# Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?



## rs (Jul 3, 2014)

[quote author="Canon Watch"]
Just recently a rumor surfaced stating that Canon may announce the EOS 5D Mark IV at the beginning of 2015. Now I have been told (thanks) that the successor of the EOS 5D Mark III could feature 4k video. The feature is going to be implemented, so the source, to further push the 5D into the videographers domain.

Currently Canon is featuring 4k on the EOS-1D C (Adorama | B&H Photo). It would be a more than welcome move if the 5D Mark IV would deliver 4k! Canon added HD recording to the EOS 5D Mark II, let’s hope the EOS 5D Mark IV will make the next step. Just to remind: full HD has a 1920 x 1080 resolution, 4K has a resolution of 4096 x 2160.
[/quote]

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-come-4k/


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2014)

I didn't know there is video feature on 5D


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I didn't know there is video feature on 5D


started on the 5D2...1920x1080


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 3, 2014)

Why do they bother making video cameras if video is such a big deal on SLRs? I hate the fact I had to spend so much extra for a feature I've used once on my 5D3.


Why can't they just split the lines properly and sell each one at a reasonable price?


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 3, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Why do they bother making video cameras if video is such a big deal on SLRs? I hate the fact I had to spend so much extra for a feature I've used once on my 5D3.
> 
> 
> Why can't they just split the lines properly and sell each one at a reasonable price?



How much extra do you think you're paying for video? Or do you hate live view as well?


----------



## dppaskewitz (Jul 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know there is video feature on 5D
> ...



Tongue in cheek: My 5D definitely doesn't have a video feature.

I suspect what Dylan777 is playfully saying is that many participants on this forum never or seldom use the video features of their cameras (if present) and would not buy a 5DIV if 4K (whatever that is) were the only upgrade.

I realize that this may be a big deal for the video folk who participate on this forum.

And, I have no idea whether adding and upping the video features on a DSLR increases the cost or helps pay for the R&D for features that still photographers are coming to love (e.g., live view).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2014)

dppaskewitz said:


> And, I have no idea whether adding and upping the video features on a DSLR increases the cost or helps pay for the R&D for features that still photographers are coming to love (e.g., live view).



Live View comfortably predated video.


----------



## gsealy (Jul 3, 2014)

I would think it is almost a given or necessary that Canon takes the 4K step with the 5D. There are some cameras in the market right now that shoot 4K and in the $2500-3000 price range. My guess is that they would support external recording with the Atomos. 4K gobbles up storage like nobody's business. 

For those of you not into video, shooting video with a 5DIII gives you many alternatives using all the Canon lens, and it is much better in low light situations. We also use camcorders, which are easier and quicker to use. It depends on what your needs and goals are that determine which to use for a given situation.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 3, 2014)

gsealy said:


> I would think it is almost a given or necessary that Canon takes the 4K step with the 5D. There are some cameras in the market right now that shoot 4K and in the $2500-3000 price range. My guess is that they would support external recording with the Atomos. 4K gobbles up storage like nobody's business.
> 
> For those of you not into video, shooting video with a 5DIII gives you many alternatives using all the Canon lens, and it is much better in low light situations. We also use camcorders, which are easier and quicker to use. It depends on what your needs and goals are that determine which to use for a given situation.


+1
I shoot both at the same time, 80% of my time and it is really convenient just to dial the shutter speed and ISO up and 1DX becomes one of the best video tool in the room. I have only one body and two lenses with me.
If 4K and the 70D autofocus is introduced to 5D, I would sell my 5D MK III, even at half price, to fund it.
Raw photographers outhere would appreciate the advantage of not shooting in JPG anylonger. 
With the arrival of Davinci 11, color grading will finally be a fun. 
I will be more exited in getting that than buying my dream lens 200mm f2.0 (I don't have the money anyway).


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jul 3, 2014)

Besisika said:


> If 4K and the 70D autofocus is introduced to 5D, I would sell my 5D MK III, even at half price, to fund it.



I never shoot video and am quite content with my 5D3 autofocus so I call DIBS! on your 5D3 at half price . . . ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> I hate the fact I had to spend so much extra for a feature I've used once on my 5D3.



I guarantee you that the extra you are paying is negative.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2014)

This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K. That would be the disappointing part.


----------



## sanj (Jul 3, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I didn't know there is video feature on 5D


----------



## pedro (Jul 3, 2014)

rs said:


> [quote author="Canon Watch"]
> Just recently a rumor surfaced stating that Canon may announce the EOS 5D Mark IV at the beginning of 2015. Now I have been told (thanks) that the successor of the EOS 5D Mark III could feature 4k video. The feature is going to be implemented, so the source, to further push the 5D into the videographers domain.
> 
> Currently Canon is featuring 4k on the EOS-1D C (Adorama | B&H Photo). It would be a more than welcome move if the 5D Mark IV would deliver 4k! Canon added HD recording to the EOS 5D Mark II, let’s hope the EOS 5D Mark IV will make the next step. Just to remind: full HD has a 1920 x 1080 resolution, 4K has a resolution of 4096 x 2160.



http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-come-4k/
[/quote]

What might be the case is, that Canon *will ask about 4K* for it ;-)


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 3, 2014)

Will Canon's next high end camera get the same high end feature that every other high end camera (and cell phone) is getting?

...

Captain obvious strikes again.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 3, 2014)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > If 4K and the 70D autofocus is introduced to 5D, I would sell my 5D MK III, even at half price, to fund it.
> ...


