatever the core, common, fundamental design factors of Canon's 500nm process are, it causes a non-linear read noise issue in all of their sensors (basically, read noise climbs from a floor around two electrons worth at high ISO to between 10 to 40 electrons worth at low ISO. Sony Exmor sensors effectively have a flat, linear noise curve. I'm hoping a move to 180nm process will allow Canon to solve those issues.)


----------



## meli (Feb 7, 2013)

24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

meli said:


> 24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..



Based on the interview of Maeda, I don't believe that he stated APS-C was going away. On the contrary, he explicitly stated they were indeed producing the successor to the 7D. As for the 7D II using the 1D X "pipeline"...why not? The 7D basically uses the 1D IV pipeline, with dual DIGIC chips and all that, with a higher resolution sensor. I don't really see the difference between the 18mp 7D/16mp 1D IV and a hypothetical 24mp 7D II/18mp 1D X scenario.


----------



## pedro (Feb 7, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > A faster update? One suggestion from a known source is that Canon has loose plans to replace and/or update the EOS 5D Mark III quicker than the previous iterations.
> ...



5DIIIn sounds intresting. So based on that tech the next "regular" replacement could benefit from an even more advanced sensor tech by sometime 2018. I wonder how much the initial price tag will rise related to these improvements compared to the 3.5k they asked for the original" 5D3... 8) Uh, but anyway the 5D3 will remain a very nice camera, did some low light AF tests yesterday and it was very snappy even at distant nightlights and some falling snow!


----------



## charlesa (Feb 7, 2013)

All I know is how long will be waiting and waiting without actually being out there capturing frames? I bought a cheap second hand 1Ds III and just went off. If such a body appears in 2014, I will consider it for architectural and landscape work, till then, happy shooting away.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 7, 2013)

Menace said:


> Looking forward to the high mega pixel body



Me too! I would love to be able to use my Canon lenses again. Meanwhile I thinking of buying my second D800E. I just love that camera. I'm thinking of selling my D800 - any interest?


----------



## ddashti (Feb 7, 2013)

It's good to know that the probability of a 7D Mark II being released is increasing, but the possible replacement of the 5D Mark III? That would just upset many people.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 7, 2013)

Two things.

1. APS-C cameras are Canon's profit center. Why does Canon refuse to support these customers with new EF-S primes. I own a EF-S 10-22mm, but would buy 10mm (16mmFF), 17mm (27mmFF) and 22mm (36mmFF) if they were available at f/1.4 or f/1.8.

2. I'm much more likely to buy a 31 megapixel Medium Format Digital than a 40 megapixel Canon.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 7, 2013)

I know we have camps here on whether our current lens resolutions are adquate to meet 40+ MP.

Some of the superteles that were recently redesigned were done with that thought at the forefront of their mind and will do well with the higher resolution sensors. More recent version "II" zooms including the 24-70 II and 70-200 II ... will be fine. 

I am not so sure about some of the older legacy L's, let alone consumer EF's.

I am not saying every single one of the older lenses lag behind, I think most do. I think 135L will be fine, but certainly 35L, 50L, and sadly perhaps even the somewhat recent 24L II will not fare so well on high MP sensors. 

So it is good to see the acknowledgement in the CR post (if it is truly from Canon) that some of their lenses will have to be updated to meet the high MP sensor demands.

Again, I know some feel most key lenses out-resolve planned sensors... I feel only on paper is such a contention true. Canon will quietly start upgrading their key primes...35L II and some form of 50mm are probably imminent.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2013)

c.d.embrey said:


> 2. I'm much more likely to buy a 31 megapixel Medium Format Digital than a 40 megapixel Canon.



well some people are happy with just one AF point and the "speed" of a MF camera.
if you are soley a studio shooter MF is maybe the way to go anyway.

others would love a speedy (relative) 30-45 MP DSLR with a great autofocus system.


----------



## Arturo Sánchez (Feb 7, 2013)

+1 because the actual model is the shit



Jesse said:


> Gimme my 45mm TS-E L !!!


----------



## Arturo Sánchez (Feb 7, 2013)

I hope that Canon could create a better sensor with more and more usable dynamic range.

With Nikon when you recover the shadows from a contrasty RAW file you don't get an annoying banding like in Canon,you guys should have a look at this example taken with the Nikon D800:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/photographyforrealestate/discuss/72157629365755068/


----------



## armando (Feb 7, 2013)

please put in an EVF


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 7, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> well some people are happy with just one AF point and the "speed" of a MF camera.
> if you are soley a studio shooter MF is maybe the way to go anyway.



For studio table-top I use either a Canon 1Ds2 or a Canon 5D2. For *full page magazine ads* either works well.



> others would love a speedy (relative) 30-45 MP DSLR with a great autofocus system.


And I'd love a *16 megapixel APS-C* camera with a *sensor equal to or better than a Sony DX chip*  Different stroles for different folks


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 8, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> well david noton is a professionell landscape photographer... what does that say?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Noton_(photographer)




I could say Canon "helps" him out for saying things that toe the line?


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

armando said:


> please put in an EVF



Oh dear god no!!! EVF = blocky, blotchy, gritty, grainy, posterized crapiness! Even the best of the best EVFs that offer 2600ppi are junk. Until EVFs are pumping out at least 5000ppi, preferably more (12,000ppi for people with 20/10 vision in a mirrorless-sized viewfinder box at 11mm eye relief), they aren't worth it. Until they offer 20 stops of DR, they aren't worth it. Until they have instantaneous update, no grain or banding in low light, and are gigantic in dimensions...they aren't worth it. Give me an OVF any day and I'll take it over an EVF. The addition of an EVF to any DSLR (note, DSLR...different from a mirrorless) would end my use of any brand that does that. A DSLR is an OPTICAL camera, *keep it that way!!!* People who like all their instantaneous, real-time, real-world optical bliss should not be forced to use an EVF because of the mirrorless mob.

Leave the EVFs to a whole new, separate, distinct, unique line of mirrorless cameras so people have a choice. Don't interfere with the tried and true, working great, ergonomically exquisite DSLR. PLEASE, OH GOD PLEASE, I BEG OF YOU, don't let Canon put an EVF into a DSLR.


----------



## Jesse (Feb 8, 2013)

"I'm much more likely to buy a 31 megapixel Medium Format Digital than a 40 megapixel Canon."

Probably an obvious answer, but shooting in a studio what would be the benefit of MF over a high-megapixel Canon? Wouldn't the Canon be able to print even larger than MF if there are more pixels?


----------



## mkunert (Feb 8, 2013)

In other words (like I suspected) Nikon's D800 completely blindsided Canon.

So not to loose face and stem a possible hemorrhage of photographers into Nikon's camp, Canon releases disinformation rumors.

First: We may be releasing a high MB camera soon.
Second: Uh, we STILL haven't released a high MB camera because it's taking longer because it's neeeewwwwwww sensor technology.
Third: We have to upgrade the lens first.

Last one really amuses me because it implies that Canon lens suck compared to Nikon. Nikon didn't need to upgrade their lens for people to instantly see massive benefit from the D800. Will a whole new slew of Canon lens be needed to see a difference with Canon new high MB camera?

Sad.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> armando said:
> 
> 
> > please put in an EVF
> ...



+1. 

Also, someone mentioned a new 50, which to me implied a new L-level 50, as opposed to a replacement of the 50 1.4 (which also needs an update, and I'm waiting for before moving up from the plastic fantastic). This would make my day- I'd buy the current 50L in a heartbeat as soon as the price dropped because there was a newer version...


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 8, 2013)

mkunert said:


> In other words (like I suspected) Nikon's D800 completely blindsided Canon.
> 
> So not to loose face and stem a possible hemorrhage of photographers into Nikon's camp, Canon releases disinformation rumors.
> 
> ...



Only massive benefit I think for Nikonians was the pukey green hue that D800 had. But welcome to the forum anyways


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 8, 2013)

@mkunert, and let's not forget the Nikon executives categorically stating their crop DX sensors were the future and Full frame had no relevance in the digital world...and once canon whipped their heiny with the 1 series and 5D...they played in the sandbox with their tail between their legs...periodically letting out a sad whimpering moan.


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

mkunert said:


> In other words (like I suspected) Nikon's D800 completely blindsided Canon.
> 
> So not to loose face and stem a possible hemorrhage of photographers into Nikon's camp, Canon releases disinformation rumors.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind, a lot of nikon users have complained about softness with high-MP sensors. Also keep in mind that Nikons FF sensors are LOWER density than Canon;s 18mp APS-C sensor, and that includes the D800's 36.3mp sensor. Canon is not just updating lenses to support 47mp FF senors...they are paving the way for the next decade or two of sensors. If anyone thinks we are going to stop at 50mp, I think they have another thing coming....I bet we see 60, even 70mp sensors within a decade. Canon glass has been good enough for higher density sensors than the D800's for years. The new Mark II generation of 4-stop IS lenses will be good enough for sensors 10 years from now (with possibly an IS update and maybe a Fluorite element mod to reduce weight five years from now.) 

A lot of Nikon class (and I mean most of it...there are only a very few exclusions here) is not quite or only barely good enough for the D800. Nikon is really due to upgrade a lot of their lenses to support higher resolution sensors as well. They just haven't gone quite as far as Canon did with the 18mp APS-C yet (except in the case of the D3200, which is a 24mp APS-C). If Nikon went for a 45 or 50mp sensor at some point in the future, which I doubt they will do for a few years yet, they would very likely be in the same boat as Canon. 

Personally, I'll take Canon Mark II glass over anything else, including Zeiss or Nikkor, any day any time. It brings out the best in my still very high density 7D, and then some. The most phenomenal lenses I've ever laid eyes on, or had the pleasure to use. Light as feathers, AF fast as bats out of hell, and have the best IS one could hope for (imagine getting a 1/20th second hand-held shot out of a 500mm lens!)


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> armando said:
> 
> 
> > please put in an EVF
> ...



I think you missed the smily face.... but then again, perhaps it is high megapixel EVF


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

Apop said:


> quite interesting, do you guys think they started development after the d800 was announced ( or they found out some months prior to it's release).
> 
> I would have expected canon to ''rush'' it and try to release one mid/late 2013.



I think they realize they need a new process sensor in any 1DXs or 5D4 and releasing those in 2013 just to replace them again in 2014....

They got too complacent bragging about how they were at least a decade ahead of Nikon for FF and got caught by Nikon, they tried to bleed their old fabs overly long and are simply stuck with no response until they get new fabs and processes and tech going again, which takes time (which is why some of us were screaming about sensor tech a number of years ago, i.e., so it would've been ready now and not another two years out).

Anyway I'd rather it arrives 2014 than a rushed job 2013 release with old tech and I'd also rather 5D4 come sooner rather than 3-3.5 years between as last time so at this point in time I can't fault any of it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

M.ST said:


> The big megapixel prototype from Canon is outstanding in image quality, a little bit to slow for me, but the bottle neck are some lenses.



No, the bottleneck is they got way too king of the hill complacent and let the market guys hold back the engineers so as to milk old tech for too long. Lenses are a ridiculous excuse what with the 24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 II, super-tele II which are all best in class.



> After my mail to the Canon development department a week ago they are now very hectic and want to accelerate their developments.



??? You are claiming that they still had no planes for new sensors or MP and only now, after an email from you last week.... ;D

(and I pray you didn't suggest they forget about new process sensors in favor of rushing the same old in high MP form out.... and more so that if you that they are NOT listening and becoming hectic)


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 8, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> However, my point was that I don't see why people say that the high MP FF requires a new line of lenses when the existing lenses (including the 500 f4, no II) work well on the 7D, which has the same pixel density as the new high MP FF is rumored to have.



Because the 7D's pixel density from a radius of 13.5mm to 21.6mm is zero.


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Jrista wrote; However, the current approach to ADC taken by all manufacturers except Sony.
> 
> There are Panasonic with row wise ADC as Sony , there are Aptina and Toshiba with ADC at the sensor chip with different solutions. Every 10 row in Aptina sensor as one example
> Sony has no over all patens regarding row wise ADC at the sensors edge.
> ...



I am not talking about "row-wise" in general. I am talking quite explicitly about Sony's CP-ADC w/ Digital CDS, which is an ADC for every single column that performs a refresh readout, negative read and register for each pixel, then full sensor read on top of the negative registration to produce a near-noiseless image. THAT is the genius behind Exmor, and why it performs better than every other sensor on the market. 

Row-wise ADC is not the same, as it is just a form of bucketed parallel readout. It still has the potential (and frequently realizes that potential) to produce banding. Canon also has patents for bucketed parallel on-die ADC readout. According the the patents I've read recently, it is not row-wise but clock wise. Not really sure how that affects read noise or banding (I suspect a light hatching is probably the result), but it isn't much different than row-wise on-die ADC.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> mkunert said:
> 
> 
> > In other words (like I suspected) Nikon's D800 completely blindsided Canon.
> ...



Would you please pass along a reference to where you got the "Keep in mind, a lot of nikon users have complained about softness with high-MP sensors." business. I've shot Canon for a number of years and I thought I was producing highly detailed landscapes. But when I shot the D800 and D800E with even the Nikon 24-70 zoom, the camera and lens combination blew away my Canon 24-70 (mark 1). If anyone is complaining of softness with a D800 I would like to know which lens and what the setup was. I shoot landscapes with a tripod in live view and I am very happy with the Nikon difference in all fine details, and what I can do with shadow detail in post. 

As far as the 18MB APS-C having smaller pixels than the D800 that may be true. Check out the "big" pixels on the D600 full frame. Very nice. Compare IQ on the 7Dmk2 with what samples from the new D5200. I suspect we'll soon see a 24mp D7000. Canon needs to step up their sensor game before this game gets away from them.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting about a quicker sideband "refresh" of the 5D line. I wonder if that is because Canon is finally ready to move to a newer 180nm process, and want to get all of their cameras on it sooner rather than later. I, for one, would happily spend a few grand on a high MP, high frame rate, 5D X (or whatever it ends up being called) if it had reduced read noise and competitive DR (i.e. at least 13 stops).
> ...



Well D800 already does 4fps at 36MP in 2012 so two years later it is not crazy to think you can get a 6fps 39MP 5D4.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



It does sound logical and promising to the extreme. I just hope Canon is seeing it that way. The signs point that they might be, OTOH they haven't actually directly shown much to hope that though and delays and all might be not due to what we hope. I think that he is right about that, but I do fear a touch that I might end up disappointed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> The 1D X definitely has better noise characteristics compared to the others, and it does not seem to exhibit the oscillating +/- 1/3rd stop ISO quirk (which is a big improvement IMO).



That is nothing new. All the 1 series, certainly any half-way recent one has used two amps, 1 for the main ISO and then one to adjust 1/3 stops on top of that. 1D4, 1Ds3, 1D3 were all free of that too. No non-1 series has ever been free of it though, they all used faked 1/3 ISOs.



> (I am not sure why it works that way, but whatever the core, common, fundamental design factors of Canon's 500nm process are, it causes a non-linear read noise issue in all of their sensors (basically, read noise climbs from a floor around two electrons worth at high ISO to between 10 to 40 electrons worth at low ISO. Sony Exmor sensors effectively have a flat, linear noise curve. I'm hoping a move to 180nm process will allow Canon to solve those issues.)



A combo of the process size (since D4 sensor doesn't use exmor but does have less read noise than any Canon) and lacking the column ADC, more fully digital on chip 'NR' of the exmor and other sensors of that sort of design.
(some speculate those types of designs can't be done on 500nm process though, even with patents, since they take up too much room at 500nm, some speculate that the patents are not even an issue at other and that others do similar things and that it is the size alone that might be holding Canon back, not sure though).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

meli said:


> 24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..



Why?? 7D did the same as the 1 series throughput?
Did it make it cost $6000? No. Digics cost dollars.


----------



## pedro (Feb 8, 2013)

[size=18pt]*"That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance."*[/size]

I just hope it turns out like this. An 1Dx is out of range for me. Therefore I really like the 5D3 for my type of photography. It is a very versatile allround cam allowing me to shoot at extremly high ISOs in decent quality. But honestly: 22.3 MP are way enough for me!


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The 1D X definitely has better noise characteristics compared to the others, and it does not seem to exhibit the oscillating +/- 1/3rd stop ISO quirk (which is a big improvement IMO).
> ...



I agree that it is unlikely Canon could do that with a 500nm process. I will have to go back and look at some of those patents again...I am not sure if a process size was specified. It was mostly just the electrical design of the concepts, not necessarily with actual prototypes. I am pretty sure Canon would need the 180nm die shrink to achieve anything more advanced than what they have now...otherwise they are just wasting die space, and probably producing too much heat to boot.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > That is nothing new. All the 1 series, certainly any half-way recent one has used two amps, 1 for the main ISO and then one to adjust 1/3 stops on top of that. 1D4, 1Ds3, 1D3 were all free of that too. No non-1 series has ever been free of it though, they all used faked 1/3 ISOs.
> ...



