# Patent: A Few More Image Sensor Patents from Canon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 5, 2015)

```
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">Northlight Images</a> has posted 3 more patents and a simple breakdown of each.</p>
<p>From Northlight:</p>
<ul>
<li>Patent shows more tricks you can do with split pixels for AF [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09204067">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about dividing longer exposures into shorter ones and adding them together [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09204055">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about moving the sensor micro lens array forwards/backwards to match up with main lens [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09201289">USPTO</a>]</li>
</ul>
<p>We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>
```


----------



## drjlo (Dec 5, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.



Does Canon know that? :'(
I certainly hope next-gen Canon sensors utilize at least 180nm process and on-chip ADC. That's all I ask..


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 5, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">Northlight Images</a> has posted 3 more patents and a simple breakdown of each.</p>
> <p>From Northlight:</p>
> <ul>
> <li>Patent shows more tricks you can do with split pixels for AF [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09204067">USPTO</a>]</li>
> ...



Your last sentence might upset some peeps here ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 5, 2015)

Mr1Dx said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">Northlight Images</a> has posted 3 more patents and a simple breakdown of each.</p>
> ...



That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say _"Canon has no other choice"_ is patently untrue.


----------



## RGF (Dec 5, 2015)

Does anyone know how long a period time there typically is between announcement of patent and seeing it in a product in the market place.

I realize that it can be years on the long end, but on the shorter end, what is typical for canon?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 5, 2015)

dilbert said:


> > Patent about moving the sensor micro lens array forwards/backwards to match up with main lens
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like AFMA or another version of it.



No, it sounds like light field technology.


----------



## Woody (Dec 5, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.



If indeed the next generation of ALL Canon sensors, both FF and APS-C, is a leap forward, complete with class-leading improvements in AF accuracy, I shall happily replace my trusty 6D and EOS-M3. Otherwise, Canon can be sure they are not getting any business from me.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 5, 2015)

RGF said:


> Does anyone know how long a period time there typically is between announcement of patent and seeing it in a product in the market place.
> 
> I realize that it can be years on the long end, but on the shorter end, what is typical for canon?


It can be anything from "never to be released" to "It's about to be released so let the secrecy end"


----------



## RGF (Dec 6, 2015)

Hasselblad has a camera that moves the sensor (and micro lens) a small distance allowing 4 images to be combined into one. Their 50MP camera becomes a 200MP camera. Of course zero subject motion is tolerated.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 6, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>
> [/html]



Presumably those who run Canon Rumors are buyers and supporters of Canon. And yet, with baloney statements such as this, you do more to hurt Canon than you can possibly do intentionally. Compare the pics from today's Canon cameras to Sony or Nikon. Chances are in 99% of cases, you won't be able to tell the difference. (Or quite possibly, you will like the results from Canon better, as I did when I bought the Sony A7 II to potentially replace my Canon 6D). The differences between cameras is minute and the differences between generations is minute, too. If you can't see this, or understand this, you lose all credibility.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


+1



> Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here


+10

I'd love better sensors, there are some situations for which IQ improvements would really benefit me; however, ...



> but to say _"Canon has no other choice"_ is patently untrue.


+100

I've yet to see any market data to suggest that Canon is less profitable due to its sensors. Some day it will be, but there's no reason to believe that's the case now.

If CR Guy knows something about the market that's not available to the rest of us I'd love to see that posted. My little subjective opinion is that now is the time for Canon to start getting serious about mirrorless, but that sensor IQ is still an issue only for a tiny minority of buyers.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 6, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>
> ...



Sony is innovating at a blazing pace. Canon has been much more conservative.
I'm a Canon fan, but Canon does have to push the boundaries more, not just in their top products like the 1Dx and the C300, but in their second tier and amateur products too, like the 5D and C100. The A7 series may not be quite there yet, but at Sony's pace, Canon does not have the luxury to wait another model release before wowing their customers. The same can be said about the FS5 vs C100
So although the current Canon cameras are still great cameras, CR guy is absolutely right. Canon cannot afford to sit on their laurels and expect to remain king of the mountain. There's a challenger, and he's getting stronger.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

Etienne said:


> Sony is innovating at a blazing pace. Canon has been much more conservative.



Translation: Sony is burning R&D money fast, and still can't figure out how to make a consistently profitable product line, as Canon has.