Understood,
Don't get me wrong, as a still gear it is one of the greatest cameras I have ever used. What doesn't make it the perfect one in my eyes is the lack of these two video features. I would pay, if they introduce the dual pixel and 4k for an additional price. Different market for different needs, I guess.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K. That would be the disappointing part.
> ...



With Panasonic offering it in a $900 hyperzoom, and it being offered in under $400 sports cameras, I don't think that's a good excuse.


----------



## Juck (Jul 3, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K. That would be the disappointing part.



I can't speak to the features of the 5D III replacement, but the 7D II absolutely 100% will not have 4k video.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Jul 3, 2014)

If Canon puts 4k into the 5Dmk4, it'll probably be a 8bit 4:2:0 internal recording just like the GH4. Possibly 4:2:2 8bit to an external recorder, but I don't see them doing much more than that. Anything else would essentially eliminate the 1Dc in the eyes of any indie film maker, as well as anyone that doesn't need to do any kind of heavy grading.


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 3, 2014)

Juck said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K. That would be the disappointing part.
> ...



Welcome to the forum. Interesting first post. What makes you say that? You're probably right but I cling on to the hope that Canon finally grows a pair and does something interesting.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 3, 2014)

Juck said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K. That would be the disappointing part.
> ...



A bit surprising. Soon all the cams will have 4k and the 7D2 will need to last for years.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 3, 2014)

DanThePhotoMan said:


> If Canon puts 4k into the 5Dmk4, it'll probably be a 8bit 4:2:0 internal recording just like the GH4. Possibly 4:2:2 8bit to an external recorder, but I don't see them doing much more than that. Anything else would essentially eliminate the 1Dc in the eyes of any indie film maker, as well as anyone that doesn't need to do any kind of heavy grading.



My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4. 

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.


----------



## ITshooter (Jul 3, 2014)

Juck said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K. That would be the disappointing part.
> ...



Is that an opinion, or do you have information?

If Canon leaves 4K video out of the 7D II (or 5D mk IV), I think it would be a mistake. I know a lot of people in this forum default to the "most consumers don't have 4K TVs" argument, or the "Canon must protect the Cinema-series" argument, but both viewpoints are frankly myopic. 

1) The 7D II won't be aimed at "most consumers"; it will be aimed at the sort of people with the disposable income for a $2000 product that entails lots of equally expensive accessories. Perhaps 4K TVs occupy relatively little market share overall, but what is their share among affluent buyers who might make up a greater proportion of the potential 7D II user base? What share will 4K sets have among these buyers next year, when the 7D II will presumably be at full availability?

2) Even if 4K isn't your delivery output, the extra resolution has lots of benefits, from the ability to crop into footage, to the ability to create sharper/ better stabilized 1080p footage, to the ability (with shutter speed and codec limitations) to pull a perfectly usable, print-worthy photo from moving footage. Speaking as a professional journalist (surely a core part of the 7D II's would-be user base), these functions are valuable. They'll be valuable for other professional users, too, to say nothing of enthusiasts. Yes, Canon might prefer that pros and enthusiasts purchase the next-gen C100 or something, but there's a clear demand for convergent photo-video tools, and the competition is already starting to accommodate it. Canon's staved off user loss so far thanks to lock-in from its lens ecosystem, but there's a turning point for everything. How long will Canon customers buy what Canon wants to sell instead of what consumers want? Sometimes Canon reminds me of Microsoft is this regard. Protectionist tactics have historically hit walls. Some argue that Canon sells DSLRs primarily for still features, and that video ones won't make-or-break sales on a large scale. Maybe we'll see. 

3) Building on the above point... 4K isn't a necessity today, per se, but the 7D II will probably be replaced on a three-to-four-year cycle. By 2017, will 4K really be so optional? Even if Canon achieves strong early 7D II sales without 4K, what will the long-tail sales look like, as competitors bring worthier models to market? I suppose Canon could always accelerate its release cycle, but not many companies have success with that model when it comes to high-end hardware. 

4) TVs and professional use cases are only part of the 4K equation. New computers already offer greater-than-1080p resolution, and over the next few years, monitors of greater and greater pixel density will become more common. Again, if we're looking forward to 2017 or so, and we're thinking of the sort of user who would own a $2000+ camera, what kind of computer gear do you think this user is going to have? There's a recurring rumor that Apple will launch 4K iMacs in the near future. If that happens, it will surely drive demand (again, among influential, affluent buyers) for 4K-capable DSLRs. 

5) The "Canon needs to protect the 1DC" argument also shouldn't prevent a 4K-capable 7D II. The 1DC isn't a new camera. It's one thing to protect a product from cannibalization when it's been on the market for less than a year. But today, the 1DC isn't necessarily a better option than the GH4, at least not if you're oriented more toward video than stills but need both, and is surely due for an upgrade of its own. It makes no sense to think about the 7D II cannibalizing the _current_ Cinema-series cameras; it makes sense to think about how 7D II video features might cannibalize the _next_ generation's. This line of thinking offers much more latitude for product segmentation. The 1DC mK II, for example, might record internal 10-bit 4K to CFast, or using some new, efficient H265 codec, etc-- whereas the 7D II could record only internal 8-bit 4:2:0 4K. The 1DC Mk II could offer more frame rate options, or more professional profiles, zebras and focus peaking, and so on. If we're thinking of the 1-DC as a tool for professionals, it's insane to think that bare-bones 4K features in a 7D (or 5D, for that matter) would take away sales. 

6) By 2016, I suspect it's going to be hard for Canon to keep 4K out of its Rebel line-- because everyone else will have implemented it by then. Panasonic is putting 4K in everything right now, and more are coming. If Canon doesn't plan to release a 4K-capable 7D II until, say, early 2014, what kind of upgrade path is it offering? Again, I suppose Canon might have a speedier refresh cycle in mind than anyone suspects.