Hmm I thought I read that some had tested it and it did, perhaps not.
I thought it started before 1D4.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 8, 2013)

Jesse said:


> "I'm much more likely to buy a 31 megapixel Medium Format Digital than a 40 megapixel Canon."
> 
> Probably an obvious answer, but shooting in a studio what would be the benefit of MF over a high-megapixel Canon? Wouldn't the Canon be able to print even larger than MF if there are more pixels?



Who makes prints ??? I shoot advertising that appears in magazines, etc. There have been more than a few Vogue covers shot with 16Mpx DX cameras. Lots of Sports Illustrated covers shot with Canon 1D cameras or the Nikon D3.

Because of the larger sensor in MFD cameras you use a longer lens than full-frame. For the medium format shooter, *FF is a crop camera*


----------



## paulrossjones (Feb 8, 2013)

mkunert said:


> In other words (like I suspected) Nikon's D800 completely blindsided Canon.
> 
> So not to loose face and stem a possible hemorrhage of photographers into Nikon's camp, Canon releases disinformation rumors.
> 
> ...



i have to agree. in my world (advertising photography), so many professionals have ditched canon for nikon, and more have ditched medium format. i only know of a few photographers still shooting medium format, because its a pain in the ass. i have considered buying a d800e for the meantime so i don't need to use my p65 so much, but i have so much invested in canon lenses. and some canon lenses are really unavailable in nikon. i use my 50 f1.0, 85 f1.2, 200 f1.8 and ts17 for almost all my shoots, and nikon has none of these.

i dream of having a fast shooting high megapixel canon, my life would be so much easier. i wish it was out soon. 

paul


----------



## pedro (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



*@Mike Risedal: Thank you for sharing! I am not a tech and non-anglo as well. But do I understand correctly, that Sony sensors apply kind of a black frame ( as we do it in long exposures at night) to get rid of all the noise before ever a new photograph is taken? Well, this allows much more noise free high ISOs then...So, when is it likely that Canon apply a similar system? My 5D3 seems to be a good investment until they are able to present a similar solution.* 8)


----------



## meli (Feb 8, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > 24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..
> ...



that 6k must be 2k i suppose? Eitherway keep in mind that msrps were 1.7k for 7d & 5k for 1d4. Its 7k for the 1d5 1dX, plus consider Canon's pricing trend for the last 2 years


----------



## Cannon Man (Feb 8, 2013)

I like this rumor!!
Please be available in the stores before my 3 month long trip to Japan in 2014 !!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The 1D X definitely has better noise characteristics compared to the others, and it does not seem to exhibit the oscillating +/- 1/3rd stop ISO quirk (which is a big improvement IMO).
> ...



Bill Claff's data show the 'quirk' pretty clearly. The same oscillating pattern seen below in the 5DIII plot is seen in the 7D plot, etc. The 1D X has lower read noise overall, and a pretty smooth relationship with ISO.


----------



## pedro (Feb 8, 2013)

@neuro, mikael: Thanks a lot. This helps for my better understanding!


----------



## John Thomas (Feb 8, 2013)

@Mikael, Jon Rista, John Reilly & others: Why do you think that Canon got uncovered in the sensor game, since it has the patents and the like? I don't want to reiterate the architectural differences between different sensors but rather a "what happened and what they should do next?"

Also, besides improving the (classical) "data extraction engine" (read: ADC & co.) what do you think about the 'alternative' solutions like the...

Panasonic's new approach based on diffraction
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/04/panasonic-promises-high-sensitivity-sensors-using-micro-color-splitters)

Fuji's X-Trans and similar other approaches to avoid the OLPF like eg. Foveon
(sorry, no links here... ;D )

stacked sensors (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-develops-exmor-rs-the-worlds-first-stacked-cmos-image-sensor-2012-08-21) 

curved sensors (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-patent-shows-a-new-curved-sensor-technology/)

honeycomb sensors (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-sensor-patent-discloses-a-honeycomb-image-sensor/)


...and any other solution(s) as I said. 


IOW, which would be, in your opinion, "The Road Ahead"?


----------



## Atonegro (Feb 8, 2013)

Sh*t.... I was hoping for a better Canonsensor this year....
Looks like I have to buy me some more Nikon lenses.

Shame the canon lenses don't fit on the Nikon, Nikon has for sure the better camera, but I think the Canon lenses are better.


----------



## traveller (Feb 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




Neuro, 

Sorry, I missd that thread entirely, but it looks interesting; do you have the link? 

Cheers 

[edited to remove formatting error]


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

pedro said:


> *@Mike Risedal: Thank you for sharing! I am not a tech and non-anglo as well. But do I understand correctly, that Sony sensors apply kind of a black frame ( as we do it in long exposures at night) to get rid of all the noise before ever a new photograph is taken? Well, this allows much more noise free high ISOs then...So, when is it likely that Canon apply a similar system? My 5D3 seems to be a good investment until they are able to present a similar solution.* 8)



Every camera applies CDS, or Correlated Double Sampling. The point of CDS is to determine the reset dark current noise present in the sensor, before an exposure is taken. The charge of each pixel is registered and saved, and when the actual exposure is read out, the registered reset charge is subtracted from the exposure charge. That, effectively, eliminates noise caused by dark current present in the sensor at reset time. That is a moderate mount of noise, and exists in all sensors. It is not, actually, the worst form of electronic (read) noise, so CDS only does a partial job of removing noise in hardware.

At the moment, as far as I know, Canon only employs analog CDS, via circuitry in each pixel. The use of an analog register makes their implementation of CDS succeptible to heat, charge leakage, etc. So it is not perfect, and the registered dark current noise can be "infected" by other sources of noise. Sony Exmor, on the other hand, employs Digital CDS. A reset read is performed via CP-ADC after each exposure, clearing the sensor. CDS is still employed, however instead of registering the reset charge of each pixel in analog form in CDS circuitry, each pixels reset charge is read, converted via the ADC, and stored digitally in a memory bank per column, associated to each pixel of that column. Since the reset charge is stored digitally, it is effectively immune to infection from other sources of noise such as current leakage, heat, etc. Again, that is only part of the story.

Other sources of noise, which tend to produce more prominent noise, are the ADCs themselves, and output differential from multiple ADCs. Additionally, if the ADCs are off-die, then the analog signal from the sensor itself has to travel along a bus, which can introduce its own noise. The general concept with Exmor is to turn analog information into digital information as early as possible. Digital information is bits, 1's and 0's, which are more "resilient". Error correcting data channels can transmit digital information in a reliable manner via, say checksums, and if a chunk of digital data is received that does not have a matching checksum, then it can be resent. Thus, a digital signal is always "pure". An analog signal can be "infected" during transmission, and thus can never be truly "pure". 

It also aims to do so in as highly parallel a nature as possible. High frequency components tend to generate more electronic noise, and when you have fewer ADC units, each one has to process more pixels. By hyper-parallelizing the ADC with its CP-ADC patents, Sony is able to run each ADC at a much lower frequency, since each one only had to process, say, 4000 pixels (one column) rather than 4000 * N. Say, in a 6000x4000 sensor, there are only 16 ADCs...that would be 6000 columns / 16, or 375 columns processed per ADC...a total of 1.5 megapixels per ADC. An ADC responsible for processing 1.5 million pixels per readout needs to operate much faster to be capable of processing at a high enough rate to support the frame rate of the camera, than an ADC responsible for processing 1/375th of that much (4000 pixels).

By switching to a CP-ADC approach, and converting the analog signal to a digital signal at the earliest possible opportunity, Sony Exmor has made their readout more immune to infection by noise. They leave the shortest window of opportunity to allow noise to be added to the signal, this eliminating the majority of it "by default". Additionally, slight differences in ADC operation can cause banding. I have not read any explicit indication that Sony CP-ADC does this, but I believe each ADC is able to determine differences with its neighbors and eliminate any non-uniformity related noise as well (and, thus, reduce banding to a level where it never exhibits in their images.) Other forms of NR could also be performed digitally, such as PRNU (pixel response non-uniformity). The use of low-frequency parallel ADC also eliminates a prime source of heat (high frequency ADCs operate at a higher temp), thus reducing thermal contributors to noise.

Can Canon get around this patent? Well, as Mikael states, sure...they could bucket rows instead of having one ADC per column. Is that good enough? Well, parallelization is only part of the story. The real source of the low-noise operation is the DIGITAL NATURE of Exmor sensors. Column-Parallel is really more of a speed thing than a low-noise thing...by reading each column out in parallel, you can do more work in less time at the same frequency as an off-die ADC that processes 375 columns. If the on-die ADC's operated at double, triple, quadruple the frequency they operate at now in say the D800 sensor, you could achieve extremely high readout rates. You would also experience an increase in noise, however thanks to the Digital NR it is unlikely that even a higher frequency CP-ADC would produce as much noise as purely analog readout systems.

Whether Canon can get around Sony's patents for Exmor really remains to be seen. A lot of the same concepts can be employed via analog readout...column-parallel read, CDS, non-uniform response normalization, etc. could all be employed in an analog version of CP-ADC on a Canon sensor. But such a readout system would still be an analog signal, and still succeptible to infection by noise during transmission from the sensor to the image processor. Canon might be able to combine an image processor right onto the sensor die, or stack them. That would reduce the transmission distance. It would also likely increase heat, and heat is a contributor to noise in an analog signal. I dunno...at the moment, it seems like Canon is in a tough spot to really directly compete with Exmor. They could probably compete with other manufacturers using various forms of bucketed parallel readout...20 rows per on-die ADC, stuff like that. They will still experience banding (as the Nikon D5200 does), but it would certainly be a step in the right direction, and hopefully a significant improvement over their current sensor technology.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

meli said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > meli said:
> ...



My point was that it is not crazy to expect that sort of throughput from a 7D2 when even the 7D did it and no it did not force the 7D to cost anything close to 1 series prices.


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Ditto. I don't really see any difference between the 7D's likeness to the 1D IV and the potential for the 7D II's likeness to the 1D X. The use of dual digics and high frame rate will not make the 7D II cost as much as a 1D X. The 7D II may indeed cost around $2100, but that is the price we pay for the continual advancement of technology...newly released products rarely start out at the ending street price of their predecessors.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Well D800 already does 4fps at 36MP in 2012 so two years later it is not crazy to think you can get a 6fps 39MP 5D4.
> ...



Moore's doesn't apply to sensors but it does to digics and the memory buffer chips and all. Yeah at some point the shutter becomes an issue but a 6fps shutter is hardly a big deal for FF, not like the 5D3 doesn't do it already or that tones of other FF cams haven't done 6fps easily. WHo is saying more than 12fps for the 5D4?? And for 1 series the 1DX already does that.

40MP FF is still LESS density than the 7D so it hardly needs AF to be even more accurate (and the 5D3/1DX and the newest lenses DO have more precise AF anyway).


----------



## jrista (Feb 8, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I don't see the 5D Next getting 12fps. It just doesn't really make sense, and unless bandwidth from the sensor to the digics can be improved, there would either need to be a third digic and a broader bus, or maybe digic 5++.

The 12fps frame rate of the 1D X did require a redesigned mirror-box and mirror actuation mechanism. The 14fps bonus rate requires mirror lockup. Lot of fairly cutting edge technology there, which again seems to diminish the prospects of a 5D Next getting an ultra high frame rate.


----------



## Rick (Feb 9, 2013)

Canon would be wise to release a hi-res 5 series alongside any 1 series release, you know, so that they can sell some meaningful number of units.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Another??



L versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Another??
> ...



Of all the lenses out there, I really think these puppies need an update, along with becoming L-series glass. They are decent lenses for what they are, but really out dated at this point.


----------



## pedro (Feb 9, 2013)

*@jirista: Thank you so much for taking your time to elaborate your explanation for me. *Now I got a faint idea of what it is all about. I highly appreciate that! Has there leaked any info (patents) that Canon are changing to the CP-ADC approach sometime soon? or let's say within the 5DIIIs or 6Ds body cycle? Could the rumored 5DX contain at least some first components towards this system? Looking forward to read about CP-ADC approaches related to future canon sensor designs....Cheers, Pedro


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 9, 2013)

There is one issue I have not seen here that could be holding up Canons announcement. That is at the write speeds discuses here it is unlikely that CompactFlash or SD cards can handle the write speed. Canon is a very conservative company they could be exploring the successor technologies for CompactFlash. CFast which is based on serial ATA, or the other one which is based on PCIe buss. One problem is both of these technologies are incompatible with CompactFlash pin layout. What to do create a camera with 3 card inputs? CFast, CompactFlash, SD?

They are probably using this time to see which technology comes out on top and update a number of lenses to handle increased sensor density. It is only a mater of time before CompactFlash is completely discontinued. It is already becoming more and more a niche product.


----------



## meli (Feb 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > meli said:
> ...



Agree, thats what im saying in my original post; The 7dmk2 costing as much as a 1D was a misunderstanding from LetTheRightLensIn


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> I don't see the 5D Next getting 12fps. It just doesn't really make sense, and unless bandwidth from the sensor to the digics can be improved, there would either need to be a third digic and a broader bus, or maybe digic 5++.



Neither do I. My point was that it wasn't crazy to expect 6fps with a lot of MP though from a 5D4.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the 5D Next getting 12fps. It just doesn't really make sense, and unless bandwidth from the sensor to the digics can be improved, there would either need to be a third digic and a broader bus, or maybe digic 5++.
> ...



I know. I was agreeing with you, and reinforcing your point. ;P


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2013)

Can't we all just agree to agree?


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2013)

pedro said:


> *@jirista: Thank you so much for taking your time to elaborate your explanation for me. *Now I got a faint idea of what it is all about. I highly appreciate that! Has there leaked any info (patents) that Canon are changing to the CP-ADC approach sometime soon? or let's say within the 5DIIIs or 6Ds body cycle? Could the rumored 5DX contain at least some first components towards this system? Looking forward to read about CP-ADC approaches related to future canon sensor designs....Cheers, Pedro



Glad I could help.  I think the reason Exmor is so good is rather misunderstood...I even misunderstood it for a long time. Then I read a PDF article on it, and it all made sense. On-die parallel digital processing is really the way of the future, I think.

Regarding what Canon has, I really can't say. A lot of their patents are a bit over my head. I have a decent understanding of image sensor technology and electronics, so I can generally understand the bulk of their CIS patents, but when it comes right down to the exact mechanisms, I am not an expert, and I cannot say exactly 100% what Canon has up their sleeve. Also, I've only read the patents that have been granded and are publicly available...I'm sure Canon has patents they have filed over the last year or two that are pending grant, and not yet available to the public. What they may have pending could be anything...some form of CP-ADC is a possibility, CIS active thermal cooling is definitely another...but I have not seen explicit patents about them so far.

What I do know Canon has are regarding on-die hyperparallel readout logic. This does NOT include ADC, it is just column-wise parallel read. One of the readout patents described per-column (rather than per-pixel) amplifiers, which I thought was interesting. Canon also has some interesting noise reduction patents. I don't understand them all (still need to finish reading and researching most of them). One that I did understand involved a power source disconnect feature in readout logic. The concept seemed to boil down to the idea that noise-generating dark current exists only when an active power source is flowing current through a circuit. Disconnecting the active power source, and using capacitance and existing charge to actually read out the pixel value, eliminated dark current as a source of noise. 

The majority of the patents I have read seem to involve on-die readout logic. I am not sure that the stuff that occurs on-die (at least in Canon designs) is really the primary source of noise. Canon uses off-die ADCs housed in their DIGIC chips, across a high speed bus. I think the source of the most hated noise in Canon sensors...horizontal and vertical banding noise (HBVN, as I term it), is largely caused by the fact that read pixel data must then travel along a bus, after which they must be converted by high frequency ADCs. Assuming Canon has no on-die digital readout technology, I think their best option to reducing noise would be to eliminate that bus and move the ADCs on-die, in a much more parallel fashion than they have now. Even if it is not fully column-parallel, greatly increasing the parallelism beyond 16 and putting ADC on-die should help to reduce noise considerably.

There is also that ever-present die shrink. As pixel sizes get smaller, Canon is losing out in terms of Q.E. more and more. A 500nm process was quite good for APS-C and FF until a few years ago, however as pixel densities continue to increase, and as more and more logic is put on the same die as the pixels themselves, a 500nm process is going to really start hurting Canon's ability to compete on the sensor front. We've already seen it in the difference in IQ between the 5D III and D800, by an order of two magnitudes. A 180nm process is a three-fold shrink in transistor size. That means a few things. One, they can put more circuitry on-die without needing to dramatically increase the amount of power used (which, being the prime contributor to dark current noise, would have a negative impact on IQ). 

Second, the usable area per pixel would increase at all sensor sizes and pixel densities. A 500nm transistor consumes a lot of space, which reduces the total photo-diode area that can actually receive photons. Microlensing helps, but it is far from perfect, and stronger, more precise microlenses are required when larger readout wiring and transistors are used. A 180nm process would allow more photodiode area to be dedicated to "pixel", and less to "transistor and wiring". Combined with better microlens technology, and possibly even better color filtering technology¥, Canon could bring their Q.E. up to competitive levels (55-65%), which would intrinsically reduce the impact of read noise. Add in their active thermal cooling, and Canon may even be able to turn the tables on their competition, surpassing D800 IQ (even without digital readout technology).