To reiterate yet again, while I would be happy to see improved sensor tech in Canon products, the market does not yet appear to demand it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is innovating at a blazing pace. Canon has been much more conservative.
> ...



I read CR for the humour or is it humor.

Jack


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



It's hard to dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses for $5-7K body with better sensor....Otherwise, we wouldn't have this discussion today.

I would agree with Admin "Canon has no other choice". Glass is important, so is sensor.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2015)

All the hand wringing and doomsday hysteria is amusing. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...


As it is a Canadian based website, it is humour..... but the endless debate about sensours is not funny...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2015)

Canadian! I didn't know that. 

Jack


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is innovating at a blazing pace. Canon has been much more conservative.
> ...



I can see great market for newbies, who shooting DSLR in JPEG, would buy Canon DSLR today. Yup....dust cheap 3t 5t craps. These people want to look like pros with big DSLR bodies on their neck and know nothing about camera. These cheap bodies and lenses are the ones make up high volume numbers on papers.

On the PRO lines, Canon slowly improve their tech and features due to many of us already invested heavily in L lenses(I'm one of them) can't switch system.

Look at Canon M line. I thought, they said they are "serious about mirrorless". Hope we'll not witness another Kodak moment.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 6, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Try saying someone's football team might use some improvement in one area or another and you get the same reaction. Camera products and brands are no different.
> 
> Why do people react to anything negative towards Canon like their momma is being dissed? LoL
> 
> ...



Stop being a big pus-- 

"I'm good with current Canon sensor, but I don't mind to have better one likes Sony" 

and another one 

"We use Canon as a system"

another fav one.

"Sale numbers don't show Canon is behind"

: : :


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Why do people react to anything negative towards Canon like their momma is being dissed? LoL


There are very few of those, maybe none. Here's the deal:

The complainers say that Canon is not keeping up in low ISO IQ. *I agree.*

The complainers say that Canon is not keeping up in mirrorless development. *I agree.*

Here's where I disagree with the vocal complainers: I don't assume everyone else shares the same values I do. 

What I find annoying (and childish) is the complainers who assume that their expectations are representative of the vast majority of serious photographers, while ignoring the data that provides the best test of that assertion. Market data does not tell us what camera is objectively best (if such a thing exists) but it does tell us what camera people are willing to pay for.

The second important point the complainers overlook is this: if Canon sensors are so bad, then Nikon, Sony and the others should have eaten Canon's lunch a couple years ago. The fact that they have not must mean that Nikon, Sony, et. al. stink so bad that even a gloriously superior sensor can't rescue their sales. The problem is not that Canon sensors are inferior at low ISO (they are), it's that other brands are inferior in all else...or so it would appear from a look at sales data.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is innovating at a blazing pace. Canon has been much more conservative.
> ...



Well, I hope canon isn't as smug as you.


----------



## MrToes (Dec 6, 2015)

What if Canon catch's up in the sensor tech war. Then the competition comes out with something even better than the "New Canon Sensors" a week or month later? :'(

It's going to be a never ending sensor tech war until a real new quantum phase light sensor comes out!


----------



## jrista (Dec 6, 2015)

Some of these are pretty old. One dates back to 2011, another to 2013. 

It is interesting that Canon has been working on light field technology. I wonder if they will employ that. 

The multi-exposure patent I wash hoping would be a way to improve DR. Sounds like it's more about avoiding various blurring that can occur during long low light exposures. Still interesting, though. 

About freakin time Canon received some new patents for sensor technology, though. Wonder if there will be more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2015)

Mr1Dx said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Mr1Dx said:
> ...



Why would you need to _"dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"_? I paid around $12,675 for my lenses, ranging from a six month old 11-24 to a ten plus year old 24-70 f2.8 L (all bought brand new), if I had to sell them all I'd get around $10,000 at today's eBay prices. That is a depreciation of 20% that includes some non L's and older designs, if you have $40k worth of lenses you have superteles and they hold their value much better, my 300 f2.8 IS has lost a few hundred dollars in ten years! All my lenses have been depreciated back as tax write offs (apart from the 11-24 so far) and owe me literally zero.

The cost of changing system is trivial when compared to the images you will be able to take with the ground breaking new equipment by Sony/Nikon/blah blah.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people react to anything negative towards Canon like their momma is being dissed? LoL
> ...