Does this mean Canon will include 4K in any of the upcoming DSLRs besides the 1DC successor? Who knows. But as my above points explained, I see more risk than reward in being conservative, and I see no reason 4K-capable DSLRs have to cannibalize C-series sales, at least not among the core pro users who justify those cameras' high-margin prices to begin with. 

EDIT: After thinking for a minute, it occurs to me that if Canon actually has some amazing new sensor that creates meaningfully better stills (per the rumor about the private demos involving a special monitor), then maybe the company has more leverage than I expect. If the images are amazing, or there's some other new tech involved (new AF, etc), maybe the stills guys will flock to the model, regardless of whatever Canon does with video. But still, I think the point remains-- it seems more stubborn than sensible for Canon to leave 4K out of its next-gen pro cameras. And since it doesn't offer the video people anything comparable at the price (or anything close to it), it seems like a needless risk.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2014)

This "protect the higher cameras conspiracy theory" is bunk.

New features are typically introduced in lower end models.... not high end models.

"You can't put 4K video in the 5D4 because you have to protect the 1DC" By the same logic, you can't put 2K video into the T3i because you have to protect the 1DX... yet there it is.

Look at it another way.... "you can't put feature X in a camera that sells by the millions to protect camera Y that sells by the thousands" Where is the money? The money is in the low end cameras. Canon has probably made more money with the t3i than the 1DC, the 1DX, the 5D3, and the 7D put together... it has certainly sold at least 20 times as much t3i's than all of those high end cameras.... Which one do you think they would want to protect?


----------



## Northstar (Jul 3, 2014)

ITshooter said:


> Juck said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



ITshooter...i'm sure you made some good points but man, how much time did you spend writing all that? lol ;D 

just having fun w ya!

north


----------



## Northstar (Jul 3, 2014)

as a sport shooter, i would love video that has quick and accurate AF of any HD resolution...sigh...


----------



## Ruined (Jul 3, 2014)

Canon
5d4 - user interchangeable focus screens plz


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 4, 2014)

My primary application for 4k is aggressively stabilized video that can still be downres'd to FHD. Try shooting video from a waterskiing boat or a full scale helicopter handheld (i.e. without a stabilized gimbal system) and you'll see how that can be useful.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 4, 2014)

For those talking about the 5D4 with 4K taking away from the 1DC, try to keep in mind that 8K is already on the horizon, and I'd be surprised if Canon aren't already working on a 1DC replacement with just that.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 4, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> My primary application for 4k is aggressively stabilized video that can still be downres'd to FHD. Try shooting video from a waterskiing boat or a full scale helicopter handheld (i.e. without a stabilized gimbal system) and you'll see how that can be useful.


+1


----------



## Tugela (Jul 4, 2014)

dppaskewitz said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



The effect on price is minimal, since many of the tools used in video can be used to assist in stills as well. Plus, of course, most of the cost of the camera comes from things like manufacturing, overhead and marketing, not the development of the camera itself. The cost of the video component of the camera is probably something like $10-$20 per unit. Is that such a massive premium that it would make sense to leave it out?


----------



## Tugela (Jul 4, 2014)

gsealy said:


> I would think it is almost a given or necessary that Canon takes the 4K step with the 5D. There are some cameras in the market right now that shoot 4K and in the $2500-3000 price range. My guess is that they would support external recording with the Atomos. 4K gobbles up storage like nobody's business.
> 
> For those of you not into video, shooting video with a 5DIII gives you many alternatives using all the Canon lens, and it is much better in low light situations. We also use camcorders, which are easier and quicker to use. It depends on what your needs and goals are that determine which to use for a given situation.



Not necessary unless you are recording RAW. The Sony camera can't record 4K to internal media because of the thermal envelope associated with the small body used. A DSLR like the 5D is big enough that thermal issues will be less of a problem, so it will almost certainly record to internal media as well as the HDMI port.


----------



## dolina (Jul 4, 2014)

With the Sony A7r able to do 4K it is a given that 4K will be present on the 5D4.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 4, 2014)

Oh everyone knows the 7DII will have 4k first! :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Why do they bother making video cameras if video is such a big deal on SLRs? I hate the fact I had to spend so much extra for a feature I've used once on my 5D3.
> 
> 
> Why can't they just split the lines properly and sell each one at a reasonable price?


Video in a DSLR is a high demand item, and has likely reduced the price of a 5D2 and 5D3 because of the bigger sales volume. The feature sells cameras. and high volume reduces prices. 
You could have bought a 5D Classic when they came out for $3600 with no video. With inflation, that would have been a lot more in today's dollars.

There is also the Nikon Df with no video which sells for $3,000 when you can buy a D800 right now for $2100. That's $900 more for no video!


----------



## mkabi (Jul 4, 2014)

I'm sorry, you have to be a *true idiot*, if you can't figure out that having video in your stills camera is not, and I repeat "is not" applying a premium on your stills camera. Let me say it another way, you are *not* paying extra for a feature you are not using. 

Let me lay it out for you.... a P&S has both video and picture mode.
All rebels, all the way to the pro-bodies have video and picture mode.
Even their camcorders are able to take pictures, duh!!! I don't see people using camcorders complaining that they never use it for pictures.

As for the pricing... thats Canon... its all internal, overall management/executive decisions.

If your brain isn't clicking yet. I'm going to take another approach.