That is a LOT of technology Canon would need to bring to bear in the next cycle. They may have it, but perfecting such technology and making it viable for mass production takes time. If they have only developed some of that technology in the last year or so, it may still be another year or two before it is all actually ready for mass commercial consumption. I think the gambit for Canon is to figure out a way to "go digital". Analog signal processing has its advantages, is an extremely well known and well understood concept, but clearly digital signal processing, in the context of CIS, is and has surpassed it. And as time goes on, hardware DSP will only get better, and I suspect more and more DSP logic will shift on-die. If Canon cannot figure out a way to patent their own on-die CIS DSP technology, they will never really catch up to their primary competition (Sony). I can't say about other competition from other CIS manufacturers...not sure if any of them are actually doing the kind of digital readout that Sony CP-ADC does.

¥ Someone posted a very interesting link to a Panasonic patent that describes a color splitting replacement for color filters, which would allow all of the light incident on the sensor to be utilized, simply by redirecting light of certain colors to pixels of the matching color...i.e. Blue, White-Red, and White+Red. Right now, around 35-40% of the light incident on any given pixel is used, with the rest being filtered out. With color splitting in place of color filtering, the light that is not "appropriate" for any given pixel is simply redirected to the neighboring pixels where it is appropriate. Per-pixel quantum efficiency could technically double, from around 30-40% to 60-80%, if such technology could be idealistically employed. Note, per-pixel Q.E. is usually different than whole-sensor Q.E...currently, several Nikon cameras have greater than 50% Q.E., with one over 60%. That is for the entire sensor. With color splitting technology, theoretically I think Q.E. could reach 90% or more at room temperature. Combine that with some active cooling technology to eliminate thermal sources of noise, and the IQ of a future-generation image sensor with color splitting could blow even the D800 away, especially in extremely low light situations. Imagine taking a photo of an Aurora at a native ISO 204800 with IQ as good as or better than ISO 51200 today.


----------



## TheSuede (Feb 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> Every camera applies CDS, or Correlated Double Sampling. The point of CDS is to determine the reset dark current noise present in the sensor, before an exposure is taken. The charge of each pixel is registered and saved, and when the actual exposure is read out, the registered reset charge is subtracted from the exposure charge. That, effectively, eliminates noise caused by dark current present in the sensor at reset time. That is a moderate mount of noise, and exists in all sensors. It is not, actually, the worst form of electronic (read) noise, so CDS only does a partial job of removing noise in hardware.
> .../cut a bucketload of text/...



There are some very dubious statements blended in there.

1) the patents regarding the exmor PRINCIPLE are highly questionable, and Sony knows this very well. Due to publicly available prior art, the general patents would never stand in court. This is why companies as Panasonic, Aptina and most notably maybe Cmosis in the latest Leica CMOS sensor use on-chip layouts very similar to the original "Exmor" patents. I doubt there's much difference between the Cmosis Leica M sensor and an exmor except in general detailing, the principles are all the same.

2) The more specified patents are in fact more of a copyright statement. "We implement this by doing this, and we do it in this way with this layout". That's normal behavior when you don't want others to copy your works by putting your stuff (basically) in a photocopier. It stops others from doing exact copies, it does not stop them from using the same basic flow principles.

In the end this means that the statement about "Sony having patended the way to get rid of banding and read noise" is pure BS. And when I say pure, I mean 100.00% pure.

That's kind of like saying that Ford has patented a car that does not swerve off the road and kill you every 50 miles or so. The general principle in itself (not killing you every 50 miles) is well known beforehand, and can be worked towards in many different and equally efficient ways.

There are thousands of possibilities for Canon's interleave readout to be balanced and banding-free. Literally thousands of ways to make it happen. Ten or fifteen of them would possibly be in conflict with a presently valid patent, but that should not stop them.

Regarding CDS, *Canons version of CDS is actually more effective* than the way Sony does it in some of their sensors (not all Exmor marked sensors have digital CDS!). This can be seen when you use the cameras at higher ISO - which is where the particular components of noise that CDS is meant to be working against is most visible.

Where Canon falls flat on their face is the path where the signal is taken FROM the sensor (after the CDS has already been applied) and VIA the ISO amplifier INTO the AD converters.
-That path is seriously unbalanced, and also quite noisy. In fact - at the lowest two full-step ISOs in a Canon camera, the sensor is nowhere near being the largest electronic noise-source. The stuff Canon use outside the sensor to digitize the signal adds four times more noise than the sensor does at base ISO.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2013)

TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Every camera applies CDS, or Correlated Double Sampling. The point of CDS is to determine the reset dark current noise present in the sensor, before an exposure is taken. The charge of each pixel is registered and saved, and when the actual exposure is read out, the registered reset charge is subtracted from the exposure charge. That, effectively, eliminates noise caused by dark current present in the sensor at reset time. That is a moderate mount of noise, and exists in all sensors. It is not, actually, the worst form of electronic (read) noise, so CDS only does a partial job of removing noise in hardware.
> ...



Sony has patented their approach to CP-ADC, and the patents involve Digital CDS as part of the same curcuitry as the column-wise ADCs. It is a fairly specific patent. I am not sure there are thousands of ways of *doing what Sony does*, which is extremely effective, and that was what I was addressing.



TheSuede said:


> There are thousands of possibilities for Canon's interleave readout to be balanced and banding-free. Literally thousands of ways to make it happen. Ten or fifteen of them would possibly be in conflict with a presently valid patent, but that should not stop them.



I'm sure there are thousands of ways of reducing noise in general. I would dispute the notion that there are "literally thousands of ways to balance interleaved readout and make it banding-free". Even the D5200, which uses a form of highly parallel, but not specifically column-parallel, readout has banding issues. Granted, they are a lot less than canons, but also plenty visible enough for people to complain about. To be 100% completely banding free, I do NOT believe there are unlimited options. Could Canon do it in a purely analog fashion? Maybe. Would it be as good as Sony Exmor? Possibly, but I'd call it s tall mountain to climb. Could they get as good as the D5200? Certainly.



TheSuede said:


> Regarding CDS, *Canons version of CDS is actually more effective* than the way Sony does it in some of their sensors (not all Exmor marked sensors have digital CDS!). This can be seen when you use the cameras at higher ISO - which is where the particular components of noise that CDS is meant to be working against is most visible.



Regarding the fact that not all Exmor have DCDS, sure, there are a couple variants, one is BSI and designed for much smaller form factors, and its design is (probably by necessity) simpler than the FF version of Exmor. If you want to be that nit-picky, I'm explicitly referring to the FF and APS-C Exmor design as used in the D800 and D3200, both of which, as far as I know, employ CP-ADC with DCDS. As for Canons CDS working better than Sonys at higher ISO, I have no information to confirm or dispute that. Either way, though, read noise at higher ISO levels is such a minuscule factor of noise overall, which is completely dominated by Photon noise, I am not sure that Canon having a better CDS design even matters. Dark current's contribution to noise at that level is on the order of 2-3 electrons per pixel...trivial. 



TheSuede said:


> Where Canon falls flat on their face is the path where the signal is taken FROM the sensor (after the CDS has already been applied) and VIA the ISO amplifier INTO the AD converters.
> -That path is seriously unbalanced, and also quite noisy. In fact - at the lowest two full-step ISOs in a Canon camera, the sensor is nowhere near being the largest electronic noise-source. The stuff Canon use outside the sensor to digitize the signal adds four times more noise than the sensor does at base ISO.



I don't dispute that. If you read my entire post, you would see I not only agree, I described that problem in detail. I am not sure that the off-die stuff adds 4x more noise than the sensor does (a reference where that is explained would be nice), but it is certainly the primary contributor. Canon's noise problem is primarily off the sensor die. Hence the reason I claimed (and have claimed for a while now) that Canon at the very least, even if they do not move to a digital readout and NR system, needs to get everything on-die. Shipping digital information along a bus for further processing is a hell of a lot safer from further contamination by noise than shipping analog information along a bus.

That is also the one area where Canon seems to be lacking patents. I have not seen anything that I could call an on-die ADC patent. I do believe that so long as Canon ships a huge amount of analog signal information off the sensor, especially if they use very few higher frequency off-die ADCs, they will always have high low-ISO read noise.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2013)

I figure a BIG megapixel camera will need a big sensor..... Could this be what Canon has in store for us..... and just imagine the size of a telephoto lens!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/8/31/canonlargestsensor


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Jrista
> i do not think you have the answer what the_suede is writing to you.
> Or what do you think by your self ?
> 
> ...



Yup, the ADU count-down/count-up is Sony's approach, but it is tightly integrated into their column-parallel ADCs. Instead of handling digital CDS off-die, for example, Sony simply integrates it directly into the ADC for each column. Reset count is negative, exposure count is positive, with the offset correcting the noise contribution from dark current present at sensor reset time. Concurrently, the specific approach to CP-ADC Sony uses cancels out banding via fine tuning each ADC (or maybe it is simply because they have an ADC per column, and the benefit is by default, as I have yet to find any patent directly describing how they cancel banding), which is how they correct banding. There is a nice PDF that explains it all...and I have the link...I'll go dig it up...



Here we go. Sony's CP-ADC paper. Seems there are two things that reduce banding. According to the paper, the use of analog CDS circuitry is itself the cause of some horizontal banding, due to variations in CDS circuits per pixel:



> Also a capacitor with a size larger than a certain value is required in the CDS circuit to record and hold the post-CDS signal, and this results in an increase in the area of this circuit. Furthermore, the recorded and stored analog signals are easily influenced by switching noise in the high-frequency band due to the horizontal transfer operations.
> 
> To resolve these problems, Sony adopted the column-parallel A/D conversion technique. (See figure 2.) Since each column has its own A/D converter in the columnparallel A/D conversion technique, the analog signals read out from the vertical signal lines can be A/D converted directly.
> 
> Since the analog signals are A/D converted directly without first recording and storing, the capacitors that take up chip area as circuit structural components are no longer required. Also, the analog CDS circuits used for noise cancellation are no longer required. The CDS operation previously performed with analog signal processing is now performed with digital processing. This technique makes it possible to perform high precision noise cancellation that is not dependent on variations in the CDS circuits.



Additionally, Sony's CP-ADC, since it is low-frequency thanks to being per-column, allows them to eliminate high-frequency contributors to signal noise in the A/D conversion and Digial CDS unit (this is not really fine tuning each ADC, just that high frequency components that add noise are placed elsewhere, so vertical banding is not introduced in the first place):



> Another advantage of the column-parallel A/D converter technique lies in its conversion speed. Since processing is performed in parallel for each column, the A/D conversion frequency is extremely low, and the high-frequency band noise components can be separated from the signal components.



For those who are interested in the exact process of A/D conversion and digital CDS in Sony's CP-ADC approach, here it is:



> The column-parallel digital CDS technique operating sequence is as follows.
> (See figure 5.)
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> ...



So, I stand by my statements that Canon has an uphill battle to solve their banding problem and compete directly with Sony. It's been about 10 months since I last read that PDF, and I had thought there was additional fine tuning in the ADCs to eliminate banding. Well, for all intents and purposes, the simple fact that there is an ADC per column, and that all the high frequency components (like the clock and other logic control units, the D/A converter, etc.) are all elsewhere, away from the CP-ADC units, is why there is no vertical banding. The fact that digital CDS is performed by those same CP-ADC units, completely eliminating the need to handle CDS via analog circuitry, is the reason there is no horizontal banding. It is a very elegant and fairly simple solution to a problem that has plagued most sensor designs until recently (that includes very expensive medium format sensors). I can't say much about non-Sony competitors that achieve higher DR, although based on what I've read about the D5200, banding is not eliminated, just reduced thanks to a more parallel on-die readout approach.

If Canon wants to completely eliminate the most offensive kind of noise, horizontal and vertical banding, I think they have a tough job. I do not think there are a thousand ways of simplistically solving the problem as Sony did.


----------



## anthony11 (Feb 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> I, for one, would happily spend a few grand on a high MP, high frame rate, 5D X (or whatever it ends up being called) if it had reduced read noise and competitive DR (i.e. at least 13 stops).


I'd do it even without the high frame rate, at least, higher than 5-6 fps. I don't even care about high MP, I just want usable ISO 6400 / 12800, freedom from mirror slap, and an AF system that isn't an embarrassment: the three biggest shortcomings of the 5D2. Hell, I don't even care if it's APS-C instead of FF; I just want it to be useful for shooting my son.

As for APS-C going away -- not going to happen anytime soon. Many Rebel buyers would rebel against the idea of a larger/heavier body that requires larger/heavier/more expensive glass.


----------



## TheSuede (Feb 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> Yup, the ADU count-down/count-up is Sony's approach, but it is tightly integrated into their column-parallel ADCs. Instead of handling digital CDS off-die, for example, Sony simply integrates it directly into the ADC for each column. Reset count is negative, exposure count is positive, with the offset correcting the noise contribution from dark current present at sensor reset time. Concurrently, the specific approach to CP-ADC Sony uses cancels out banding via fine tuning each ADC (or maybe it is simply because they have an ADC per column, and the benefit is by default, as I have yet to find any patent directly describing how they cancel banding), which is how they correct banding. There is a nice PDF that explains it all...and I have the link...I'll go dig it up...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The "low frequency" you're referring to is all due to the number of AD converters used. There's nothing advanced or even remotely "patentable" about this. The signal frequency in a readout is:
*[# of pixels * ops per frame * fps] divided by [numbers of AD units used]*
In a per-column system you get [the numbers of columns] AD-converters, in a normal ~20MP sensor that's about 6000. Many off-sensor AD systems use between 4-16 (Canon use 8-16, 5Dmk3 uses a 2x4channel setup and the 1Dx uses 4x4channels). That gives a (6048 / 2 / 8) = 400x lower quantization frequency if we assume that both are 14-bit and have the same fps. Quantization noise typically rises asymptotically with frequency _above a certain point_. Aptina have some systems with AD-on-chip that uses one for each 12 columns or some number close to that, giving about 400 AD converters per system. There are and cannot be any patents regarding how many AD converters per row or column you use.

To get rid of almost 100% of the banding effect, you just have to make sure that the response from each of the AD converters is the same as the others. Toshiba's effort in the 5200 sensor shows what you can achieve just by keeping a good control over your manufacturing process - since they don't use any kind of column-balancing strategy what so ever, except for the prerecorded dark frame on the Fujitsu made EXPEED chip - according to the die SEMs I've seen. So they show how well you can balance 6080 AD converters without any fancy processing, why can't Canon balance 8?

To increase the performance at lower ISOs, where the off-die electronics add in more noise than the on-die electronics in all Canon cameras - increase the quality of the off-chip electronics and fix the signal layout problems. This isn't very hard to do either - if you WANT to do it.

On-chip electronic noise is indeed very important at higher ISOs, just think about it. At ISO6400 you have ~64x less photons available than at base ISO, in a 5Dmk3 that makes about 1000e- per pixel give pure white. -4Ev, i.e slightly darker than middle gray is 16x lower than white: 1000/16 = 62 e-. The inherent noise in that gray is sqrt(62) = 8e-.

Now, compared to the 8e- of natural light noise, having 1e- or 10e- in added electronic noise makes quite a difference. Since Canon sensors have a very good on-chip CDS, they have a read noise of about 3e-. That's almost exactly the same as in the D800 sensor.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2013)

TheSuede said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, the ADU count-down/count-up is Sony's approach, but it is tightly integrated into their column-parallel ADCs. Instead of handling digital CDS off-die, for example, Sony simply integrates it directly into the ADC for each column. Reset count is negative, exposure count is positive, with the offset correcting the noise contribution from dark current present at sensor reset time. Concurrently, the specific approach to CP-ADC Sony uses cancels out banding via fine tuning each ADC (or maybe it is simply because they have an ADC per column, and the benefit is by default, as I have yet to find any patent directly describing how they cancel banding), which is how they correct banding. There is a nice PDF that explains it all...and I have the link...I'll go dig it up...
> ...



I never said there was. The patents are for the design of the ADC/CDS units, not their frequency. The point is that *part* of that design involves keeping high-frequency components (i.e. the core PLL clock) out of the ADCs so they don't introduce high frequency banding.



TheSuede said:


> To get rid of almost 100% of the banding effect, you just have to make sure that the response from each of the AD converters is the same as the others. Toshiba's effort in the 5200 sensor shows what you can achieve just by keeping a good control over your manufacturing process - since they don't use any kind of column-balancing strategy what so ever, except for the prerecorded dark frame on the Fujitsu made EXPEED chip - according to the die SEMs I've seen. So they show how well you can balance 6080 AD converters without any fancy processing, why can't Canon balance 8?



First, the Toshiba chip still has some banding, and its been enough to make customers complain. If we are talking 100% elimination here, so far, the only sensor I know that does that is Exmor. 