Well said. I would add that I am not rooting for or against Canon. I just don't suffer fools gladly and many of the anti-canon comments tend to be just plain foolish. To say for example that Canon "has to" do 'A' or 'B' or even 'C' is simply ignorant. The only thing Canon has to do is maintain its market share (although I'm sure they would like to grow the market and increase their share - every company wants that.)

But it's ignorant to pretend that the path to that growth is through winning some imagined race for the newest or best technology. Most of the people on this forum are gear heads who are constantly chasing the newest technology. They in no way reflect the typical amateur or professional customer. I expect that Canon knows a lot more about their customers and about what they "must do" to maintain market share and possibly grow the market.

I've not seen any of the "pro-Canon" contributors get upset about any complaints that anyone might have about Canon Products. It's the silly "canon is *******" commenters that seem to take everything personally, especially when confronted with the fact that their complaints are not reflected in sales.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say _"Canon has no other choice"_ is patently untrue.



One is reminded of the one who despite several warnings, jumps off a 100 story building, and all the while as he descends, he retorts back, see I am just fine... 

Thud...!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...



True, and yet we keep on reading/participating - human nature I guess. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2015)

K-amps said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say _"Canon has no other choice"_ is patently untrue.
> ...


Similarly we are all too often reminded of people who believe if they repeat a falsehood enough times, loudly enough, it will become a fact.

If Canon was ignoring the fact that the camera market has, as has often happened in the past, gone through a technological transitional phase to a more mature state and that sales numbers falloff is expected at that stage of the product cycle, I could understand a point the naysayers continually make. But the facts are that the Canon market share really isn't decreasing and their profits per unit are increasing, and they are diversifying and looking to consolidate with compatible purchases. Canon sales have not been severely impacted by the fact that their sensors are not the best at low iso DR, and lets not forget that Canon produce one of the best selling mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras in the world. 

They are not ignoring the market, none of your dire warnings will change those facts.


----------



## CanonGuy (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is innovating at a blazing pace. Canon has been much more conservative.
> ...



I bought 5D, 5D ii, 6D and 5D iii. Wedding season is over now and I'll buy a new body around February next year. It is NOT going to be a Canon body FOR SURE. Few of my friends have done same already. I can't switch entirely because of my extensive lens collection. But the new body paired with a 35 and 50 art will be doing excellent. I don't want to name it, but I have rented the body and trust me, it's a leap ahead from Canon in many Regards and let me be more creative by doing few things which canon body is incapable of. 

Let canon sit on their lazy back and take pride in their AF, speedlite etc but slip the main thing of a body, sensor lol... They have a long way to go before selling another body to me. And probably lens too!


----------



## Cochese (Dec 6, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>
> ...



I'm looking at the RAW image here and I can see the problem. You're stuck looking at final output. 
You can't see the difference because you're seeing haze. 

Here's what you're failing to understand. The RAW output on that A7 or D800/810 (amongst other products) are superior in almost every way. I'm 100% a Canon person. I can't imagine using anything else. However, I often help other people edit their photos and the quality of shadow recovery and highlight recovery is so far beyond what you can do with a 5DMIII or even a 1DX, it's just plain sad. I accept those difference because I prefer Canon's lens selection, ergonomics, and interface. 

If you're looking at the final .JPG, you're going to see minimal difference in output of quality images. After all, we put out quality images with the 50D, and that system is so antiquated going back to it is painful. 

After editing through my business partner's D800 files and comparing the RAW edits, it's almost laughable how much usable detail you can pull from the shadows. And even when you can pull a lot of detail from shadows on Canon's camera, you end up with very unpleasing noise patterns on the 5DMIII. It's just banding. Canon's 7D MII has actually solved that issue to a degree (my current goto camera). 

But believe me when I say that photographers with open eyes can see the difference and they are switching systems. 
I continually point photographers to Canon cameras. Though, only beginners. People who want to get into photography. The t2i or t3i on up are perfect options on the cheap (often sub $400US). But for serious photographers looking to upgrade to the next level and they have the money, it's pretty much been the D800 or D810. I can't lie to my friends. 

I hope Canon's 5DMIV and 1DX MII comes out swinging and crushes the competition. Because even the 5DS R pales though I love those files. So much data that downsizing them barely hurts printability.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> They are not ignoring the market, none of your dire warnings will change those facts.