Take for example the Sony A7S - What is the price? Right now?
Brand New at Amazon - $2299 http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Full-Frame-Interchangeable-Digital-Camera/dp/B00FRDUZUK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404491620&sr=8-1&keywords=Sony+A7R

A GoPro? $399 - Brand New.
http://www.amazon.com/GoPro-CHDHX-302-HERO3-Black-Edition/dp/B00F3F0GLU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1404491671&sr=8-2&keywords=Go+Pro

So are you telling me that to push GoPro features along side A7S feature will cost $10,000 as seen in a 1D-C? 
Or any Canon camera, 1DX, 5D Mark 3, you're saying that to push video into those cameras, you're paying extra?

I'm calling Bull$%it... and if you can't figure this out... I'm going to call you a moron.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 4, 2014)

ITshooter said:


> Juck said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



+1
cannibalize yourself before someone else does too

5D3 would've been a complete relative failure for video compared to 5D2 had ML not rescued it, but I fear, if anything they will still do the old provide as little as they can only try to lock out the rest even more strongly, we'll see


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> This "protect the higher cameras conspiracy theory" is bunk.
> 
> New features are typically introduced in lower end models.... not high end models.
> 
> ...



Yes, and all the same they still clearly, over the top protect their high end video and DSLR, even when it comes to silly little things (witness AFMA left out of 40D and 60D and the silly AutoISO saga where they still only allow it to fully work on 1DX).


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 4, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > This "protect the higher cameras conspiracy theory" is bunk.
> ...


good points! Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle....


----------



## peterisviksna (Jul 4, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > This "protect the higher cameras conspiracy theory" is bunk.
> ...




Apologies for my lack of knowledge, but could you explain what exactly you mean by the auto iso not working on bodies other than the 1DX? 

Thanks.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > Why do they bother making video cameras if video is such a big deal on SLRs? I hate the fact I had to spend so much extra for a feature I've used once on my 5D3.
> ...




Spot on Spokane!


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.
> 
> I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.
> 
> ...



+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters. 

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option. 

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> dppaskewitz said:
> 
> 
> > And, I have no idea whether adding and upping the video features on a DSLR increases the cost or helps pay for the R&D for features that still photographers are coming to love (e.g., live view).
> ...



My 50D had live view.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2014)

Daniel Flather said:


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



So did/does the 40D, and the 1D MkIII predated both of them and that does too.


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



(This is in response to the whole entire quoted chain of posts above, not just the latest post by pbd.)

While Live View came along a good while ago, I'd offer that it is a very primitive form of "video." There was certainly additional R&D invested into developing that (assuming that is even the real foundation of DSLR video) into something that gave the 5D II it's epic sales numbers and cinematographers cause to use it in major TV and Movie productions. I don't think we got HD video "for free" just because we had Live View.

I also honestly don't know if Canon's R&D budget for DSLR video really takes anything away from R&D for stills or not. It certainly seems logical to think so in one context...when thinking only about the photography division of Canon. Canon is a large company, though, and they have long had a video/camcorder division. Who is to say, when you expand the context within which logic applies, that DSLR's aren't simply benefiting from a separate R&D budget, and that the video features were getting are actually fairly cheap because Canon already does R&D into that, and they have a well established body of experience there?

I haven't used the video features of my DSLR much, however the 7D was never really geared for it. Now that I have a 5D III, I may well start using the video features for wildlife stuff. I am not sure if I'd really appreciate still photography R&D budget being used for video features if that is where Canon is primarily spending the budget...however on the other hand, video is now an endemic feature of DSLRs. Canon has the benefit of a large R&D budget in general to produce highly integrated product lines. If they were to lose competitiveness because of the removal of video features...that too could hurt their ability to fund improvements for still photography.

Honestly, I don't think we can really know how video features in a DSLR affect Canon's progress on stills features. I think video is now a standard part of the package. I don't think that is going to change any time soon. We have no real evidence that it's hurting their still photography features, however it certainly expands the marketability of the products. If there is anything Canon is good at, it's maintaining and expanding their customer base...and that can only have a positive effect on their final revenues and R&D budgets in the end. So I consider video in a DSLR a good thing....long term, it just means more features overall, a larger customer base, and more funds that allow Canon to keep making better products in the future.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2014)

I have no doubt that the push to video in the C line, not their consumer video camera line, along with a plethora of specialist CN-E enses have seriously impacted the stills orientated camera R&D potential.

I believe Canon see video as the DSLR saviour, and maybe it is, but their very heavy push above the stills market has had repercussions.

We have had interminable delays with some lenses where the CN-E line gets major new lenses at the drop of a hat, a complete abandonment of the "studio" stills orientated pro camera when the C line gets massive upgrades via firmware and hardware. Apart from the RT flash system, that is damn good, I can't think of one innovative Canon feature in recent years that isn't video centric. Good but slow IS primes with STM, video, dual pixel AF, video, etc etc.

Sure the 16-35 f4 IS, the 24-70 MkII, and the 70-200 IS MkII are sterling lenses though they are just as useful to wedding video shooters, but where are the 35L MkII (the C line got their 35mm T1.5 ages ago and there is no way that is a tweeked MkI 1.4), the bread an butter stills 100-400 MkII, a 400 f5.6 with IS, the stills market based 45mm and 90mm TS-E MkII's, I'll tell you where they are, they are in B&H under the Cine line banner.

Stills have jumped the shark as far as Canon are concerned, surveillance video cameras, bread and butter TV, documentary and news video are the next cash cows and the niche is studio/movie video. Stills Explorers of Light are getting dumped for videographers, the TV ads are pushing quality video as the core selling point of DSLR's.


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I have no doubt that the push to video in the C line, not their consumer video camera line, along with a plethora of specialist CN-E enses have seriously impacted the stills orientated camera R&D potential.
> 
> I believe Canon see video as the DSLR saviour, and maybe it is, but their very heavy push above the stills market has had repercussions.
> 
> ...