According to the PDF, you don't need to actually balance anything. That is why I think it is rather elegant...according to Sony themselves, they _eliminated circuitry_, and _moved circuitry around_, to *produce a low-noise environment for ADC*. The simple nature of *column-parallel* ADC with _digital CDS_ IS the solution to the problem. It is a very elegant, simple solution to the problem...that is what I love about it, and why I don't think it will be a breeze for Canon to reproduce. I thought there was some per-ADC fine tuning, but the sources of banding noise are the analog CDS circuitry itself (horizontal, thanks to transistor variance) and high frequency components in the ADCs (vertical, we all know about this). The very act of moving to CP-ADC (verses column-bucket parallel ADC like Toshiba) is what eliminates both forms of banding noise, effectively "for free". 



TheSuede said:


> To increase the performance at lower ISOs, where the off-die electronics add in more noise than the on-die electronics in all Canon cameras - increase the quality of the off-chip electronics and fix the signal layout problems. This isn't very hard to do either - if you WANT to do it.



I wouldn't call the quality of Canon DIGIC chips low. They are very high quality components already. They are also very high frequency components...high frequency, a major source of banding. Combine that with the use of analog CDS, which thanks to variance in the CDS transistors, causes horizontal banding, plus the high frequency bus to ship the analog sensor off the sensor die to those DIGIC chips...

Seems the trend of moving all of these components onto the sensor die and increasing parallelism is solving a lot of noise problems in and of itself. I don't think Canon is simply ignoring the problem...they aren't some evil corporation giggling gleefully as they watch their customers bleed cash. They have a transistor size problem, 500nm is showing its age. I think Canon can easily fix that, they have already demonstrated 180nm technology. I think now it is a matter of moving all that off-die junk onto the sensor die and increasing parallelism, and going digital. If they skip the digital part, I think things will definitely improve, but I doubt they will match Exmor in total quality. 



TheSuede said:


> On-chip electronic noise is indeed very important at higher ISOs, just think about it. At ISO6400 you have ~64x less photons available than at base ISO, in a 5Dmk3 that makes about 1000e- per pixel give pure white. -4Ev, i.e slightly darker than middle gray is 16x lower than white: 1000/16 = 62 e-. The inherent noise in that gray is sqrt(62) = 8e-.
> 
> Now, compared to the 8e- of natural light noise, having 1e- or 10e- in added electronic noise makes quite a difference. Since Canon sensors have a very good on-chip CDS, they have a read noise of about 3e-. That's almost exactly the same as in the D800 sensor.



Sure, the same as the D800 sensor _at all ISO settings_. I guess I don't see why the D800 having 2.6e- at ISO 6400 is a major contributor to noise when the 5D III has 2.9e-, and according to the review the 5D III seems to do better at high ISO settings than the D800. Noise at those ISO levels is so completely dominated by photon noise that the contribution from electronic noise is effectively meaningless.

*Getting back on-topic.* Canon has mentioned they have some new noise-reduction technology they have employed in the high-MP sensors floating around in prototype cameras. I don't know of any of that noise-reduction technology is on-die ADC and NR, but there was at least a rumor that they were using active thermal cooling which resulted in very low read noise. Sounds like that may take care of more dark current noise (which is usually what extreme cooling is employed for), however I don't know if that will address the issue of off-die ADC noise. I'm not sure a "little bit of balancing" will do much either...DIGIC is a high quality chip designed by Canon and manufactured at high quality fabs on modern processes. Canon may be able to reduce the 40mp sensor's contribution to read noise well below the 1e- mark with adequate active cooling, but will that take care of the worse offender....banding noise?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2013)

dilbert said:


> In short, the only thing that Canon really got right with the 5D Mark III was autofocus (probably because that was the leading criticism from the 5D Mark II) but in fixing that, it is almost like they ignored the rest of the camera (sensor included.) Oops!



Yep. The 50% faster frame rate, better sealing, better viewfinder, dual card slots, shutter lag reduced by half, better metering, better ergonomics including a multicontroller on the grip, etc., it does seem like Canon ignored everything but the AF. Right.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yep. The 50% faster frame rate, better sealing, better viewfinder, dual card slots, shutter lag reduced by half, better metering, better ergonomics including a multicontroller on the grip, etc., it does seem like Canon ignored everything but the AF. Right.


And rate button! You forgot the rate button!

On a more serious note, it is funny how all of those things that you mentioned are of very little importance to me and most of my photography friends.  I'll admit that the improved sealing is nice to have, but the rest of it is hardly a deal maker.

I'm not saying that the 5D3 is a bad camera, but it is still a very incremental upgrade from the 5D2. And compared to the advancements of the main competition, it just doesn't stand out. The 5D3 offers absolutely nothing to improve the IQ of my photos.

I welcome a quick replacement, or a 5D3X.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2013)

dilbert said:


> So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3? Well, that tells you how important that list of "improvements" that you listed is, doesn't it?



It tells me nothing. There have been 'stories' of a new 100-400L for what...7-8 years? There have even been at least two patents. Where's the lens? Stories. 

As for a 5DIII 'replacement', I'd say BS and wishful thinking. Many of the people clamoring for a high MP camera from Canon don't want to pay the price for a 1-series body, and from such dreams, rumors are born. 



dilbert said:


> Let me put this another way. If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III, what am I going to notice as being significantly better aside from the AF? Nothing. What do I see as being better when I look at the images on my computer? Nothing.
> 
> So $800 or $900 more for improved AF.



Sorry, I completely disagree with that conclusion. With a few notable (and *cough* vociferous) minority exceptions, the consensus was that the sensor-based IQ of the 5DII was excellent - it wasn't broke, and Canon didn't fix it. Because of that excellent IQ, many people used the 5DII for tasks for which it's not ideal. There's a reason I and a whole bunch of other people had both a 5DII and a 7D. What Canon did with the 5DIII was, IMO, huge. They took a camera with already excellent IQ, and improved substantially on the overall performance. 

For 5DII tripod-only, ISO 100 shooters, I can see the incremental nature of the upgrade. But if that's you, the answer is simple - keep your 5DII. 

You state, "_If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III..._," which I take to mean you haven't. 

After a couple years shooting a 7D and a 5DII, when I tried out a 5DIII what I immediately noticed was that it felt 'fast'. For example, the difference between the ~200 ms shutter lag of the 5DII and the ~100 ms lag of the 5DIII is very apparent. My overall impression of the 5DIII is that using it feels like using a 7D from a performance standpoint, and it delivers the IQ of the 5DII - that's a powerful combination, and whereas the 5DII was liked (almost exclusively) for its IQ, the 5DIII is, IMO, the best all-around dSLR on the market.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As for a 5DIII 'replacement', I'd say BS and wishful thinking. Many of the people clamoring for a high MP camera from Canon don't want to pay the price for a 1-series body, and from such dreams, rumors are born.



+1
When I read the part about "quick" replacement for the 5D3, I laughed. Then when I saw the peanut gallery rejoice that it will be so, I shook my head in disbelief... Sad in someways.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 10, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As for a 5DIII 'replacement', I'd say BS and wishful thinking. Many of the people clamoring for a high MP camera from Canon don't want to pay the price for a 1-series body, and from such dreams, rumors are born.
> ...



If they do have some much better sensors coming out then I'd bet you the 5D3 will be replaced in less time than 5D2 to 5D3. If anything, I think it would be laughable to think otherwise (unless they also shift it a bit and give it a different name than the 5D4, but whatever it gets called no way it will take as long as 5D2 to 5D3 did or even 5D to 5D2 time). I'd be shocked if it doesn't arrive 2014 (two years vs 3.5 and 3 years).


----------



## Ricku (Feb 10, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If they do have some much better sensors coming out then I'd bet you the 5D3 will be replaced in less time than 5D2 to 5D3. If anything, I think it would be laughable to think otherwise (unless they also shift it a bit and give it a different name than the 5D4, but whatever it gets called no way it will take as long as 5D2 to 5D3 did or even 5D to 5D2 time). I'd be shocked if it doesn't arrive 2014 (two years vs 3.5 and 3 years).


Exactly!

And the longer they take, the more they'll have to do to catch up.

Nikon and Sony aren't resting on their laurels, just because Canon has fallen behind. By 2014, the D4x and D900 will likely be on the horizon, as well as whatever Sony decide to do with the 36MP Exmor or it's successor.

Tick tock, Canon. It is time to replace your decade-old sensor technology.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If they do have some much better sensors coming out...



Except...that's a pretty decent-sized IF. More MP, yes, I'm sure that's coming...but I'd be surprised if that's what you mean by 'better'...


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3?



I am pretty sure that Canon was working on a replacement for the 5D3 before it was even released.... As to when, just remember that Canon has said that there will be no FF cameras anounced in 2013, so that means that the earliest announcement would be 2014... and who knows how much later the release date is.

The time is right to make the next leap ahead in technology... they are getting the lenses ready, they have introduced things like wifi remote control further and further up the chain... they have stated that a 7D2 will come out this year and will be revolutionary... my bet is the 7D will be the debut of new sensor and focusing technology and after lessons learned, the FF's get it.

Canon is a conservative company. The flagship models don't get features until they are well debuged and profesionals have had time to get used to them and comment on thier use. They try to keep those flagship models super reliable..... that's one of the reasons pro's buy them... they can rely on them to work with no surprises. For example, show me a canon "pro" camera with a touchscreen.... it's an advanced feature avaliable on 6D, rebels, point/shoots, and even the dreaded iPhone... but have they had sufficient feedback to put it in a pro camera yet..


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3? Well, that tells you how important that list of "improvements" that you listed is, doesn't it?
> ...


Now we're just waiting for a couple of other guys to step in and digging down in the DR discussion even deeper.

I have a 5D3, my previous body was a 60D so I can't compare it against the 5D2. Also, I am an amateur and I'm still learning new stuff every day so for me the 5D3 is much more camera than I actually 'need' today. BUT it's a brilliant piece of equipment thanks to it's all-around capabilities. A friend of my who is about on the same skill level as I bought a D800: He takes a lot of nice pictures, but many are our of focus, he complains to me that the camera feels slow. But when subjects are standing still and other conditions are perfect he can capture great images. I just seem to get the 5D3 out and it performs every time. Shadow details, yes I know he gets better performance there, but it doesn't really matter when the main subject is out of focus.

Both of us are helping each other, inspiring each other to learn more and try new things. It's a very fruitful but still a bit competitive friendship which is fun. 

Some people could be more mature in discussing the differences between these two awesome brands, I think that would make for a more productive debate. I mean, who can really hate a 60D??? I've even read that the 5D3 is useless, that's a very bold statement.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 11, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> I've even read that the 5D3 is useless, that's a very bold statement.


Not bold at all, if it comes from a 5D2 owner who mainly shoots studio work, or tripod based landscapes (99% of photos below ISO 200).

For us, the 5D3 is a rather 'useless' camera *in terms of upgrade.* We don't need 61 pt AF, more speed, or gimmicks like rate button and in camera HDR. What we need is improvement in IQ, more resolution, more low ISO dynamic range, and a 100% fix for the horrible and well known pattern noise in shadow areas.

To the sports crowd, journalists or people upgrading from the 5DC, 7D and rebel-crowd, I am sure the 5D3 is a great upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

Ricku said:


> For the 5DC, 7D and rebel-crowd, I'm sure the 5D3 is a great upgrade.



...and for the 5DII crowd who shoot things that move.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > For the 5DC, 7D and rebel-crowd, I'm sure the 5D3 is a great upgrade.
> ...


Edited. :-X :'(


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I've even read that the 5D3 is useless, that's a very bold statement.
> ...


I understand what you mean, but then those should say, like you do now, as an upgrade it didn't live up to my expectations. That goes for a more mature and sensible debate. Canon might actually have made a mistake with the 5D3 as they listened to many of their 5D2 customers and designed the 5D3 against those demands. But for me it works well. And yes, I am actually very happy with the 61 pt AF, it gives me a lot of precision when composing a picture, I thought it was overkill when I moved from my 60D but now I almost couldn't live without it (bit of an exaggeration)



neuroanatomist said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > For the 5DC, 7D and rebel-crowd, I'm sure the 5D3 is a great upgrade.
> ...


Yep ;D
I shoot alot of golf and although the subject is stationary there is still alot of movement in that. Then I do a lot of street photography, you do need fast AF in those environments.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ. The best sensor in the world doesn't matter a wit if its AF system and frame rate are low enough such that you can't actually capture the one frame where everything is still and sharp...a soft frame is a soft frame, regardless of whether the sensor pumps out beautifully soft pixels or not.

Sure, read noise is an issue in the sense that it limits DR, however that is only an issue at the lowest few ISO settings. Compared to cameras two generations ago, which frequently topped out at 6-9 stops of DR, Canon cameras offering 11-12 stops is still quite good. Hell, even the top of the line medium format cameras still offer less than 12 stops of DR. Having 13-14 stops of DR is still rather new, and requires the absolute latest and greatest 180nm technology to achieve, and only matters at the very lowest ISO settings. 

I'd offer that there are far more photographers who shoot high action in one form or another who use ISO settings 800 and above than photographers who shoot still scenes or low action and use ISO settings 400 and below. To the greater majority of photographers, the AF system and frame rate are critical factors to attaining the IQ they require. To that end, I'd say Canon did well _by their customers_, and clearly listened to what their customers were asking for...less megapixels, higher ISO, less noise at higher ISO (hell, even I asked for that!!! )



dilbert said:


> > dilbert said:
> >
> >
> > > Let me put this another way. If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III, what am I going to notice as being significantly better aside from the AF? Nothing. What do I see as being better when I look at the images on my computer? Nothing.
> ...



Perhaps your finger-pressing ability is not that fine, however our minds can indeed sense minute differences. Our ability to measure time perceptually is not limited to 1-second increments, and even if we cannot send an impulse from our brains to our fingers in 1/20th of a second, that does not mean we cannot sense the difference between 1/10th and 1/20th of a second. Especially in the context of a camera shutter...looking through the viewfinder, it is very easy to recognize a TWO-FOLD difference in shutter performance, especially when holding the shutter button down and watching frame after frame race past at nearly double the speed. I'll say that again...a TWO FOLD, FACTOR OF TWO, 100% or DOUBLE the difference in shutter speed...relatively speaking, that is a huge difference!



dilbert said:


> > My overall impression of the 5DIII is that using it feels like using a 7D from a performance standpoint, and it delivers the IQ of the 5DII - that's a powerful combination, and whereas the 5DII was liked (almost exclusively) for its IQ, the 5DIII is, IMO, the best all-around dSLR on the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that for the price the IQ is very very ordinary.



What exactly is "ordinary IQ"? I think your generalizing a bit too much...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.
> 
> What needs addressing is IQ. A combination of more megapixels and improvements in noise, DR, etc, is what is sought.
> 
> In essence, this is what the entire Canon community (apart from a few deniers such as yourself) seem to be saying - a new camera that costs $800-$900 more but my pictures are pretty much the same as before. WTF?



First, what makes you think I'm 'fixed on megapixels'?? I'm quite happy with the 18 MP that I have. Also, in case it escaped your notice, this rumor thread is about a high MP Canon body...no guarantee of better IQ, and as I alluded to earlier, high MP doesn't mean 'better'.

Second, I do take issue with your statements that Canon's current sensors are somehow 'bad'. I'm not saying they're the best on the market, they're not...but implying they're sub-par is rather disingenuous. 

Third, who the heck is 'the entire Canon community'? I can only assume you're referring to the tiny minority of people here bitching about Canon's 'terribly low DR' and 'horrible, shot-destroying pattern noise.' The 'Canon community' and in fact, the dSLR-buying community at large seems to be quite pleased with the 5DIII, and with Canon in general. Have a look at Amazon.com's Top Rated dSLRs (note - top rated by customer reviews, not top selling, although Canon owns the top of that list, too). The 5DIII tops the Top Rated list, and Canon holds the entire top 15. Then we see Sony...but where's Nikon? One Nikon camera in the top 20, a total of 5 in the top 40. And the D800? Based on customer feedback, it's not even in the Top 100 at all (the D4 and D700 are in the top 50, but only barely). So I'd have to say WTF to your claim that 'the entire Canon community' is dissatisfied with the 5DIII. A 'community' of about ten (excuse me, now about nine) naysayers here such as yourself, perhaps.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Third, who the heck is 'the entire Canon community'? I can only assume you're referring to the tiny minority of people here bitching about Canon's 'terribly low DR' and 'horrible, shot-destroying pattern noise.' The 'Canon community' and in fact, the dSLR-buying community at large seems to be quite pleased with the 5DIII, and with Canon in general. Have a look at Amazon.com's Top Rated dSLRs (note - top rated by customer reviews, not top selling, although Canon owns the top of that list, too). The 5DIII tops the Top Rated list, and Canon holds the entire top 15. Then we see Sony...but where's Nikon? One Nikon camera in the top 20, a total of 5 in the top 40. And the D800? Based on customer feedback, it's not even in the Top 100 at all (the D4 and D700 are in the top 50, but only barely). So I'd have to say WTF to your claim that 'the entire Canon community' is dissatisfied with the 5DIII. A 'community' of about ten (excuse me, now about nine) naysayers here such as yourself, perhaps.