They may not be ignoring the market, but the market is losing patience due to their lack of adjusting to what the market expects in terms of new sensor technology turnover. How long do you think can Canon keep milking their current sensor tech and it not have an impact. Speaking to a few Retail stores, they can see a shift,.... in that their 5D's are undersold to the A7r ii's by an average margin of 5 to 1. If that's not an ominous sign, I am not sure what is in this segment. I really don't care about Rebel sales, I am not in that market.

Canon losing out in the is not good for me or for you because I don't want to get stuck with Sony/Nikon ergonomics and lose out on Canon AF and wonderful glass.... Making excuses for their corporate inertia is not good for them. It merely enables them to keep the status quo... someone needs to light a fire under them, and sadly its not going to be people on this forum...


----------



## K-amps (Dec 6, 2015)

Cochese said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



+1

Sadly, protectionism and bullying people, to not have an opinion in this matter, is quite the flavor of the day... I really do hope Canon comes out swinging... heck I will even consider moving up to a 1 series body if they can give it the best sensor in the market... that's the Canon I adopted. The Mkt. Leaders.... not sure who is at the helm of their sensor design these days. You look at Dual Pixel AF and you can see potential for so many other technologies... but they keep limiting themselves... The market needs to be vocal about what they want...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Rright. I could choose to put our life savings into next week's lottery, but that would be a FOOLISH CHOICE.

If Canon is at a performance peak with the current generation, troubled times ahead, and maybe time for collaboration.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

K-amps said:


> protectionism and bullying people, to not have an opinion in this matter



What "protectionism?" What "bullying?" No one has said you're not entitled to hold your opinion! On the other hand, I and others are equally entitled to hold the opinion that you're mistaken. No insults have been thrown, just a little sarcasm to draw attention to errors.

Here's how the conversation went:

1. CR Guy made a prediction based on no data (that "Canon has no other choice" but to make a big leap forward on sensors. He provided no support for that.

2. Several people, including me, agreed that we would love to see better sensors, but noted that, to the contrary, previous evidence showed that Canon was very good at determining which technological improvements would be required to remain profitable.

3. A few chimed in to make more unfounded predictions, and claim to feel bullied.


A few observations for those of you who are of the opinion that Canon is *******.

* It is not bullying to remind you that your opinion is unsupported by fact

* The analogies to lotteries and falling are very poor: Canon has a long track record of making the exact changes that need to be made to remain profitable.

* A few here treat Canon's failure to produce a better sensor as a an infidelity, but it's just a business decision.

* The fact that Canon hasn't put better sensors in their products doesn't mean they can't; it may mean only that they're keeping profit margin higher by using existing tech.

* CanonGuy: there's nothing wrong with buying another brand to serve a need that's unmet by Canon. Go for it and enjoy!


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> True, and yet we keep on reading/participating - human nature I guess.
> 
> Jack



Just trying to spread a little critical thinking and empiricism. Evidence shows it doesn't work (or I'm not any good at it) maybe I should stop.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

jrista said:


> Some of these are pretty old. One dates back to 2011, another to 2013.


As you well know, filing a patent can happen for more than one reason: it may be prep for a new product, or it may be a defensive patent to keep someone else from gumming up the market.



> It is interesting that Canon has been working on light field technology. I wonder if they will employ that.


Light field is interesting, but from what little I know it kills resolution. Ever since LF came out I've wondered if it could be adapted as an autofocus tool.



> The multi-exposure patent I wash hoping would be a way to improve DR. Sounds like it's more about avoiding various blurring that can occur during long low light exposures. Still interesting, though.


They keep working on many ideas, some of them get into our gear.



> About freakin time Canon received some new patents for sensor technology, though. Wonder if there will be more.


I would love to have better low ISO DR and shadow noise characteristics, but Canon will follow the profits, not the glamour.

Cheers!


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

I agree with the sentiment that "CANON" has to break some serious ground with the sensor tech on its new camera bodies to be competitive with the latest tech. No doubt....but, I do not feel that "I" do. I was an early adopter of the 5DIII, (camera body $3500 body only. OUCH!). 
Call me stupid, but I am still very happy with it's performance. I just made a print for a customer 40x60" shot at 2500 ISO. They were WOWED and paid happily!
I am an old surfer so I will use the term that I am "duck-diving" (while paddling out through the waves, one puts the nose of his board down and goes under like a duck, letting the superfluous energy of the oncoming wave go over my head and not hit me as I make my way to the take-off zone where I can catch another beauty). Right now that is how I am approaching all the chatter with the Sony-Nikon sensor noise, etc. I have been concentrating on my image-making skills, lenses (just picked up the Sigma 20 mm Art this week, yum!), and some newer software programs. When I put my work out there to non-photo geeks no one has asked me what sensor I used. Not a one. They just interact with the photography. The goods are good.
I am keeping my eye on what develops for sure, but I am not letting it ruin "my ride". In the end...it's all about balance anyway.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