Everything you say is very true, so far, for RELEASED products. 

Your ignoring all the patent filings and that one major upcoming product release that could very well change that, in a big way. Since the introduction of the 7D, Canon has filed a number of still photography sensor patents, including layered sensors and recently a portraiture sensor. They have filed a good number of DO lens patents, as well as a number of patents for other lenses. There were certainly also a couple DPAF patents in there as well, however that improves both video and live view focus, so it isn't purely a video only feature. With the release of the 1D X and 5D III, we saw the introduction of a radically redesigned new 61pt AF system, and a new metering system for the 1D X. (We never saw patents on those ahead of time...they just showed up in the final products, to everyone's pleasure and surprise.) Canon has also released patents related to readout technology a few times over the last 2-3 years...including an on-die, dual-scale CP-ADC patent, a power source decoupling patent (might have the potential to eliminate dark current noise), etc.

The 7D II has the potential to change a lot for stills photographers. Canon has mentioned on a couple occasions that they are working on other sensor IQ improvements. That includes some kind of thermal regulation of the sensor (again, could reduce dark current noise), and probably a fab process shrink.

So sure...all of the recently released products from Canon have been video related. But there is plenty of evidence that Canon has continued to innovate on the still photography front the last few years as well. The only difference is that we haven't seen any of those still photography innovations actually land on a shelf in a product....YET.


----------



## Tugela (Jul 5, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.
> ...



Why wouldn't they include something like zebras and peaking? Those functions were included in consumer products at least as old as the HF-S10, so it is not something reserved for professional products. They didn't leave it out because they were "protecting" anything, they most likely left it out because they knew that video was included in the 5D as a sort of toy, since at the time any serious video work would have been done on dedicated video camera. Even the 70D does not have a serious video mode, although they included some experimental technology in it. That is no longer the case, and if video is included as a serious function on upcoming high end models it is almost certain that those tools will be present as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2014)

Well we can only judge on what we can buy 

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to cock block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me. 

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing. 

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well we can only judge on what we can buy
> 
> As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to cock block anybody else.
> 
> ...



Very true, patent's don't make a product. My point was only that there is an R&D budget for still photography at Canon, and money is clearly being spent there. Patents do need to actually make their way into a product on a shelf to be meaningful, though...your dead-on there. 

I really wonder why Canon doesn't bring more of their innovations into being...almost smacks of Nokia a few years ago...they had a MASSIVE patent library, but it was just IP...they didn't wield it and make competitive products with that technology...and look where they are now... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. 



privatebydesign said:


> I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.



I can see it being very useful for focusing landscape shots, which I've always focused manually in live view. DPAF could automate that process. 




privatebydesign said:


> The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.



I don't know if I agree with that. DR is obviously a VERY important thing to photographers these days. It is single-handedly the most controversial and common subject when it comes to Canon vs. the others. Even if it isn't as important as many individuals and certain organizations seem to insist, it's clearly a sticking point, and clearly a perception issue between Canon and their customers. I have a hard time believing Canon doesn't know that...not after the last two years and all the debates and conversations and reviews and videos that cover the topic of how much better Nikon/Sony DR is than Canon's.

For Canon to ignore that, and release ANOTHER product without an improvement in that area....well, I think we could actually see some REAL brand migration over the next few years if the 7D II (and worse, the 5D IV/1D X II) hit the streets without a DR improvement. It may not actually matter in most cases, but it matters perceptually...and I think the companies reputation would actually finally be hurt by them not showing any real interest in their sensor IQ. I've seen Canon respond directly to the loudest demands from their customer base in the past. The 1D X and 5D III are exemplary examples of that, in multiple ways. Canon can't ignore the demand for better DR. It would be reputation damaging...

(My words above certainly don't mean Canon is actually going to do anything about it...I guess there is a very good chance they won't...but I do indeed believe it would be damaging to their reputation in the long run if they ignored the single most important demand of their customers after so many years of having that demand levied.)


----------



## Lawliet (Jul 5, 2014)

ITshooter said:


> 5) The "Canon needs to protect the 1DC" argument also shouldn't prevent a 4K-capable 7D II. The 1DC isn't a new camera.



The "Protect the 1Dc"-angle is odd even if one thinks only in the present. Why? Because the 1Dc always felt like a kludge to me. Basically as if they wanted to release something 4k-capable and put the feature into the only still camera that has more or less enough processing power to do it.
The 5D3 got its horizontal resolution as a multiple of fullHD, I'd expect similar considerations for a designed as such 4K-camera.


----------



## garyknrd (Jul 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Well we can only judge on what we can buy
> ...



As a birder, and having shot with the latest Sony APS-C sensor. I am waiting for the next crop sensor camera from Canon. 
I am just blow away with the new sensors. It really is amazing. 
With the way I shoot. Shooting with the new sensors has given me so much exposure leeway, and increased ISO performance. It has increased my keeper rate dramatically. 

I really have my fingers crossed and hope Canon will deliver. If not? I personally will start seriously looking for alternatives. But, I don't want to. Come on Canon....


----------



## Lightmaster (Jul 5, 2014)

garyknrd said:


> As a *birder*, and having shot with the latest *Sony APS-C* sensor. I am waiting for the next crop sensor camera from Canon.
> ......
> 
> If not? I personally will start seriously looking for alternatives.



and what lens would you use?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 5, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.
> ...