I'd say that the issue your dealing with is that the "Megapixel/DR" community tends to be the most vocal on the net. Partly I'd say because the serious landscape/macro market naturally tends to be a bit more "techy" and so involved in gear forums but mostly because these elements obviously count for more with the for the want of a better word "measurebators".

On this forum I'v no doubt most of those after more Megapixels/DR are in the first group but on the net as a whole I think the vast majority are in the latter. These are elements that can be tested to your hearts content shooting brick walls (or more likely looking at other peoples shots of brock walls for cameras you'll never own) where as the benefits of improved AF, FPS, weather sealing etc will be felt more when actually using a camera to take photos out in the world

Its not as if there isnt discontent on the Nikon side aswell though, head over to any Nikon forum and you'll find people bemoaning a lack of a true sucessor to the D700.


----------



## anthony11 (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yep. The 50% faster frame rate


I see a lot of "up to" 6 fps, not just 6 fps, so I wonder what the weasel words are hiding. I also read that auto-AF-select is even slower and less useful than the 5D2's.


> better sealing


I'm sure that both people shoot from inside waterfalls appreciate that.


> better viewfinder


How is not being able to see what AF spot is selected "better"??


> dual card slots


One CF slot.


> shutter lag reduced by half


Welcome, but not along worth rebuying a body.


> better metering


Pretty much everything has better metering than the 5D2. Having to routinely shoot with EC +1 is an embarrassment.


> better ergonomics


Vaguebook much?


> including a multicontroller on the grip


The pictures I find of the 5D3 show no such thing. It'd be really awkward to hold if it did.


> it does seem like Canon ignored everything but the AF. Right.



The sensor is effectively identical to that in the 5D2, no high-ISO usability improvement, no improvement on low-ISO banding/shadow noise. Note that having more aggressive default NR when saving to JPEG files does not qualify as a high-ISO improvement.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.
> ...



Amen! +1


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. The 50% faster frame rate
> ...



You're under the utterly and completely clueless assumption that if you are a 5D2 owner, that the 5D3 is the next logical thing to buy. Imagine being a 7D owner and then moving on to a 5D3. The 5D3 is a 5D2 and 7D combined, and then actually extra than that. But you're arguing that anybody claimed that the 5D3 had any IQ improvement over the 5D2. Who claimed that? Did anybody on this forum claim that or did I miss it? The 5D3 has no IQ improvement over the 5D2. Who cares??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

@ anthony11 - pick many nits?

It's 6 fps. All the Canon fps specs state 'max' or 'approx' so maybe they are all lies?

Maybe you don't shoot in the rain for fear of having to shout, "I'm melting...what a world."  

Do you have trouble seeing the AF points on your 5DIII? Maybe you need to visit an ophthalmologist. They were perfectly visible to me.

Dual CF would be nice. But two is still better than one. 

So it does have better metering, right? What's your point there?

"Vaguebook?" Make up words much? Try using one...

The second multicontroller is on the _battery_ grip, also known as a vertical grip or portrait grip, officially the the BG-E11. It attaches to the bottom of the camera, providing controls for portrait orientation, and the second multicontroller makes AF point selection a lot easier when shooting vertically. The _battery_ grip for the 5DIII is the first battery grip to offer that feature, also found on the integrated vertical controls on the 1D X. Sorry I didn't make that clear. 

So, we agree that the 5DIII doesn't offer significantly better IQ than the 5DII, and based on the long list of your responses, there do seem to be many other changes besides just AF. Just because you don't find those changes beneficial doesn't mean others feel the same - as noted above, the 5DIII gets high marks from a majority.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 11, 2013)

you must have got a dud 5Dmk3 because mine ar considerably better than my mk2's

you do have a 5Dmk3 dont you?


----------



## sach100 (Feb 11, 2013)

I am neither a "pro" nor an expert on many things photography. But i do have some real world experience using 5d3 and 5d2 to a much lesser extent.



anthony11 said:


> I see a lot of "up to" 6 fps, not just 6 fps, so I wonder what the weasel words are hiding. I also read that auto-AF-select is even slower and less useful than the 5D2's.


Slower and less useful? seriously? there is some quirk in AF (in low light) when you half press the shutter but that's about the only "problem" i have. I've used my friend's 5d2 and i find the 5d3's AF select way *more useful*



> I'm sure that both people shoot from inside waterfalls appreciate that.



In my part of the world i frequently visit "hill stations" where there is too much fog / dew. So it IS great to have better weather sealing



> How is not being able to see what AF spot is selected "better"??


How is this related to having a better viewfinder? Last time i checked the view finder was something like 5d2's 98% Vs 100% in 5d3


> One CF slot.


Well, i agree. Dual CF slot would have been a better option but probably it came down to limited real estate and size of the camera 


> Welcome, but not along worth rebuying a body.


Probably, if you base your decision on this parameter alone. But coming from 7d this is a much better experience to me compared to the 5d2. 


> The sensor is effectively identical to that in the 5D2, no high-ISO usability improvement, no improvement on low-ISO banding/shadow noise. Note that having more aggressive default NR when saving to JPEG files does not qualify as a high-ISO improvement.



I am not an expert on this. But technically sensor is not identical. To me at higher ISO (>3200ish) it's a clear 1/2 stop improvement over 5d2 and definitely better handling of banding/shadow noise over 5d2 overall.

Canon did blew it when it came to DR and banding/ shadow noise compared to you-know-which-model. But then if you are hinting that 5d3 is not up to the mark to you it doesn't in anyway mean it's not for others. I am totally happy with the results i get with my 5d3 (studio/Low-light & generic use).


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. The 50% faster frame rate
> ...



You can only achieve the maximum frame rate when the shutter speed is high enough. The shutter speed needs to be high enough to account for shutter lag and mirror blackout time as well, which are on the order of 125ms for the 5D III. If your shutter speed is too slow, you can't actually achieve exactly 6fps...thus the "up to 6fps". 



anthony11 said:


> > including a multicontroller on the grip
> 
> 
> The pictures I find of the 5D3 show no such thing. It'd be really awkward to hold if it did.



You aren't looking at the right pictures. The multicontroller was a big new thing with the 5D III battery grip. To put the issue to rest and eliminate any more "None of the pictures_ I've seen_ show it", take a look at TDP's review...the third photo shows the multicontroller on the grip quite clearly...and it doesn't get in the way:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-BG-E11-Battery-Grip-Review.aspx



anthony11 said:


> > it does seem like Canon ignored everything but the AF. Right.
> 
> 
> 
> The sensor is effectively identical to that in the 5D2, no high-ISO usability improvement, no improvement on low-ISO banding/shadow noise. Note that having more aggressive default NR when saving to JPEG files does not qualify as a high-ISO improvement.



The sensor has a 16% improvement in Q.E. as well as lower minimum read noise. Thanks to both of those, there is a visible two-fold improvement in high ISO usability, which falls around 12800 ISO without the need for NR (i.e. comparing direct 5D II RAW to 5D III RAW). (Besides, the whole notion of "usable" is sketchy at best...there are forms of photography that don't require artistically usable ISO, such as documentary and police photography, where ISO 25600 or even the boost ISO settings are "usable". Not to mention the fact that if you can't get the shot at all at a "low" ISO, you really have nothing to lose by using a higher one.) Complaining about "default" settings is just a copout. Don't like the "defaults"? Change em...they ARE configurable! 

BTW, high ISO unusable? Try this...ISO 25,600, 1D X (which would be about how good the 5D III @ ISO 12800 is from a noise standpoint):







How "The City and the Storm" photo was taken"

Regarding whether all the improvements in the 5D III are worth the upgrade...well, there isn't a formula for that. That is something each photographer has to determine for himself. The same goes for a *"big megapixel" *camera...whether the Canon Big MP body will suit a photographer is up to the photographer to decide. If we assume the big mp sensor has the same read noise as the 5D III (which I find unlikely...I figure it would be closer to the 7D which is about 4x less than the 5D III), the higher pixel count will produce improved results when scaled down to 5D III size. If the sensor does have 7D-level read noise (which I figure would be the case given the fact that the sensor would have the same pixel size, and similar FWC), overall read noise would be considerably lower than the 5D III, and even better when scaled to the same size.


----------



## anthony11 (Feb 11, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> You're under the utterly and completely clueless assumption that if you are a 5D2 owner, that the 5D3 is the next logical thing to buy.


... as opposed to what? There is no logical next thing in the product line right now, short of a used D700.


> Imagine being a 7D owner and then moving on to a 5D3. The 5D3 is a 5D2 and 7D combined


Two wrongs don't make a right.


> But you're arguing that anybody claimed that the 5D3 had any IQ improvement over the 5D2. Who claimed that?


The specs and tests speak for themselves.


> Did anybody on this forum claim that


Gee, I dunno, let me go read every post ever made here.


> or did I miss it? The 5D3 has no IQ improvement over the 5D2. Who cares??


Those of us who have to work for a living and yet want wacky stuff like usable pictures of our kids.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



dern right the 5D3 will produce better photos of action. the magic is in the AF system: if the subject distance is changing, the 5D3 will produce more keepers that are in focus.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

dlleno said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Simple as that. I think that is hard to deny even for the biggest 5D3 hater.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Simple as that. I think that is hard to deny even for the biggest 5D3 hater.



You'd think so, especially from someone who claimed the AF was the only improvement from the 5DII. But I guess now even that's not a real improvement....



dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Thanks, now I understand you. Your dislike of the 5DIII (or maybe Canon, in general) has completely eliminated any objectivity you may have had. This assertion is even more ludicrous that others you've made. If you honestly believe that the better AF system of the 5DIII cannot yield better images of moving subjects than the 5DII, then I feel comfortable dismissing your arguments on the subject as biased to the point of irrelevance.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> > Imagine being a 7D owner and then moving on to a 5D3. The 5D3 is a 5D2 and 7D combined
> 
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right.



I stopped giving any credence to your 'opinion' when I reached this point. It's hard to believe you are trying to be anything other than offensive.

Have a nice day. :-*


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 11, 2013)

Despite the fact it was long, long time ago, I have always remembered something that my Grandfather told me:

"You can't argue with an illogical person"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Pity that you don't understand what you wrote. 

_What makes a sharp photo?
Shutter speed + lens + *focus*_

Since the 5DII and 5DIII can obviously be set to the same shutter speed with the same lens, the difference is the AF system. "Focus" - your word. So...what you wrote suggests that you think the 5DIII's AF is not better than the 5DII's. 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised...you also argued that the Canon DIGISUPER 75 broadcast TV lens was a camera, and you were way off base there, too (despite the fact that you refused to admit your mistake).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Despite the fact it was long, long time ago, I have always remembered something that my Grandfather told me:
> 
> "You can't argue with an illogical person"



+1

Like Sam (or Mark, if you prefer) said, "In a battle of wits, it is poor sport to fight an unarmed man."

Either way, it's obviously pointless and I'm done.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



dude. surely you can see that the converse is also true: if the subject distance is changing at a rate such that the AF performance cannot achieve focus, then it doesn't matter how fast the shutter speed is; you're still left with a fuzzy image. now review what you wrote:


> You're telling me that *using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"*??



the answer to that question is "yes". Using the 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture has a 5DII will result in better photos if the action involves a dynamic subject distance in situations where the 5D2 is disadvantaged. Yes, this does mean that "action" is defined to include things that move towards or away from the camera. 

In order to claim that the 5D3 offers no advantage over the 5D2 you must arbitrarily restrict the definition of "action" to refer only to movements w*here the distance to the focal point of interest does not change* relative to the camera, and scenarios where you are trying to stop 100% of the "action" with the shutter. Thats like saying AF doesn't even matter at all, even for action photos, in which case you may as well use an old EF or F1 body and use their shutters to stop your action. But I digress. But if you are really serious about testing your theory, pick up a 5D2 and a 5D3, chose a shutter speed in the 1/250th region, and go try to follow a P51 at an airshow. Keep the plane sharp and the prop blurred; afterwords, go tell the pilot that is activity is not "action", and the rest of us that you aren't getting better photos with the 5D3. Any action photographer with a lick of sense and a day of experience will walk away and leave you to your own devices -- something that is going to happen right here and now.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> I see a lot of "up to" 6 fps, not just 6 fps, so I wonder what the weasel words are hiding. I also read that auto-AF-select is even slower and less useful than the 5D2's.



So I am using a shutter speed of 1 /500 second.... it shoots 6 fps..... Then I set for a shutter speed of 1/2 second... it will only shoot at 2fps. That's what "up to 6fps" means... You drop the shutter speed below 1/6 of a second and the math does not work.

Also... what is the time required to focus? Slap on a 100L, get poor enough light and a particularly hard to focus upon subject, and listen to the lens hunt for focus..... how do you get 6fps when it takes 4 or 5 seconds to focus each shot?

"up to" is to keep people from saying the specs are lying when they are attempting the impossible.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > > or did I miss it? The 5D3 has no IQ improvement over the 5D2. Who cares??
> ...


----------



## anthony11 (Feb 11, 2013)

FPS makes a substantial difference when one's subject is both highly mobile and incapable of looking at you.

I've missed countless moments with my son between the 5D2's poky frames. And others due to mirror slap and poky AF. I've started shooting him with a 70-200 f/4 just so I can have enough subject distance so the AF isn't as much of a factor.

Mirror slap is a function of design, not of fps.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> FPS makes a substantial difference when one's subject is both highly mobile and incapable of looking at you.
> 
> I've missed countless moments with my son between the 5D2's poky frames. And others due to mirror slap and poky AF. I've started shooting him with a 70-200 f/4 just so I can have enough subject distance so the AF isn't as much of a factor.
> 
> Mirror slap is a function of design, not of fps.



So your scenarios are in fact AF system limited, arguably the area of most significant functional improvement of the 5D3 over the 5D2. Therefore the 5D3 will bring you instant gratifiction! If you need more than 6fps, then a move to the rumored 7D2 might be best instead of a 5D3, assuming of course that its AF system gets the rumored improvements and acheives the rumored 10-ish fps. To improve FF fps over the 5D3 requires a 1DX of course. 

But this thread is about big MP, so we digress... back on topic I doubt that a big MP camera is going to help much in the area of fps


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ.
> ...



A higher frame rate delivers a greater chance that you will get better pictures. A better picture is not simply one that is more sharp, either. It is also the one captured at the right moment in time...where the subject has exactly the right pose, is not blinking, is looking at the camera, etc. etc. Sharpness is key, but it is not the only key factor in getting a "better photo". 



dilbert said:


> > The best sensor in the world doesn't matter a wit if its AF system and frame rate are low enough such that you can't actually capture the one frame where everything is still and sharp...a soft frame is a soft frame, regardless of whether the sensor pumps out beautifully soft pixels or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, frame rate does not correlate with sharpness. Just look at the 1D3. 10fps that delivered less than 50% usable pictures due to AF quirkiness. Boy was that a dog of a camera for sports photographers.



A high frame rate *can* correlate with sharpness, when a subject is periodically moving and you want a frame where it is not. In the case of bird photography specifically, birds have periods of fast action, interleaved with moments of stillness. You need at least 6fps, better 8-10fps, such that in any burst of frames you get one where the subject is perfectly still. Even at high shutter speeds like 1/1250th or 1/1600th and a perfectly stable camera, the fast motion of a bird can still cause blurring. The 5D III is certainly _better_ in this regard than its predecessor. Obviously there are even better options, but that does not invalidate the fact that the 5D III is better than its predecessor, by 54%. 

The issues with the 1D III are not extant in the 5D III. Blaming the 5D III for the problems of an unrelated predecessor is another copout. 



dilbert said:


> > I'd offer that there are far more photographers who shoot high action in one form or another who use ISO settings 800 and above than photographers who shoot still scenes or low action and use ISO settings 400 and below. To the greater majority of photographers, the AF system and frame rate are critical factors to attaining the IQ they require. To that end, I'd say Canon did well _by their customers_, and clearly listened to what their customers were asking for...less megapixels, higher ISO, less noise at higher ISO (hell, even I asked for that!!! )
> 
> 
> 
> If I was a professional sports shooter, I wouldn't be using the 5DIII - except for those post match shots of presentations, etc, where a flash is often used.



Sure, if you were a professional sports shooter. But there are also wildlife shooters. Bird photographers. Arial photographers (some who use the 1D line, some who were using the 7D line but have been all too happy to move to the 5D III). Sports is not the only source of high speed action. *I chose my terms carefully.* The 5D III, as a general purpose camera, is ideal in an extremely broad set of circumstances. The 1D X is obviously the better choice for the highest speed action, but the 5D III does the job extremely well well when money is an issue.



dilbert said:


> > Perhaps your finger-pressing ability is not that fine, however our minds can indeed sense minute differences. Our ability to measure time perceptually is not limited to 1-second increments, and even if we cannot send an impulse from our brains to our fingers in 1/20th of a second, that does not mean we cannot sense the difference between 1/10th and 1/20th of a second. Especially in the context of a camera shutter...looking through the viewfinder, it is very easy to recognize a TWO-FOLD difference in shutter performance, especially when holding the shutter button down and watching frame after frame race past at nearly double the speed. I'll say that again...a TWO FOLD, FACTOR OF TWO, 100% or DOUBLE the difference in shutter speed...relatively speaking, that is a huge difference!
> 
> 
> 
> You're mixing two very different things up in the one paragraph as if they were the same. And the way you're screaming about 6fps is similar to the way people screamed about more megapixels in days gone by. *yawn*



Emphasising, not screaming.  But I do understand the misunderstanding. The internet, a woefully inadequate communication mechanism. That said, I wasn't over-emphasising 6fps. I was actually directly addressing the naivete of your use of finger-pressing ability to the minds ability to detect sub-second differences in the timing of something. It doesn't matter if the difference is 3fps to 6fps, or 8fps to 12fps...the differences there from a *relative standpoint* are quite noticeable. 



dilbert said:


> But again, taking more pictures every second has nothing to do with IQ. Really, it just determines how quickly our SF/SD/HDD fills up.