> I agree with the sentiment that "CANON" has to break some serious ground with the sensor tech on its new camera bodies to be competitive with the latest tech. No doubt....but, I do not feel that "I" do. I was an early adopter of the 5DIII, (camera body $3500 body only. OUCH!).
> Call me stupid, but I am still very happy with it's performance. I just made a print for a customer 40x60" shot at 2500 ISO. They were WOWED!
> I am an old surfer so I will use the term that I am "duck-diving" (while paddling out through the waves, one puts the nose of his board down and goes under like a duck, letting the superfluous energy of the oncoming wave go over my head and not hit me as I make my way to the take-off zone where I can catch another beauty). Right now that is how I am approaching all the chatter with the Sony-Nikon sensor noise, etc. I have been concentrating on my image-making skills, lenses (just picked up the Sigma 20 mm Art this week, yum!), and some newer software programs. When I put my work out there to non-photo geeks no one has asked me what sensor I used. They just interact with the photography. The goods are good.
> I am keeping my eye on what develops for sure, but I am not letting it ruin "my ride".



+10

Good attitude, find the gear that works for you and enjoy it!


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with the sentiment that "CANON" has to break some serious ground with the sensor tech on its new camera bodies to be competitive with the latest tech. No doubt....but, I do not feel that "I" do. I was an early adopter of the 5DIII, (camera body $3500 body only. OUCH!).
> ...



I will admit that my quiver of EOS-Mount lenses (ten) will keep me "duck-diving" for now...but I am certainly not going to run out and buy a Sony-of-My-Owny. Yes.. The sensor is better....and so is the sensor and capture size on the 5DIII R & S...(too much rez for me, to crunch files, etc. I just do not need it), but in my world the IMAGE is king....it's just a nice plus at this point (as it ALWAYS has been) to have improved tech behind a solid image. It's not a MUST....not by a long shot. Right now I would rather expand my imaging capabilties in other ways that are more important to my imaging growth. ;D


----------



## pedro (Dec 6, 2015)

*Quote from orangutan:

"2. Several people, including me, agreed that we would love to see better sensors, but noted that, to the contrary, previous evidence showed that Canon was very good at determining which technological improvements would be required to remain profitable."*

I don't know how to understand this correctly. Canon calculating on remaining profitable only would be desastrous in the long run. If they did so, then I hope sony is going to win them big time within the next five years. The only downward point with sony is, that their lense line up tends to be highly expensivish...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > protectionism and bullying people, to not have an opinion in this matter
> ...



This is perfect.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I don't do wedding/events for living. My primary shooting is wildlife. Traveling around the world is something I've been doing last 12yrs. I own from 600mm down to 200f2 IS II, plus 200-400(except, 800 & 500). 

Your 11-24 is just one small piece of glass that I also have in my bag.

Last word for this thread. If we cont to accept Canon current sensor as "good enough", then there will be no real competition tomorrow. 

Keep in mind, we often get used to Canon current sensor/IQ on our monitor/prints and ignore what others are offering. A mistake many of us went through in life...


----------



## FreshPicsUK (Dec 6, 2015)

I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why. 

I've spent the last two years shooting with a pair of 5D3's and more recently, a 6D and before that 5D2's and before that it was 5D Mark 1's. I had a complete collection of L series lenses (15mm fisheye, 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II, 85 1.2 II, 24-35-50mm sigma ART's, 600EXRT's-Basically a wedding, commercial or landscape photographers standard setup).

I've just swapped all the above for the equivalent Nikon kit (14-24, 85 1.4G being the only real differences) and bought myself a pair of Nikon D810's and a D750 for faster moments. I shot my first wedding on them last weekend and it has to be said that it's probably the best thing I've ever done. 

The difference in image quality, dynamic range (I know that's a dirty phrase around here sometimes, but it makes a difference) and high ISO performance is amazing. The Nikons leave the Canons in the dust. I'm not just saying it because of the fairly major investment I've had to put into it either. I loved my Canon kit and have shot over 500,000 images on it reliably and without hassle over the last two years alone and didn't plan on making the swap. But then a friend of mine showed me the files he was getting from the D810 and I was blown away. 