I just can't see Canon being 'daring' or smart enough to 'dare' put 10bit internal recording though or fixing up DIGIC so that it doesn't go all plasticky on everything. But what you suggest would be VERY nice, 10bits 4:2:2 4k that is crisp and keeps the fine detail and noise and doesn't do the nasty stuff that digic does even at ISO100.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 5, 2014)

Tugela said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



They shouldn't, but you fail to understand the level to which bean counting marketing droids have power and taken over so many companies these days all they believe is in making sure things are dumbed down and 'safe' enough to not 'scare' and 'confuse' the user and to protect this that and every stupid higher end thing which will never sell 1/10th as much as a full pitch could in a revolutionary lower space.


----------



## msm (Jul 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> ... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...



I just want to comment this. You assume that they have some amazing technology. How do you know it is amazing? If it really was amazing and they could make money on it, it should make it's way out into real products. If it doesn't we can only assume it doesn't perform competitively. Maybe they patent ideas in case they may be used in the future if they manage to overcome some hurdles which make them infeasible today.

Like the demoed 120mp sensor we read about earlier, does anyone outside Canon actually know how it performed? Seems like many just assume it was great, for all I know it could have been terrible.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Well we can only judge on what we can buy
> ...



+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 5, 2014)

garyknrd said:


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



+1


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

msm said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...
> ...



I'm not assuming. I know for a fact. How? Because I've READ the patents. Canon DOES have some really amazing technology. Many of Canon's patents are similar (but not identical to) patents from Sony and Aptina. The only real difference, as far as I can tell, is Sony and Aptina are actually turning their patents into actual products. Canon...well, so far at least, they seem to just sit on them. I'm hoping that changes with the 7D II.

One of the ones I hope they actually implement is their Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent, as based on the patent it sounds like the closest thing to the Sony Exmor design I've found. If Canon can bring Exmor-like technology to their own cameras, even if it isn't quite as good, it will still be better than what they have.

I also believe that patent is the same technology that Canon used in the 120mp APS-H prototype sensor. We actually know how that performed as well, because Canon published a press release describing it's performance. They described the architecture of the sensor, which clearly stated some kind of hyperparallel on-die processing (i.e. CDS, ADC, etc.) That is exactly what CP-ADC is. The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area. It would have been at least as good as the 1D IV at the time, and any APS-H sensor will have better IQ than an APS-C sensor in identical framing situations. At 120mp, the thing cranked out more resolution than any larger format sensor on the planet...until and since.


----------



## msm (Jul 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Do these patent descriptions quantify the real performance?


----------



## msm (Jul 5, 2014)

Also you said you know the 120mp sensor performed great because of a press release. A press release written by who, toward what public and for what purpose?


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

msm said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



The actual physical prototype 120mp APS-H sesnor that Canon actually produced, tested, and gathered data for quantify the real performance.


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

msm said:


> Also you said you know the 120mp sensor performed great because of a press release. A press release written by who, toward what public and for what purpose?



From the horses mouth:



> Canon successfully develops world's first APS-H-size CMOS image sensor to realize record-high resolution of 120 megapixels
> TOKYO, August 24, 2010—Canon Inc. announced today that it has successfully developed an APS-H-size*1 CMOS image sensor that delivers an image resolution of approximately 120 megapixels (13,280 x 9,184 pixels), the world's highest level*2 of resolution for its size.
> 
> Compared with Canon's highest-resolution commercial CMOS sensor of the same size, comprising approximately 16.1 million pixels, the newly developed sensor features a pixel count that, at approximately 120 million pixels, is nearly 7.5 times larger and offers a 2.4-fold improvement in resolution.*3
> ...



This is one of many a few press releases, actually. There is another one that describes some of the more technical aspects, describing on-die processing and the like. I haven't found that one yet. To break out the important parts:




> With CMOS sensors, while high-speed readout for high pixel counts is achieved through parallel processing, an increase in parallel-processing signal counts can result in such problems as signal delays and minor deviations in timing. By modifying the method employed to control the readout circuit timing, Canon successfully achieved the high-speed readout of sensor signals. As a result, the new CMOS sensor makes possible a maximum output speed of approximately 9.5 frames per second, supporting the continuous shooting of ultra-high-resolution images.



The technology Canon developed to increase readout was even increased parallelism. The description used at the time this was first announced, as well as the subsequently granted patent for DS-CP-ADC, describe something VERY similar to Sony Exmor, which uses one ADC unit per pixel column, which is different than past sensor designs, which used one ADC unit per group of columns. For example, in a camera with 8 readout channels, and 4000 columns of pixels, every ADC would be responsible for processing 500 columns of pixels, which when you factor in the row count, is hundreds of thousands to millions of pixels per ADC. With column-parallel ADC, each ADC unit is only responsible for processing a few thousand pixels. With the ADC units on the sensor, the distance between pixel and ADC unit is greatly shortened, which allows them to solve the timing issues. Thanks to hyperparallelism, each ADC unit has to do less work, so you can actually achieve faster readout at a lower frequency, this improving readout performance without hurting IQ.



> Images captured with Canon's newly developed approximately 120-megapixel CMOS image sensor, even when cropped or digitally magnified, maintain higher levels of definition and clarity than ever before.



Even if each pixel itself was noisier than Canon's 16mp APS-H sensor, it doesn't matter. Noise is related to total sensor area, quantum efficiency, and in small part to read noise (that only affects the deep shadows). Ignoring dynamic range for a minute (there is no information about the DR of the 120mp APS-H sensor, so I honestly cannot speak to it), if you downsample a 120mp APS-H image to the same dimensions as a 16mp APS-H image, the per-pixel noise is going to average out. Since the two sensors have the same total area, there is unlikely to be any measurable differences. Given the 120mp sensor used a better readout system, I'd be willing to bet good money that it actually had the better noise characteristics. And there is absolutely no question it would have much sharper, clearer details.