Again, your missing the point. The notion that IQ is purely dependent upon the sensor is a fallacy. Getting a quality image means getting the little aspects of each key thing within the image correct. And that means *all* of the little aspects correct...not just exposure, not just sharpness, but composition, subject position, pose, head angle, and eye contact. More frames per second, larger frame buffer, better AF system, etc. all lead to better IQ. The sensor is certainly the most important factor in getting each and every individual pixel that is recorded perfect, but if you don't record the right thing...well, it doesn't matter how good your pixels are. The wrong frame is the wrong frame. Bad focus is bad focus. The best pixels in the world won't give you enough post-process editing latitude to fix those issues. 



dilbert said:


> In the last 3 years of shooting every week, I've needed/wanted more than 3 fps exactly once.



Well, that is you. And FOR YOU, if you don't need more than 3fps, it sounds like the 5D II is perfect! But, that's just you. There are other people in the world besides you. 




dilbert said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > > Except that for the price the IQ is very very ordinary.
> ...



It really depends on whether APS-C sensors out-do it. If you can get the same number of frames in focus, capture enough frames to get "the right frame", and do so with the same low level of photon noise at high ISO as the 5D III...then sure, the 5D III is "only as good as some potentially existent APS-C cameras". But, you still have to factor in the ability of the 5D III to get more shots in focus, and capture more frames in any given burst such that you get the one with your subject (which may be human, animal, bird, etc.) properly composed, in a proper pose or orientation, with the proper expression and eye contact, etc. etc. 

My 7D is a pretty great camera. It has a high frame rate, a good AF system that does a great job, but can bail out and get sketchy at any moment. With quality L-series glass it pounds out the sharp like you wouldn't believe. But...the 5D III, despite its SLOWER frame rate, still out-does it because of the better AF system. The larger pixels on the 5D III result in much better noise characteristics, allowing usable ISO to jump from around ISO 1600-2500 on the 7D to as high as 12800 on the 5D III, while concurrently making ISO 1600 WORLDS BETTER.

IQ is dependent upon multiple factors. Sensor is only one of many. As I said previously (not sure which thread, maybe this one), if one were to rank the most important factors in IQ, I'd say the best rankings would be: Sensor is #3. Frame rate is #2. AF system is #1! Sensor only matters if the other two factors do their job, _*lock focus*_ and capture the _*right*_ frame.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the fact it was long, long time ago, I have always remembered something that my Grandfather told me:
> ...



I should have read this before I wrote my latest response... :-\


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I like the Osprey example....

I wish to take a picture of an Osprey picking a fish out of the river.... this happens pretty fast, about 2 or 3 tenths of a second. This is faster than my reaction time so I have to anticipate the action and hope that my picture is taken at the right time... and with the speed things are moving I only get one shot.

Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second. The other photographer starts thier burst before the Osprey hits the water and it continues until the fish is well clear. My picture is of the claws going into the water.. my timing is off. The other photographer has a string of twenty or so pictures from the Osprey approaching the water, through the grab, and as the catch clears the water. I have a great shot. The other photographer has twenty great shots, one or two of which show the intended image.

That is an indisputable reason for the use of bursts and how they can improve composition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second.



Nudge that photographer on the shoulder and suggest that in such a situation, the camera should probably be set for it's maximum frame rate of *12 fps*... 

(Or 14 fps if JPGs with MLU and no AF are acceptable, but I'd stick with 12 fps.)


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Perfect example. Couldn't have put it better myself!


----------



## Apop (Feb 11, 2013)

I thought 4-6 fps was enough when i had it.

I didn't regret my choice to have 4 fps on full frame or 6 in dx mode when i made photos during my trip.

But NOW i regret it SO much that i didn't have 10 fps..., It's not only that it makes it ''easier'' to capture the moment, more important : you capture much more from the moment ( as long as it doesn't last 2 long and your stuck with a full buffer)

I cannot imagine going back to 4 fps for wildlife...., 8 fps would be a minimum for me.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2013)

As far as numbers of megapixels and frame rate are concerned... the real bottleneck is not reading the sensor, it's processing the data afterwards.

For example, we pick on a 60D with a digic4 processor and an 18Mp sensor. It is capable of reading that sensor 60 times per second, but can only process 5.9 frames per second.

And I know this will be controversial, but this is one of those cases where a mirrorless design is superior.... no mirror to shake the camera or to slow down the burst. Even a gopro can read it's 11Mp sensor 240 times per second.... Every design decision has it's plusses and minuses, nothing is perfect for everyone.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > You're under the utterly and completely clueless assumption that if you are a 5D2 owner, that the 5D3 is the next logical thing to buy.
> ...



If you can't get an in-focus photo of your children with a 5D Mark III, you should really consider a career in the food services.


----------



## Apop (Feb 11, 2013)

Come one , no need for insults....

why shouldn't people in the food business be able to get in focus shots btw???



OT: i still hope to learn to shoot with my current camera!, it seems more advanced then the d800, but also less forgiving when used with the my current lens

(getting the shot to fill the frame , of moving subjects vs just getting the shot and crop afterwards)


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> As far as numbers of megapixels and frame rate are concerned... the real bottleneck is not reading the sensor, it's processing the data afterwards.
> 
> For example, we pick on a 60D with a digic4 processor and an 18Mp sensor. It is capable of reading that sensor 60 times per second, but can only process 5.9 frames per second.
> 
> And I know this will be controversial, but this is one of those cases where a mirrorless design is superior.... no mirror to shake the camera or to slow down the burst. Even a gopro can read it's 11Mp sensor 240 times per second.... Every design decision has it's plusses and minuses, nothing is perfect for everyone.



You just have to question the usefulness of reading still photos 240 times per second. That is not only video, that is high speed video. Unless you have the literal intention of playing that "video" back on a 240Hz screen at its native rate, the usefulness of such a frame rate for a still camera actually eludes me. Same goes for 60fps. It is one thing to look at 12, 14, 16, maybe 20 fps for a still camera. But at 60fps, and worse at 240fps, one momentary press of the shutter will capture a ton of frames. 

Assuming we had image processors that could keep up, a 1/10th second shutter press in AI Servo with a 60fps DSLR would mean you get 6 frames. SIX FRAMES for one tenth of a second. That might get you the best shot up to the moment where an Osprey flexes out its claws in preparation for grabbing a fish....but it would still miss the moment where the fish is in-talon, the moment after it is pulled out of the water. If you hold the shutter down for a full second to get the entire sequence of action...that is SIXTY FRAMES!! I don't even want to think about the issue if we actually had a 240fps frame rate (and an image processing chip that could keep up). 

There are _bounding limits_ of practicality here. Not only is there a limit on how LOW of a frame rate you can really have to get enough frames to capture the right moment of action, but there is also a limit on how HIGH of a frame rate is really practical. I'd say a range between 8fps to 20fps is probably it. I don't think I'd want to wade through more than 20 frames per second at the most, and 12-16 is probably really the sweet spot. I'd also venture that the higher the frame rate, the lower you would really want your sensor resolution to be. Lacl of sufficient memory card and disk space would become a huge problem with ultra high frame rates on high or big megapixel sensors. I like 18mp...it's a good number, especially in FF format. Maybe 22, but you'll start having space issues at that point. Even if ultra high stills frame rates are possible, it blows the bounds of practicality.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As far as numbers of megapixels and frame rate are concerned... the real bottleneck is not reading the sensor, it's processing the data afterwards.
> ...


Exactly!

It's a number, but it is a useless number. Cameras are systems, and the fact that a 60D can read it's sensor 60 times per second would imply that a 1DX should be even faster..... A single number like that is so out of context as to be misleading.... it forgets about shutter delay, processing time, storage time, and probably 100 other things that I am not aware of.

We get so obsessed about a particular component we forget about the rest of the camera


----------



## pedro (Feb 11, 2013)

*by jirista: "My 7D is a pretty great camera. It has a high frame rate, a good AF system that does a great job, but can bail out and get sketchy at any moment. With quality L-series glass it pounds out the sharp like you wouldn't believe. But...the 5D III, despite its SLOWER frame rate, still out-does it because of the better AF system. The larger pixels on the 5D III result in much better noise characteristics, allowing usable ISO to jump from around ISO 1600-2500 on the 7D to as high as 12800 on the 5D III, while concurrently making ISO 1600 WORLDS BETTER."*

Coming from a 30D the 5D3 just blew me away. 12800 are a no-brainer. I'll even go as high as 25600 and sometimes 51200 (required in very dark rooms, exposing well to the right, final output color or b/w) I am playing with it since my cat-photograph looked pretty usable 8) even without NR...




Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
*here's a 25k lowlight shot
*



Z96A3292bNoNRBWcropDEFKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> A high frame rate *can* correlate with sharpness, when a subject is periodically moving and you want a frame where it is not. In the case of bird photography specifically, birds have periods of fast action, interleaved with moments of stillness. You need at least 6fps, better 8-10fps, such that in any burst of frames you get one where the subject is perfectly still. Even at high shutter speeds like 1/1250th or 1/1600th and a perfectly stable camera, the fast motion of a bird can still cause blurring. The 5D III is certainly _better_ in this regard than its predecessor. Obviously there are even better options, but that does not invalidate the fact that the 5D III is better than its predecessor, by 54%.



Very true and this also applies to trying to get away with natural light macro shots of bugs.



> Sure, if you were a professional sports shooter. But there are also wildlife shooters. Bird photographers. Arial photographers (some who use the 1D line, some who were using the 7D line but have been all too happy to move to the 5D III). Sports is not the only source of high speed action. *I chose my terms carefully.* The 5D III, as a general purpose camera, is ideal in an extremely broad set of circumstances. The 1D X is obviously the better choice for the highest speed action, but the 5D III does the job extremely well well when money is an issue.



It is and the 6fps a big key. Some people shoot everything from landscapes to wildlife to action and it can be nice to have one camera that can manage all of that at least decently.



> Again, your missing the point. The notion that IQ is purely dependent upon the sensor is a fallacy. Getting a quality image means getting the little aspects of each key thing within the image correct. And that means *all* of the little aspects correct...not just exposure, not just sharpness, but composition, subject position, pose, head angle, and eye contact. More frames per second, larger frame buffer, better AF system, etc. all lead to better IQ. The sensor is certainly the most important factor in getting each and every individual pixel that is recorded perfect, but if you don't record the right thing...well, it doesn't matter how good your pixels are. The wrong frame is the wrong frame. Bad focus is bad focus. The best pixels in the world won't give you enough post-process editing latitude to fix those issues.





> IQ is dependent upon multiple factors. Sensor is only one of many. As I said previously (not sure which thread, maybe this one), if one were to rank the most important factors in IQ, I'd say the best rankings would be: Sensor is #3. Frame rate is #2. AF system is #1! Sensor only matters if the other two factors do their job, _*lock focus*_ and capture the _*right*_ frame.



It depends what you are shooting, if it is landscapes then sensor is far and away #1. The 5D3 sensor was a bit of a let down after 3.5 years. The rest of the camera is fantastic but the sensor is bit outdated feeling, basically even if the 5D4 arrives in 2 years you are talking 5.5 years with the same sensor for many types of shooting although somewhat better for high iso shooting in some cases and a good 7.5 since they'd done anything to improve low ISO in any fashion at all.

It's a very good camera though. (It could have been earth-shattering for both stills and video if they were less conservative and hadn't gone into king of the hill hahaha mode.)


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I didn't say that the 5DIII's AF wasn't better than the 5DII's. However the way you and everyone else talks about the AF, you could be forgiven for thinking that AF was the only factor in obtaining good action shots.
> 
> There is a certain range of subject motion for which the newer AF does make an improvement but it isn't complete.



It is actually not everyone. It is really actually a smaller group than those who are complaining about the 5D III sensor. A MUCH smaller group. Which is why we are so vocal. The notion that sensor is the most important factor, the sole factor, in achieving IQ is fundamentally flawed. It is a fallacy. _No, the 5D III *does not have* the best sensor on planet earth._ However, despite that, the 5D III is still immensely capable of taking really freaking awesome photos with excellent IQ in an extremely broad set of circumstances for a very broad set of photographic types.

The D800, the D3200, hell even the D5200 may all have sensors that kick the crap out of the 5D III's sensor at low ISO, but their range of usefulness is more limited. The D3200 and D5200 are lower end, and crop, so their usefulness is intrinsically limited. The D800 is excellent for some types of photography, but it is way overpowered or way too much for a lot of other types of photography. For the narrower band of photography types the D800 is great for, it can produce better images IF you use ISO 100-400, however in pretty much any other case, the 5D III should be just as capable if not more capable of getting a better, sharper shot with the right composition and ideal subject pose/posture/head angle/eye contact/etc.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A high frame rate *can* correlate with sharpness, when a subject is periodically moving and you want a frame where it is not. In the case of bird photography specifically, birds have periods of fast action, interleaved with moments of stillness. You need at least 6fps, better 8-10fps, such that in any burst of frames you get one where the subject is perfectly still. Even at high shutter speeds like 1/1250th or 1/1600th and a perfectly stable camera, the fast motion of a bird can still cause blurring. The 5D III is certainly _better_ in this regard than its predecessor. Obviously there are even better options, but that does not invalidate the fact that the 5D III is better than its predecessor, by 54%.
> ...



Ah, good point. Macro is a great example of a more niche use of higher frame rate.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > Sure, if you were a professional sports shooter. But there are also wildlife shooters. Bird photographers. Arial photographers (some who use the 1D line, some who were using the 7D line but have been all too happy to move to the 5D III). Sports is not the only source of high speed action. *I chose my terms carefully.* The 5D III, as a general purpose camera, is ideal in an extremely broad set of circumstances. The 1D X is obviously the better choice for the highest speed action, but the 5D III does the job extremely well well when money is an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It is and the 6fps a big key. Some people shoot everything from landscapes to wildlife to action and it can be nice to have one camera that can manage all of that at least decently.



Exactly. The higher frame rate and better AF system really make the 5D III an ideal general purpose FF camera with extremely broad applicability.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > Again, your missing the point. The notion that IQ is purely dependent upon the sensor is a fallacy. Getting a quality image means getting the little aspects of each key thing within the image correct. And that means *all* of the little aspects correct...not just exposure, not just sharpness, but composition, subject position, pose, head angle, and eye contact. More frames per second, larger frame buffer, better AF system, etc. all lead to better IQ. The sensor is certainly the most important factor in getting each and every individual pixel that is recorded perfect, but if you don't record the right thing...well, it doesn't matter how good your pixels are. The wrong frame is the wrong frame. Bad focus is bad focus. The best pixels in the world won't give you enough post-process editing latitude to fix those issues.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True, there are some kinds of photography where sensor is #1. I'd say at least landscape and studio photography, although a lot of studio photography can benefit from a highly capable AF system and even frame rate as well. I guess those who shoot very high contrast scenes that might actually have a strong argument for needing 14 stops of DR (which again includes landscape photography, but may also include things like street photography) could say sensor is #1 as well.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say that the 5DIII's AF wasn't better than the 5DII's. However the way you and everyone else talks about the AF, you could be forgiven for thinking that AF was the only factor in obtaining good action shots.
> ...



It all depends. It is also worthwhile to point out that many a Canon user used to make it all about the sensor back in the days when the Canon sensors ruled but the Nikon bodies were always more fully featured and some of the same now suddenly say that the sensor is the most minor point .

The D800 is pretty versatile too in that it does have 5 and 6fps crop modes that coupled with the high sensor density one might say it may actually be better for wildlife. You do need the grip to get to 6fps though. For something like indoor basketball without strobes it would be worse for sure though since you'd either have to crop it and lose SNR to get 6fps or get good SNR but be stuck at 4fps.

But yeah the 5D3 is pretty well rounded and it doesn't have the aliasing/moire the D800 video suffers from even if the 5D3 video is kinda weak for micro-contrast.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.



That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a *tremendous *amount of *detail-oriented SKILL*. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be _continually addressed in real time!_

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is *one of the most challenging things in photography.* You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just _insulted_ the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.
> ...



Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Ah, touché, touché. Great point. I was a newly minted toddler of a photographer back when the 5D II was first released, but I remember the elation of the Canon community at that little gem. Heh, seems so odd, thinking back...that camera WAS the D800 of its time, and everyone raved about it. So funny how times change, but things really stay the same...it's apparently always about the sensor.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And the talented sports shooter with 4fps will miss the "perfect moment" far more often than the talented photographer with 12fps.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



I sincerely hope that you take all your photos in manual mode using manual focus and don't bother to look at exposure displays or anything else, because that would be like cheating.

An exposure meter is a tool, developed to help you expose better.
Autofocus is a tool, designed to help you focus better.
Lightroom is a tool, designed to help you modify images.
Shooting RAW is a tool, designed to give you better data for editing.
display screens are a tool, designed to help you understand what your camera is set to and doing.
I could keep going here all night......
Burst mode is a tool, to help you in times where action happens too fast for you to react.

These are all tools to enhance your abilities and creativity. Only a fool ignores good tools.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It all depends. It is also worthwhile to point out that many a Canon user used to make it all about the sensor back in the days when the Canon sensors ruled but the Nikon bodies were always more fully featured and some of the same now suddenly say that the sensor is the most minor point .



Very true, and I still maintain that the D700 was an all-around better camera than the 5D2, at least for my needs. IMHO, any full-frame sensor from the 5DC/1Ds2 era or later is capable of phenomenal image quality. All we're seeing now with each successive generation are incremental improvements in ISO and dynamic range. It's all the other stuff that's already been mentioned - like AF and FPS - combined with these incremental improvements in ISO and DR that make the current crop of DSLRs such powerful imaging tools. 

Nikon is without question leading the megapixel and DR charge right now, but for the same reasons I preferred the D700 over the 5D2, I now prefer the 5D3 over the D800. 

Sooo, to put it succinctly, sensor quality is by no means a minor point. It's just that, IMHO, sensors are so damn good these days that not having the best sensor doesn't hurt you as much as it used to.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Don, I think Dilbert has a point. He would rather paint... cuz photography is cheating....actually he would rather etch it on the walls of caves... cuz painting is cheating. May be he will color the reliefs he so etches with virgin pigments extracted from roots and herbs... and you hear the tinkle of the falling waterfall, the birds chirp... the eagle cries as it swoops down for that fish that you are not supposed to use too many frames on...cuz it is...well you know...cheating... 

The arguments offered by some have long left the realm of logic, I will just leave them be


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.
> ...



I have been trying (and failing) to get some decent pictures of chikadee's in flight. Do you have any idea how freaking fast those tiny wings flap..... and they don't fly level..... it's flap like crazy and climb, then tuck the wings in and go ballistic.... then flap.. then ballistic. It has to be the hardest thing I have ever tried photographicly.... taking pictures of the ISS was childs play in comparison.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Maybe in your world. Without stating the obvious around sports photography I shoot some swim meets at my children's school. Taking the group picture afterwards with 20 or so worked up kids, burst is not a bad idea.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.


So does this mean that bracketing is bad because it lowers the keeper ratio?

Also, what's the higher ratio... 0/3 or 1/20?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



And your point is being stated because??????????????????? What? There are many shots I couldn't have gotten during fast-action basketball games, that I did get, simply because of fps. I guess at the end of the day, who really cares when I got the shot and you didn't. It's hard to print an 8x10 of something you don't have.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Hah! Indeed! Getting a good shot if a perching chickadee is a chore...those little twits never stop moving, even for an instant. Even my best shots of chickadees have some blur somewhere on the bird (even in long sequences if 16 or more with my 7D). You need very high shutter speeds to capture them in flight, and a proper flight setup is pretty much essential.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?



Not really. Do you have the money for a 1DC? I don't.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I have been trying (and failing) to get some decent pictures of chikadee's in flight. Do you have any idea how freaking fast those tiny wings flap..... and they don't fly level..... it's flap like crazy and climb, then tuck the wings in and go ballistic.... then flap.. then ballistic. It has to be the hardest thing I have ever tried photographicly.... taking pictures of the ISS was childs play in comparison.
> ...



We are getting way off topic here. I am going to start a thread under "Gear Talk - EOS Bodies for stills", called chikadees in flight. Could you explain a proper flight setup there?


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?



You do realize how LOW 4k resolution is as far as still photography goes, right? Not everyone is just out to "get the snapshots" like you. To some of us, photography is the core of our being and the primary outlet for our artistic tendencies. I don't want to relegate myself to purposely softened 4k video at 8mp when I can have way better than 4k at 20, 22, 24, 36, or even 40-50 mp. I want the highest quality in the best-made STILL photography camera I can afford. If I can get 20-24mp of high quality pixels at 8-12fps, with a top-notch AF system, and ideal ergonomics, lenses, and other gear for STILL photography, I'm going to do just that. 

Video is an entirely different thing, works in a different way, and is in no way a direct replacement for a still photography camera. You will never achieve the same level of quality at the same price point with a video camera as you can with a still camera. 



It is quite clear you are just a troll at this point. You have no reasonable arguments, there is no basis for your arguments at all...there is no other logical conclusion other than that you are arguing the contrarian argument simply for the sake of being contrary. If that is the only way you can get your jollies off, to be frank, I pity you. There is more to life than digging lulz out of what you would consider hapless, easy targets on a Canon-dedicated forum. It is a no-win situation for you...terrible and often illogical arguments against a thoroughly aligned front of happy Canon fans... (Of course, as a troll, that is probably exactly where you want to be...so, I'm calling it quits.)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 12, 2013)

dilbert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I'm getting that you don't know what you're talking about. At all.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 13, 2013)

dilbert said:


> That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.



It doesn't lower the keeper ratio, it gives you more keepers and can sometimes give you a headache in which to choose.

You can do the same with lower fps but then there is a certain amount of skill and luck involved, high fps removes some of the luck especially.

Take baseball or cricket or hockey or some such sport. The ball is moving at such speed that milliseconds count.

Ask anyone that shoots pro sports with a 1DX whether they would switch for a high megapixel camera with an fps of 6 and they would most likely laugh at you. High fps makes it easier and increases your chances of getting a perfect shot compared to a good or great shot.

And I have no idea about shooting in video mode or using a 1DC. Those file sizes are insane and you would have to shoot the entire game to make sure you do not miss anything, it would be a night mare. Plus there are a lot of very strict rules about taking moving pictures (video) at sporting events (even if you promise to later on take stills from it. But it does not matter sports=more fps please.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 13, 2013)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



But my second point which I meant to add on is that either shooter, skilled or not gets more better sports shots with 12fps than 4fps or a better AFing camera than a poor one, etc.

It doesn't just give more, it gives more better. At 4fps you basically get one key frame from most sports action sequences and if something gets blocked or goes weird with that frame or if an even more dramatic thing happened an instant later, forget it. At 6fps you might get two frames from around peak action time and if you are at 8fps you almost always get two key frames.

And with wildlife, maybe the bird hits the perch and is gone quickly and at 4fps you get all shots timed where it moved it's head or blinked eye or something bad and you get no good frames while at 6fps or 8fps maybe you get that one good frame.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 14, 2013)

1D body

46 Megapixels

5 FPS

61-Point AF

16-bit processing - 14+ stops of DR

7499$

Bring it canon. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1D body
> 
> 46 Megapixels
> 
> ...



And a 135mm f/1.8L IS to go with it, right?


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 1D body
> ...



It couldn't hurt.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1D body
> 
> 46 Megapixels
> 
> ...



The 1D is sports focused, I doubt they'll release anything that shoots less than 10fps in that range ever again. People probably would pay big bucks for 10fps at that resolution too.
They need something to compete with the D800 as well. I could swing $4K for a slow shooting 5DIV with the same sensor a lot easier than $7K for a 1D that does the same thing if you're not shooting a moving subject.
Not that I would complain about having a 1D, it's just hard to justify if you're not the target audience.




neuroanatomist said:


> And a 135mm f/1.8L IS to go with it, right?



If they make it as sharp wide open as all the other new telephoto lenses, Yes please!


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

In another thread a split of the 5D line was recommended. I'd go that route as well. I don't want Canon to "spoil" the 5D3 as it is now ("jack-of-all-trades" type body) by a high MP sucsessor only. At its price it is the ideal and afforadable body for amateurs like me, shooting high ISOs.


----------



## motorhead (Feb 15, 2013)

I'd prefer a return to the 1D / 1Ds arrangement than downgrading a high pixel camera to "second grade". Never understood why Canon abandoned the traditional 1Ds customers.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> motorhead said:
> 
> 
> > I'd prefer a return to the 1D / 1Ds arrangement than downgrading a high pixel camera to "second grade". Never understood why Canon abandoned the traditional 1Ds customers.
> ...



Simple fact of the matter is, #1 is not nearly as important as #2 so long as the majority of your customers are still willing to pay for your products, regardless of their price.

People get too hung up on the image sensor low-ISO IQ factor. That is only one factor out of many, and not necessarily the most important to the greatest majority of photographers. There are dozens of factors that play into IQ. When Canon releases a big megapixel DSLR, I am sure it will be a competitive part with competitive features at a price point *their customers* will pay. There are other benefits beyond the DSLR body itself Canon offers, not the least of which is some of the best glass with the highest sharpness at the lightest weight the world has ever seen. Pixels with the best DR in the world don't matter much if you can't get sharp detail onto them, and Canon excels at getting the best detail onto pixels that are excellent in the majority of situations. 

If the sensor-only IQ benefit of the 6D over the 5D III (which is actually fairly significant...better low-light performance and FAR less chroma noise), then the next sensors from Canon should be quite good. Even if they are not "as good" as an Exmor in a Nikon at ISO 100 and 200, that is still a minor factor, and customers will still want and will still be willing to pay for that nice big 47mp monster megapixel beauty...even if it clocks in at $8 grand. 

#2 is more important than #1.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good". Consumer sentiment would indicate otherwise. Brand B certainly has a better image sensor...but its camera has a variety of issues, say, with white balance, LCD screen rendition, AF system, buffer unload rate, etc. Brand B has great glass, but it is not as good as Brand A. Brand B's camera is phenomenal for some things, but Brand A's camera is phenomenal for just about everything, with a few caveats at really low ISO...

So...IS it really true that Brand B makes a camera "at least as good" as Brand A? Technologically speaking, they certainly have an edge. Overall, consumer sentiment seems to indicate Brand A still makes a better camera. And that sentiment has nothing to do with brainwashing or existing gear or anything like that (we've seen plenty of cases of switchers here on CR, where people have literally dumped their entire Canon kit and switched to Nikon or vice versa.)

As for price/performance...the D800 does have a phenomenal sensor. However that camera is clearly not as viable in as many use cases as the 5D III. Its gargantuan file sizes has turned more than a majority of wedding photographers off. It's lackluster frame rate without spending additional money on a battery grip (which normalizes the price gap and offers a size/weight ratio benefit to the competition). The poor full buffer clear rate of the D800 creates a lag in your ability to keep shooting, where as Canon cameras just keep on plugging away.

If you consider sensor the singular factor that affects a camera's competitiveness, and it actually turns out that sensor is indeed the primary thing that affects IQ for the kind of photography you do (I can think of one case where that is probably always true...landscape photography), and you are completely unwilling to wait and see what Canon does...then dumping your kit and jumping ships, or straddling both the Canon and Nikon ships, is probably the solution to your problem. Does that mean you are getting a better price/performance ratio? Well, if you do not yet currently own Nikon, and do own Canon, your price point for the D800 for better low ISO IQ (and ONLY better low ISO IQ) is a hell of a lot higher...you need at least one comparable lens. If you just pick up the competing Canon camera, even though the single-item price point is potentially higher (depends on whether you actually get that battery grip for the D800 or not), the total cost to upgrade and not jump ship puts you at a better price/performance ratio.

Rationalism isn't as cut and dry it might seem when one only factors image sensor into the basis of image quality and bang for the buck. I'd say the market is pretty rational already, and that photographers already are purchasing the camera with the best price/performance ratio for the kind of work they do. If the D800, D600, etc. were hands down far better cameras than the Canon alternatives, consumers would be buying Nikon.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



What I am saying is that Canon obviously makes a great product that their customers really want. Canon ALSO makes a product that is "competitive" in price. A competitive price does not necessarily mean an equal price. Price matching is not necessary, so long as #2 is met. If your customers like your product, and are willing to pay a higher price, then that "market sentiment" indicates #2 is certainly met, and #1 is probably met for a majority of customers.

If the 5D III was not a competitive product sold at a competitive price that had features consumers wanted, it would not be one of the worlds best selling DSLRs. As far as I know, the 5D III is currently the single top rated DSLR on Amazon (a prime source of customer sentiment statistics), while the D800 is nowhere to be seen. The 5D III body only currently holds the 8th spot on the Amazon top sellers list, at $3200, where as the D800 body only holds the 18th spot on the Amazon top sellers list at $2800. One would have suspected that while the D800, a supposedly superior camera supposedly "ideally priced" at $3000, would have taken a higher position than the 5D III and maintained it's price point, while the 5D III concurrently dropped to a lower price point than the D800 and took a lower position in the Amazon top sellers list. As it stands, both cameras have dropped in price, and the price gap has largely been maintained, down only $100 (to $400 from $500.)

Technologically, the only negative gap between the 5D III and D800 is ISO 100 and ISO 200 IQ. Outside of that one gap, the 5D III is superior technology. From a customer sentiment standpoint, the 5D III is still a better-liked camera than the D800.

So...#2 is more important than #1. That is not to say #1 is not important at all. However, _neither does it mean_ that for Brand A to be "competitive" on both features and price it must offer the exact SAME features at the exact SAME price. Brand A offers a competitive product at a competitive price, with better features in most cases, and slightly worse features in ONE case, than Brand B. Brand A sells more cameras at a higher price than Brand B, which can only indicate that Brand A is probably making a better overall camera at a reasonable price point, offering a high price to performance ratio as far as customers are concerned. That also does not mean Brand B makes a "bad" product...it simply makes a product that is _less compelling_ to a majority of customers, *despite *its strong, but solo, technological lead in the sensor area.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> So your belief is that if brand A can make a camera at $2000 and brand B can make an camera at least as good at $1495, the majority of prior brand A customers will stick to brand A?
> 
> Why? Due to existing investement (perhaps only a heavily invested minority), or due to being brainwashed?
> 
> ...



There is also momentum.... Someone who is just getting into cameras may make a very different decision than someone who has legacy equipment.

Take me as an example. I shoot a 60D, have several APS lenses and a few APS-C lenses, and I am going to upgrade. Let's say I decide to go FF and let's say I have around $3000 to spend. I might look at a Nikon or Sony offering and decide that it's a better body for my needs than a $3000 Canon body, but then I would need lenses..... and there lies the problem. It can never be an equal comparison when I ask what $3000 Nikon body PLUS lenses will work as well as a $3000 Canon with a bunch of Lglass thrown in the mix for free.


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > So your belief is that if brand A can make a camera at $2000 and brand B can make an camera at least as good at $1495, the majority of prior brand A customers will stick to brand A?
> ...



When I started with Canon coming from a Sony DSC-F 828 compact cam, the reason to switch was a) I dropped the sony, but b) was unhappy with the IQ. While saving up I decided to go back to SLRs (had a Contax 139 Quartz 30 years ago) and chose Canon a) gut feeling b) IQ c) price. Purchased an EOS 30D. While growing deeper into nightphotography I decided to save up for a 5DII, skipped it due to the reported AF issues, and bought the 5DIII last August. So, I changed brands, but in my case did not loose anything, as the cam was the loss in itself. But, according to sensor tech, it sometimes pays off to stay with the brand and go for a walk through the "desert". Although, at the end of the day, if the mirage of a perfect cam becomes real, recompensation for the wait is tremendously high 8)


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2013)

pedro said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



EXACTLY!! Ironically, think about the Nikon camp. They were actually IN the desert, wasting away in the heat, until the D800 and D600 came along. It took Nikon a number of years to really put out a sensor that had the low ISO IQ everyone is currently raving about. Before that, the 5D II was the king of the town. The release cycles for DSLR's are quite long, and the major players have leapfrogged each other every generation or two for...well, ever. Sometimes the dry spells for a given brand are really long. After the advent of the Canon AF system, Nikon had a pretty long dry spell until they finally came up with an AF system and metering system that surpassed Canon. Then Canon started pumping out FF DSLRs. Now Nikon has better low ISO IQ, while concurrently Canon has better AF. The leapfrogging will continue, but its a two to four year dry spell each time...there won't be a "correction" until the next major round of professional-grade DSLRs in the 2015-2016 timeframe, with the potential for a new line here or there (i.e. Canon Megapixel Monster....2D, 3D, 4D, 9D, whatever) and an intermediate model (i.e. 7D II).


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 46 Megapixels



For some reasons my guts tell me something about 39.32(+ perhaps whats needed for phase detect on sensor)MP - involves meeting mastering/broadcast standards for 4K video, one could get 4:4:4 data with the proper interface. Or 61.5 for the next (almostl) clean sample binning.
Not that it would be a deciding factor, with all the other potential practical limits around.

Just don't be cheap at the metering, or include some arbitrary limitations...