The files coming out of the D810 are superior in every important way, their lenses are so similar in performance that it's not worth arguing about and the autofocus (especially the 3D tracking) is leagues ahead compared to that of the 5D3’s, simple as that. And THIS is why Canon needs to catch up. I have no doubt that the 5D4 will be an amazing camera when it appears, but Nikon/Sony have raised the image quality bar to such a high standard that Canon really needs to beat it, or else there will surely be more working professionals like me making the jump, whether it be to the big N or to Fuji, Sony or A.N. Other mirrorless/mirrored brand (although I'm yet to meet anyone shooting weddings on Sony). I have to agree with CR Guy when he says that if there isn't a bit of a leap in performance then Canon's sales will start to suffer. 

Compare the specs of the 6D to the D750 and try not to be impressed. These are meant to be cameras in a similar price bracket and are marketed towards similar demographic groups, but the D750 is just a thing of wonder. Smaller, lighter, flipping screen, MUCH better image quality, a better AF system than even the D4S, more comfortable to hold than the 6D and it only carries a fractional price difference over the 6D. And the D810 is just in a completely different league to the 5D3. 

Halfway through the wedding last weekend I wondered if I'd made the right decision, as looking at the back of the camera it didn't look too different to what I'd been getting, but once I'd got the cards onto the computer it's was obvious just how much better the Nikons are. I'm not trying to say that everybody should jump ship if the 5D4 is a bit of a dud or if it comes out looking like Canon has ignored the wants and needs of its professional user base, as it's a massive leap to make-trust me, I was so comfortable using my Canons that I didn't need to look at the settings, my fingers just knew where to go to change stuff, and trying to learn a new system in a few days before a wedding was REALLY hard work. But the pictures that these camera allow me to produce now are better (not MASSIVELY, but noticeably) and Canon has to react to that, if nothing else. 

Feel free to criticise my decision as I'm sure a lot of the hardcore CR forum members will do, but it's only my opinion and personal quest to get the best image quality possible within my own financial means and I'm very glad I've made the jump indeed. What do I miss? Smaller file sizes (storage is cheap), some of the lenses, (just because I like the look they give-85mm 1.2 being a case in point-hurry up Sigma!) and the 600EXRT system which will hopefully be replicated by Nikon with their SB5000, due out soon, if not, I can do the same with the pocket wizards I also purchased... 

So there you have it, an over-long cautionary message to Canon that you're not indestructible and people will make the move if you rest on your laurels for too long. 

Signed, 
A former Canon Fanboy


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

FreshPicsUK said:


> I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why.
> 
> I've spent the last two years shooting with a pair of 5D3's and more recently, a 6D and before that 5D2's and before that it was 5D Mark 1's. I had a complete collection of L series lenses (15mm fisheye, 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II, 85 1.2 II, 24-35-50mm sigma ART's, 600EXRT's-Basically a wedding, commercial or landscape photographers standard setup).
> 
> ...



I think that everything you said is CORRECT. I no longer make a living shooting, but I do sell fine-Art images..(.it keeps the joy in my shooting!). I have no need or desire to make the jump...but I understand your decision. ENJOY the new system!...Cano will eventually address the issue...how can they not?!?!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2015)

Mr1Dx said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Mr1Dx said:
> ...



Clearly reading is as difficult for you as arithmetic.

I print for a selection of photographers who use everything from a T2i to D810's and A7Rii's, I have no real difficulty printing any reasonably well exposed image from any of them.

Last word? Ha! Canon have said they agree that off sensor A/D converters are noisier, but more expensive, and while cost is a primary consideration moving forwards they are going to concentrate on the on chip design. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/16/canon-maeda-promises-eos-m-enthusiasts-more-aps-c-lenses-new-printers

Canon, at the highest levels, are very aware of the IQ differences between their products and other camera manufacturers. They put out the tech they feel best suits the balance between cost/profitability and sales numbers, by all accounts they are very good at their job. Looking at the 2014 sales figures Canon are a couple of percent short of having a market share equal to Nikon and Sony combined. http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Sony-bets-on-mirrorless-cameras-for-revival?page=2


Obviously Canon are ******* :


----------



## Etienne (Dec 6, 2015)

FreshPicsUK said:


> I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why.
> 
> I've spent the last two years shooting with a pair of 5D3's and more recently, a 6D and before that 5D2's and before that it was 5D Mark 1's. I had a complete collection of L series lenses (15mm fisheye, 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II, 85 1.2 II, 24-35-50mm sigma ART's, 600EXRT's-Basically a wedding, commercial or landscape photographers standard setup).
> 
> ...