I'll see if I can find one of the other press releases, the more technical one, and share it. I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I really try not to assume, whenever possible everything I say is based on some fact or piece of official data somewhere. I have a bit more depth of knowledge than just what this one press release offers because I've read everything there is to read about things like Canon's 120mp APS-H sensor (and plenty more from other sensor manufacturers), so I have a larger body of knowledge to draw from. 

I really honestly do believe that Canon's 120mp APS-H sensor, which does actually exist in prototype and uses some of Canon's still photography patents, could be one hell of a powerhouse for IQ. Not necessarily greatly reducing noise...but massively increasing detail and sharpness, either allowing photographers to print really large without having to upsample, or by allowing significant improvements in overall IQ simply by downsampling.


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Canon used a smaller process for this. From what I recall about either a press release or some other specs listed somewhere, they sensor was actually stitched together from separately manufactured parts. (A lot of Canon's prototype sensors are actually made that way, by stitching multiple separate fabricated parts into a single device. Their ultra high sensitivity 0.1 Lux large format sensor, for example, is manufactured that way as a simple matter of necessity.) I suspect they fabricated it with the same fab they produce their small form factor sensors with. Chipworks verified years ago that Canon has had a 180nm copper interlink process, one even capable of producing sensors with light pipes, for a while now. 

So yes, you are correct, Canon's current APS-C and FF sensors are built on a 500nm process, which wouldn't support a sensor like this (well, it could...it's just that the photodiodes would be really tiny and therefor the fill-factor, the total actual light-sensitive area, of the sensor would be lower than an identically sized sensor with larger pixels). However there was a rumor not long ago that Canon was revamping its fabs, moving to larger wafers. Either they are repurposing some of their existing fabs for the small form factor stuff, or they are building new fabs to expand their 180nm fab capacity.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I hope Canon is "smart enough;" they certainly need to be at this point in the game. They're losing so many to the Gh4 and A7s, and those still holding out for Canon's "answer" are going to jump ship if it doesn't deliver. But, like you, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Canon fails epicly. 

Conversely, they could just make the 1D C $3,500. That video set at that price point is what they need to give. The problem is that on the stills side, it's the 1d X. I'd be all for Canon dumbing down a 1D C on the stills side (to more of mark-III capabilities, maybe even less), and then rebranding it as a baby 1d C. Or, better yet, put it into a 5d body and call it the 5D C. I honestly don't need any new tech than what is already in the 1d C.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 5, 2014)

Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 5, 2014)

Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?


----------



## msm (Jul 5, 2014)

jrista, I don't see how this press release quantify performance. It says nothing about SNR or DR etc, it doesn't even try to claim that the sensor is competitive in those regards. It may also require hardware around it which is not feasible nor practical in todays cameras. For instance to read out and process all that data would require a lot more readout channels and processing power than what you see in a 1DX today.

Press releases may also typically be written by PR or marketing personnel written for other purposes than to scientifically describe their findings.

As for patents, I don't read them but they don't actually give any data about how well actual their actual implementations perform do they? Without that data we can not tell if its awesome or not. What seems great on paper might be bad in practice.

For instance Foveon sensors seem like a great technology on paper does it not? No CFA wasting away 2/3rds of the light and no demosaic algorithm interpolating data and making images soft in 100% view. Yet in real life Foveon is outperformed by standard CFA sensors, it gives the resolution but does not perform well in other aspects. Real life performance is what counts and Foveon sensors don't have it (yet, would like to see that change).


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?



Not really. You have to take it in proper context. For large sensors, APS-C and larger, I don't know of any that use a process smaller than 180nm. The ultra tiny form factors, the sensors that are a fraction the size of a fingernail, are the sensors that use very small fabrication processes, but even those aren't eight generations more advanced. I think a 65nm process is used for sensors with 0.9µm and the upcoming 0.7µm pixel sizes. That would be three generations smaller transistor size (180nm: -> 130nm -> 90nm -> 65nm).

You also can't use CPU transistor fabrication technology as a basis of comparison. They are primarily on 22nm, with 14nm parts supposedly due this year (maybe they are already here, haven't looked into it.) But that is a whole entire different market. We know that Canon's DIGIC 5 used a 65nm process, manufactured by Texas Instruments I think. But that's still a processor. You can't mix that with sensor tech.

At the moment, I think 65nm is the current smallest fabrication process used for image sensors. The next step would be 45nm, and I've read a couple patents that describe sensors with 0.7µm (700nm) pixel sensors that would be fabricated with a 45nm process, but I haven't actually seen anything yet that indicates it's being done. Even if there were sensors being manufactured with 22nm gates, that is six generations...not eight. Given that larger form factor sensors don't even remotely need a 65nm gate to be highly efficient, I wouldn't say that a 180nm process is out of date for APS-C and FF sensors. If it is out of date, it would only be out of date by one generation, 130nm.

I did read about some high sensitivity sensors recently called SPADs, or Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes, which are designed for specialized purposes (medical imaging and such like PET, FLIM, etc., scientific imaging, astrophotography, etc.) These are pretty bad-ass CMOS devices with ultra high sensitivity (basically photon counters). They have been fabricated on 180nm, 130nm and 90nm processes. They generally seem to be 130nm parts, are usually fairly small sensors (smaller than APS-C), with pixel sizes maybe a little bit smaller than current APS-C parts. They have a specialized pixel structure, but overall are not all that much different than your average CMOS sensor. These are CUTTING EDGE devices...really cutting edge. They do their job extremely well, and really don't need transistors smaller than 90nm. It actually seems smaller processes actually make it more difficult to fabricate these high end sensors than the larger processes.