----------



## motorhead (Feb 16, 2013)

Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good". Consumer sentiment would indicate otherwise. Brand B certainly has a better image sensor...but its camera has a variety of issues, say, with white balance, LCD screen rendition, AF system, buffer unload rate, etc. Brand B has great glass, but it is not as good as Brand A. Brand B's camera is phenomenal for some things, but Brand A's camera is phenomenal for just about everything, with a few caveats at really low ISO...

So...IS it really true that Brand B makes a camera "at least as good" as Brand A? Technologically speaking, they certainly have an edge. Overall, consumer sentiment seems to indicate Brand A still makes a better camera. And that sentiment has nothing to do with brainwashing or existing gear or anything like that (we've seen plenty of cases of switchers here on CR, where people have literally dumped their entire Canon kit and switched to Nikon or vice versa.)

As for price/performance...the D800 does have a phenomenal sensor. However that camera is clearly not as viable in as many use cases as the 5D III. Its gargantuan file sizes has turned more than a majority of wedding photographers off. It's lackluster frame rate without spending additional money on a battery grip (which normalizes the price gap and offers a size/weight ratio benefit to the competition). The poor full buffer clear rate of the D800 creates a lag in your ability to keep shooting, where as Canon cameras just keep on plugging away.

If you consider sensor the singular factor that affects a camera's competitiveness, and it actually turns out that sensor is indeed the primary thing that affects IQ for the kind of photography you do (I can think of one case where that is probably always true...landscape photography), and you are completely unwilling to wait and see what Canon does...then dumping your kit and jumping ships, or straddling both the Canon and Nikon ships, is probably the solution to your problem. Does that mean you are getting a better price/performance ratio? Well, if you do not yet currently own Nikon, and do own Canon, your price point for the D800 for better low ISO IQ (and ONLY better low ISO IQ) is a hell of a lot higher...you need at least one comparable lens. If you just pick up the competing Canon camera, even though the single-item price point is potentially higher (depends on whether you actually get that battery grip for the D800 or not), the total cost to upgrade and not jump ship puts you at a better price/performance ratio.

Rationalism isn't as cut and dry it might seem when one only factors image sensor into the basis of image quality and bang for the buck. I'd say the market is pretty rational already, and that photographers already are purchasing the camera with the best price/performance ratio for the kind of work they do. If the D800, D600, etc. were hands down far better cameras than the Canon alternatives, consumers would be buying Nikon.
[/quote]

Everything you say is of course true, but sadly everything you flag up as of limited appeal is of great interest to me and the Canon advantages I don't see as advantages. Thats why I am dissapointed that Canon have chosen to dump all their loyal IDs customers in favour of video and sports use. I am really not bothered if a camera of mine took just 1 shot per second, frame rates and buffer sizes, like high ISO noise, is of no interest.

I fully understand that something like the 1Dx will be perfect for some, all I want is for Canon to consider both sides which at the moment they are not doing.


----------



## jrista (Feb 16, 2013)

motorhead said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good". Consumer sentiment would indicate otherwise. Brand B certainly has a better image sensor...but its camera has a variety of issues, say, with white balance, LCD screen rendition, AF system, buffer unload rate, etc. Brand B has great glass, but it is not as good as Brand A. Brand B's camera is phenomenal for some things, but Brand A's camera is phenomenal for just about everything, with a few caveats at really low ISO...
> ...



If that is what you need that is fine. I also would not go so far as to say Canon has "chosen to dump you". On the contrary, it is clear Canon has NOT dumped you, and the reason they have not released a big MP camera yet is they need more time to make it what you want it to be...low noise at low ISO, high dynamic range, etc. But you have to realize, if the D800 had never come along, everyone would still consider the 5D II to be a phenomenal landscape and studio camera. UNTIL the advent of Sony Exmor sensors, no one would have questioned the quality of Canon products. They were great, with excellent IQ, the best of the best at everything, before the D800. Simple fact of the matter is they are STILL great, with excellent IQ, now that the D800 is here. The only difference is now they are not the best of the best at everything...only the best at most things except low ISO IQ. 

You also have to realize that you are part of the minority of photographers, not the majority. If you take a small leap back in time, before all of the camera releases in late 2011/early 2012...do you remember what everyone was asking for? Do you remember all the things people DID bitch about regarding Canon sensors? Everyone complained that there were TOO MANY megapixels. Everyone complained that there was not enough high ISO, and they needed more. Everyone complained that there was too much noise at high ISO. Everyone demanded less megapixels, higher ISO, and better noise characteristics at those higher ISO settings. Everyone, in this context, is the vast majority of Canon's customer base...wedding photographers, sports photographers, wildlife and bird photographers, etc. I think studio photographers who used Canon gear were happy with what they had in the 1Ds III...assuming they did not use a medium format digital camera (which I think is really the majority of studio photographers.) Landscape photographers raved about how great the 5D II was. The biggest complaints elsewise came from the high-end sports group using the 1D line, who had experienced problems with the 1D III AF system, and who wanted something better than the 1D IV AF system that was more competitive against Nikon's new-at-the-time reticulated AF system. 

Canon gave the very vast majority of their customers _EXACTLY_ *what they were asking for!*  "We want fewer pixels that do higher ISO and do it better...oh, and throw in a better AF system too."

Today...everyone is asking for something different. Today, everyone wants better low ISO performance and improved low ISO dynamic range. Canon listened to their customers quite well in the past, and gave everyone exactly what they asked for in the last round of camera releases. I have confidence Canon is doing everything they can to meet their customer's demands regarding the next round of camera releases. 

I think the 7D II will have much lower noise at all ISO settings, and a stop or two of expanded high ISO usage, thanks to much higher Q.E. I think the Big Megapixel Monster will have not only a very high megapixel count, I also think those megapixels will be fairly competitive next to something like the D800. If the IQ of the 6D is indicative of anything, it seems clear that Canon has nearly eliminated chroma noise at most ISO settings, particularly lower ISO settings in the deep shadows, where as even the 5D III still exhibits a fair amount. All that really remains is for Canon to eliminate banding noise.

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.


----------



## motorhead (Feb 17, 2013)

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.
[/quote]

Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back. They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks. What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 17, 2013)

motorhead said:


> Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.



Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back. They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks. What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.
[/quote]

I'm not sure Canon is paying any price, as they lead DSLR sales.


----------



## dafrank (Feb 17, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> motorhead said:
> 
> 
> > I fully understand that something like the 1Dx will be perfect for some, all I want is for Canon to consider both sides which at the moment they are not doing.
> ...




Just to let you know a little detail about the Leica wide angles. They are always small and sometimes light in comparison to all wide angles for SLR cameras of any sort, because they are designed totally differently; they are true wide angles in design, while SLR and DSLR wides are "retrofocus" designs - _reverse telephotos_ in effect. Take a telephpoto lens, look through the front to the rear and what you see is the type of field effect that a retrofocus wide angle will yield. This design is necessary because of the mirror inherent in single lens reflex design and the extra space it takes up between the back of the lens and the sensor; it imposes a design requirement to achieve a wide angle of view that makes a "true wide angle design" like Leica's impossible to use, because those are designed for a camera in which their rearmost elements can be situated very, very close to the sensor itself. This allows them to be very small in size compared to SLR lenses, but also introduces some optical problems of their own when using digital sensors, rather than film. Leica and others have done a very good job with these designs and the results speak for themselves. But, Canon cannot make their DSLR lenses that small; such a design would have to defy the currently understood laws and limitations of optical design.

Regards,
David


----------



## jrista (Feb 17, 2013)

motorhead said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.
> ...



Is that not exactly what I was saying?



motorhead said:


> They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks.



*Canon is paying a price? What price?* They are the world's top camera seller, top in DSLRs. They make more money on camera sales than any other company, including Nikon and Sony. 

*What lesson has Canon learned?* That sticking to their guns in a tough economy where garnering sales growth is difficult, and banking their money for more prosperous times (such as, oh, I dunno...2013 where markets are clearly recovering?) is a financially sound decision and has kept them in a profitable position, while many of their competitors, including Sony, are deeply in debt?

Canon is doing exceptionally well, all things considered. A double-dip recession, multiple ecological disasters, slowing growth in the DSLR market at large, etc. etc. And they are STILL making bank! Canon is not paying any price, and if they have learned any lesson, it's that what they are doing works from a business standpoint, and IS satisfying the vast majority of their customers. 

It is only the wild notions of the crazy wackos on sites like CR, DPR, FR, etc. who insist that low-ISO IQ is the SOLE factor in total camera quality that could possibly indicate that Canon is doing anything wrong, that they are paying any kind of price, and that they have lessons to learn for their "bad" behavior. Get your head out of your hole, poke it above the horizon, and look around...Canon is kicking ass on nearly every front. 



motorhead said:


> What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.
> 
> I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.



It may never be *your* choice, however there are statistically many more photographers who need higher shutter speeds at lower light levels than those who need perfect low-ISO IQ. The only real fields of photography where ISO 100 is the staple of their photography are landscape and architectural photographers, who are able to pop their camera on top of a super-sturdy tripod, pop in a remote shutter release, carefully compose and focus their scene, then sit back and open the shutter. Nearly every other field of photography requires either hand-holding a camera with wider-angle lenses, or using extremely long supertelephoto lenses on or off tripods, where very high shutter speeds are essential to getting the shot, which in turn requires high ISO. Reducing noise at high ISO, and expanding the range of high ISO settings, is what the majority of photographers need, what they asked for, and what Canon gave them.

I don't deny Canon could certainly improve their low ISO IQ. Their banding noise has become their bane at low ISO. A move to a smaller fabrication process will give them the die space they need to slap on some additional circuitry and solve that problem, so the real question is whether Canon IS going to move to a smaller process. Chipworks recently showed some photos of a Canon 180nm process that used copper interlinks and lightpipe technology, so it is clear that Canon is at the very least WORKING on moving to a new process. Whether they do, and whether doing so allows Canon to continue offering the things their customers really need, remains to be seen.


----------



## jrista (Feb 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> If share price is an indication of how a company is doing! Then Canon are very well served by not bothering, so far, with a high megapixel wider dynamic range 135 format sensor, well certainly much better than Nikon.
> 
> http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/07/nikon-stock-plummets-19-biggest-drop-since-1985/



"Businessweek writes that the price drop was the largest single day decline in Nikon’s stock since 1985. It happened after the company cut its profit forecast due to decreasing demand and plummeting prices."

Kind of makes you think the D800 should have been priced at $3500, rather than $3000. It's a tough market out there, but undercutting yourself so much that you can no longer maintain profits is counter-intuitive. I'd even offer that people would be interested in the D800 even if it was more expensive than the 5D III, as there is no question it is the king of IQ in 35mm format.

All things considered, I a little bummed by this news. Competition is so critical for consumers...it leads to the kinds of innovations that found their way into all the cameras released last year, and hopefully more this year. It would be great to see Nikon stock (and sales) pick up throughout the rest of the year. I'd rather not see Canon become an even larger player than it already is, or become a default monopoly...that would be bad (even though it is my chosen brand.) *Competition is GOOD!*


----------



## motorhead (Feb 21, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Nikon were so far behind for so long they have ended up shooting themselves in the foot. But I don't believe that changes the gloomy outlook for pure stills orientated high end gear.



I've read in the last day or so that Nikon took 40 plus percent of the UK market in dSLR's last year. That's a pretty good batting average! I don't know how much of the total market is taken by the smaller players, but I'm prepared to bet that Canon cannot have done as well.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Mar 13, 2013)

I can't wait for some solid news on this bad boy!


----------



## Photomoose (Mar 24, 2013)

I wish to weigh in on not the speculatation of a larger mpx camera, but my personal experiance and desire for Canon to join the party. I'm a professional wildlife and landscape photographer and have been so since 1974 which means I have seen alot of equipment between my eye and subject. I have been shooting side-by-side since their release both the 5d3 and D800 and Im torn right down the middle. Heres my take away:

1) I love the way the 5d3 feels in my hand and functions. Function and ease of use is close to the top of my list when choosing a camera. Maybe the best two features I like is the C# dial settings and ease of switching from Single shot to Al-servo with the push of programable button. On the D800 you need two hands and be somewhat of a contortionist. 

2) Low light (high ISO) situations with wildlife is a daily issue for me and while both camps get excited about their products results the fact is at high ISO (lets just say 12,000 and up for discussion) give nothing better than a record shot or best use a small jpg for screen display only. I know, I know, I have seen and read others argue their results are simply amazing. I'm happy your happy. Lets move on.

3) Frame rate: The D800 is not the camera if high frame rate is important. It is simply slow and takes for ever to refresh, Period. The 5d3 is not much faster, but at least refreshes in less time. Personally unless I'm shooting hummingbird the 5d3 is just fine and in fact the percentage of OOF images with the 5d3 is very low compared to my 1dX. Most the bird life I photograph (and I'm not saying I'm a big birder) I have taken away some great images with the 5d3 that was just not possible with the D800. The good news for me is that most the wildlife I photograph I have never felt I needed 14 fps. I can do that with the 1dx, but OMG thats a lot of editing. Side bar: If you have ever been in Yellowstone photographing lets say a bear, there is likely to be at least a dozen or more photographers standing side by side with you and than the bear moves an ear. The sound of hundreds of frames per second that you hear always makes me chuckle. I digress...

4) When you talk about camera bodies and megapixels there must be some discussion of lenses. Again I use both worlds and you can show me all the graphs you want, but in my world IQ from both lines are close to equal. With that said I feel Canon has put a lot of R&D in recent years into their 'L' prime lenses. I simply love them! Sharpness is simply outstanding and heres the kicker, the weight! Not sure how they do it, but I think this is what keeps me with Canon. My go to lens is my Canon 600mm. I spent the last year with a Nikon 600mm lens and while the IQ is outstanding it weighs pounds more than the new Canon 600mm and when your my age and carrying it over your shoulder for miles while walking though river banks looking for moose it makes a huge difference. Not a fan of zoom lenses, I dont care who makes them.

5) Final point and this brings me back to this thread: Megapixel. I have looked over hundreds of shots with both cameras and megapixels matter. Again, you can show me all your graphs, but the end result is what brings home the bacon. Hands down the d800 IQ is hard to beat. I'm very pleased with the 5d3 (I still own two), but the 36megapixel is going knock your socks off.

My conclusion is that they both have advantages. If I was king my camera would feel and function like my 5d3 with 36 megapixels. Someday after I'm long gone there will be 80 megapixel camera that fit in you pocket with one lens that does it all with large format results, but until than and while I'm in the game all I ask Canon for is 36 (give or take a few). I think in todays technology there is no reason our DSLR's can't offer IQ that rivals medium format after all they did back in the days of film so why not digital. We are so close.


----------



## strykapose (Jul 7, 2013)

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 7, 2013)

strykapose said:


> Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr



And that is exactly why I believe most people will not benefit from a 36mp sensor, they are reversing their hoods and have polarisers permanently attached to their lens, often even indoors. High MP sensors demand the best of technique to realise their potential, and, as has been pointed out, a 5D MkIII with a 24-70 f2.8 MkII actually realises more resolution than a D800 with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 anyway, 18mp to 15mp, even on a bench test.


----------



## pedro (Jul 9, 2013)

Well, the big MP could materialize pretty soon according to the last rumored news ;-) Not my cup of tea, but lots of pro's sure would be delighted.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2013)

Seeing that picture of the D800 has reminded me of just what an ugly sucker it is.

It's pretty clear that the designer must have been having some issues with Nikon so he decided to take the p***

I know it doesn't necessarily affect the performance, but in most thing I have generally found that if it _looks_ right it probably _is_ right.


----------



## bardamu (Jul 10, 2013)

Not sure if this is the right place for this, the value of high MPs has been discussed in several different threads lately. But I thought this was a very cool real-world example of where having high MPs and high `croppability' is valuable. He obviously wasn't anticipating this to happen. Cool photo indeed.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/11/30/best-photos-of-the-year-2012/#a=21

Admittedly, you need decent MP and strong AF in this sort of case, which is asking a lot.


----------



## strykapose (Jul 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> strykapose said:
> 
> 
> > Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr
> ...



I would like to point out that I shoot Canon. That D800E belongs to a friend of mine that went shooting with me. The filter is not a polarizer, it is an ND filter and I highly doubt that it's permanently attached since its a 10-stop. The hood is reversed because his camera was in his bag and I needed something to test focus since I'd dropped my nifty-fifty earlier, so I used his camera. 
Now to the point of mp's...when I compare my Mk3 photos to his D800E after taking identical landscape shots on the same tripod with the same (and newest...Mk2) focal length lenses, his D800E photo out-resolves my Mk3. IMHO, I dislike the D800E's colors and user interface compared to the Mk3, as I'm able to quickly setup and shoot while he's still fumbling with this buttons.
I'm not here to create an argument nor to bash anyone. I just added the caption because I was expecting Canon's higher MP camera to arrive sooner.
Like Photomoose had mentioned, I'm also basing my judgement not on speculation, but by personal comparisons of both cameras and I have to admit, I may love my Mk3 but the D800E has knocked my resolution socks off a while ago and I'm currently running around bare-feet until Canon matches or surpasses.


----------