It's a game of leapfrog, and it's Canon's turn to make the leap. If they can't jump over Nikon/Sony in the next round, I may be following you out of Camp Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2015)

pedro said:


> *Quote from orangutan:
> 
> "2. Several people, including me, agreed that we would love to see better sensors, but noted that, to the contrary, previous evidence showed that Canon was very good at determining which technological improvements would be required to remain profitable."*
> 
> I don't know how to understand this correctly. *Canon calculating on remaining profitable only would be desastrous in the long run.* If they did so, then I hope sony is going to win them big time within the next five years. The only downward point with sony is, that their lense line up tends to be highly expensivish...



If you define 'disastrous' as being the market leader for 11 years and counting, then you certainly don't understand correctly.

The latest numbers show that Canon is maintaining their market share and their clear lead, while their nearest competitor (Nikon) is losing market share.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2015)

K-amps said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say _"Canon has no other choice"_ is patently untrue.
> ...



Here's what 'thud' sounds like.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2015)

Wow, that's Sony plus Nikon exceeds Canon. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > you have superteles and they hold their value much better, my 300 f2.8 IS has lost a few hundred dollars in ten years!
> ...



I forgot nothing, and you are taking the quote completely out of context. Which was, why would changing system from Canon to another company necessitate _"dump[ing] $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"?_ Those lenses do not have zero value, indeed they generally have pretty low depreciation.

What does the original purchase cost of an old Canon lens have to do with the price of a new Nikon or Sony lens? Nothing, your point is completely irrelevant.

Besides, Mr1DX really has two choices for his photography bearing in mind his lens requirements, Canon or Nikon, and two bodies, the 1DX or the D4s. I have seen many more high profile users that are tele-centirc users, swap from Nikon to Canon in the last few years than the other way around, why would that be? After the 1D MkIII AF fiasco and many tele-centric users moving from Canon to Nikon, the wave of use is very much back the other way again, Canon's MkII teles are unmatched and the D4s is one of Nikon's weaker bodies when compared to it's direct competition.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 6, 2015)

Still, I wonder how many people will actually do this and jump ship? Talk is cheap/free, but it is a hassle to go through all that vs. wait until something that you want comes out. This is not to mention all the cameras that will wear out, or people who just for whatever reason, need another camera. I would think that the ship jumpers will be less (smaller percentage) would be less than suspected.

sek



privatebydesign said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 6, 2015)

OTOH, burning through all that R&D $$$ without making money to cover it is not sustainable.

sek



Etienne said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I forgot nothing, and you are taking the quote completely out of context. Which was, why would changing system from Canon to another company necessitate _"dump[ing] $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"?_ Those lenses do not have zero value, indeed they generally have pretty low depreciation.
> ...



These threads really are pointless :


----------



## applecider (Dec 6, 2015)

Not really a sensor issue but related is the fact that canon has chosen or been forced to forego the 2015 Christmas selling season with high end bodies. Given their multi year product cycle capturing seasonal selling might not be important to them as they will get it next year it's just that some will migrate to other systems in the mean time. 
And the current product cycle is getting long in the tooth by historic refresh. I guess the 5ds,r could be considered a refresh but the high iso variant is what so many of us are waiting for with new sensor technology.

The fact that so few rumors have emerged makes me think that there is a purposeful intent to keep quiet till after the season.

I'd expect the flood gates to open in january.


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

Canon fanboisism is very amusing. LOL!
It's just a camera system, boys.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


> Canon fanboisism is very amusing. LOL!
> It's just a camera system, boys.



And then you are accused of _"fanboisism"_ [sic] if you try to point out factual errors in a rational manner.

Utterly pointless............


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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



Heck, anybody who switches systems can just as well run both systems. Once glass is acquired keeping up in the body arms race is easy.

One thing I'd like to know is how many ship jumpers really jump ship or keep switching back and forth in fits of technological obsessive compulsive spasms. These photographers must makes loads of money or people just have more money than sense.

On the other hand... lots of people just like to rant and will never jump ship. It is probably the same people all the time. Anti-cramping medications may help them. 