So I really don't think that 180nm is old and out dated, not for the size of sensors were talking about.


----------



## jrista (Jul 5, 2014)

msm said:


> jrista, I don't see how this press release quantify performance. It says nothing about SNR or DR etc, it doesn't even try to claim that the sensor is competitive in those regards. It may also require hardware around it which is not feasible nor practical in todays cameras. For instance to read out and process all that data would require a lot more readout channels and processing power than what you see in a 1DX today.
> 
> Press releases may also typically be written by PR or marketing personnel written for other purposes than to scientifically describe their findings.
> 
> As for patents, I don't read them but they don't actually give any data about how well actual their actual implementations perform do they? Without that data we can not tell if its awesome or not. What seems great on paper might be bad in practice.



SNR and DR aren't the epitome of sensor performance, though. They are only factors of sensor performance. Both are heavily affected by readout noise, and it's been demonstrated that column-parallel ADC designs produce less read noise, by at least two companies now (Sony and Toshiba, and I believe other high end sensor manufacturers have similar designs in the works as well). Canon described some kind of hyperparallel on-die ADC for the 120mp APS-H. 

Assuming the silicon process was the same generation as the cameras of the time it was released, it's logical to assume it has the same fundamental characteristics as the 1D IV. The 1D IV had around 45% Q.E. and the same DR limitations as all Canon cameras (due to read noise). I see no reason to assume this sensor would be significantly different in those fundamental statistics at worst, better if their highly parallelized readout offers similar improvements as Sony and Toshibas. Canon silicon hasn't really changed much over the years...the most significant improvements each generation are a few percent jump in Q.E.

Your also misunderstanding the point of using a *column-parallel* ADC. You actually DON'T need as much processing horsepower to read out more pixels faster when you _hyperparallelize _the ADC units. The problem with having too few units is each unit MUST be high powered enough to handle the hundreds of thousands or millions of pixels they have to process. That means higher frequency, and it also means more attention must be paid to the design of those units to limit the amount of noise they add to the signal (and even then, they are noisy parts because of the high frequency). 

By using one ADC unit per column, each ADC can operate at a lower frequency. The lower frequency immediately offers a benefit in terms of read noise. Other techniques, such as moving the clock and driver off to a remote area of the die (like Exmor), you can reduce noise even further (Exmor took it one step farther, and used a digital form of CDS, which they claim was better than using analog CDS...however ironically they added analog CDS back into the mix with later version of Exmor for video cameras...now they do both analog and digital CDS). You trade die space for the ability to operate at a lower frequency and power. With a 180nm process, that's a no brainer. This HAS BEEN DONE...both Sony and Toshiba have working CP-ADC designs built into their CMOS sensors that are actually used in consumer products. Sony has a number of technical documents that explain how they achieved exactly what Canon describes in their 120mp APS-H papers and patents...low power high speed readout of high resolution sensors via hyperparallel ADC. 

So, even though Canon's 120mp APS-H isn't in an actual consumer grade product that we can buy, it uses technology that mirrors products from other brands that we can buy, and that have been tested. The most telling are Sony security video cams that use Exmor sensors, which can operate at very high frame rates in very low light...they are not only doing high speed readout with very, very low noise and relatively high DR, they are also doing processing with image processors that are packaged to the bottom of the sensor, and wired directly to it.

To be strait, I am speculating a bit, but it's very educated speculation. It isn't like it's just 100% completely unfounded drivel. 



msm said:


> For instance Foveon sensors seem like a great technology on paper does it not? No CFA wasting away 2/3rds of the light and no demosaic algorithm interpolating data and making images soft in 100% view. Yet in real life Foveon is outperformed by standard CFA sensors, it gives the resolution but does not perform well in other aspects. Real life performance is what counts and Foveon sensors don't have it (yet, would like to see that change).



As for Foveon, I think your incorrect in your assessment. Foveon only "fails" at ONE thing: resolving power. There have been debates in the past on these forums where Foveon fans claim that because it has a 100% fill factor for all colors, that it has as much or higher RESOLUTION than bayer sensors. Those claims are wrong, as bayer sensors get largely the full benefit of the raw sensor resolution in terms of luminance...they only really suffer in color resolution and color fidelity (both areas where Foveon excels).

For what Foveon is, at it's REAL spatial resolution, they are actually very good. Their red channels are a little nosier, but their blue channels are less noisy than bayer. No surprise, given the layering order of color photodiodes in the Foveon. Even though image dimensions/resolving power for Foveon is lower than in bayer sensors, those smaller images usually exhibit high quality. I do think that color fidelity with Foveon cameras is superior to what I get with my Canon DSLRs (I just like my resolution too much to give it up ). So I think it's unfair to claim that the real-life performance of Foveon is bad or even poor. *For what it is*, it's real life performance is very good.

The only drawback of Foveon is it's resolving power...and I truly believe that Sigma has done Foveon a big disservice by trying to upsell it as having more resolution than it really does, or somehow claim that because it gathers full color information per pixel that upsampling it somehow beats bayer sensors for resolution and detail. Actual real-world examples that do exactly that have proven otherwise. Foveon's problem isn't that it's bad technology...it's that Sigma owns it, and Sigma doesn't have the marketing power nor the R&D budget to really make Foveon shine and become a highly competitive alternative. Sigma is much more a lens company than a camera or sensor company, IMO. I do believe it COULD be highly competitive in the hands of a wealthier corporation that could more richly fund it's development.


----------