People who don't understand that these companies will be constantly leapfrogging one another technologically will drive themselves mad with gear envy while the sane just slog along making beautiful photos no matter what companies x, y, or z are doing.

If a person is in this to make money and believes he or she cannot compete in the market because of his gear not being the latest... well you can't help him. A person like that is delusional. No amount of gear can compensate for ineptitude. They'll turn to being disgruntled hobbyists before long.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


> Canon fanboisism is very amusing. LOL!
> It's just a camera system, boys.



Hey! I'm the only fanboi around here!


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Canon fanboisism is very amusing. LOL!
> ...



Um...you look like a fangoil?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



And you look like a camera. ;D


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Canon fanboisism is very amusing. LOL!
> ...



Fandoig all you want... Nikon and Sony have better sensors. 
Feel free to lift your leg and pee into the wind some more!!!


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



LOL! Hey...don't knock my brownie! LOL!


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


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


Has anyone in this thread said any different? The discussion (of this thread, anyhow) is whether the Sonikon sensors are better enough at low ISO to force Canon to make a "big leap forward in performance" for upcoming bodies.

Please read more carefully.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


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



Come back when people start buying bare silicon sensors, at that point your comment might be relevant. 







Until then, don't stand downwind.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 6, 2015)

John, that's offensive to those of us who do cave photography. And, since when is profit and market share the most important aspect to the success of a business?


----------



## Etienne (Dec 6, 2015)

And never forget, permanent faith in Canon is based on evidence because ... no giant, market-leading company has ever lost their lead or failed ! :


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


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



For now. Today. Canon will surpass them, then they will surpass Canon. Then Canon will beat them again. On and on it will go. 

I'm too busy learning my Canon cameras to be concerned with that though. If I ever master them... then maybe I'll waste my time salivating at the grass on the other side of the fence (Or if I win the PowerBall lottery).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 6, 2015)

Etienne said:


> And never forget, permanent faith in Canon is based on evidence because ... no giant, market-leading company has ever lost their lead or failed ! :



Nobody is saying it can't happen some day. It's just the problem is, is that it's not even starting to happen. In fact, just the opposite. The only possible conclusion is, or ok ONE conclusion, is that the market doesn't give a crap at all about more DR at low ISO. I know that it's hard to accept that as Sonikon increases DR at low ISO Canon's market share keeps increasing. Maybe they care more about AF, lenses, speedlites, and service. Maybe they just want something, a system, that works. Hard to explain I know.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

Etienne said:


> faith in Canon is based on evidence



Faith is belief that contradicts evidence. I have no faith in Canon. I've only stated that they have a history of finding a way to stay competitive. That's not faith, that's history. Will they continue? We'll see.



> no giant, market-leading company has ever lost their lead or failed !


If you can predict when large companies are set to fail you can make serious bank in the stock market; maybe you should try that.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > faith in Canon is based on evidence
> ...



Come on! It's been "going to happen" since 2009. Any day now it'll happen. I can feel it...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2015)

Etienne said:


> And never forget, permanent faith in Canon is based on evidence because ... no giant, market-leading company has ever lost their lead or failed ! :



Who (besides you, that is) is discussing 'permanent faith'? *Today*, Canon is the clear market leader – by a wide margin, and they've led the market for >11 years. Those facts are completely incongruent with the suggestion that Canon _must_ 'make a big leap forward' in FF sensors, with an implied 'or else'. 

Their nearest competitor is losing ground, and for all the forum DRoning about Sony's awesomagical sensors, in the _camera_ market (you know...the things people buy), 3rd place Sony has 'eroded' less than 3% of Canon's 30% lead in market share - not even a meaningful change.


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Your donut does not change the facts.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 6, 2015)

Yes, you certainly are correct. The donut does not change the facts...


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


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



Who appointed you the forum police? 
I will post what I want to say on this sensor thread. 
Do you have control issues? LOL!
Please read what I just posted.
(Did I mention that the Sony and Nikon sensors are better than the Canon sensor right now?)


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Jack...it HYSTERICAL!!!!!!!!! :-X


----------



## canonic (Dec 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


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



nice foto ... from where did you get this one?

edit: i see manipulation here 
look at O or D ...


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



That was...weak. I was expecting a better response. Would you like to try again?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2015)

Canon's sensor technology is beginning to look like Tom Cruise, an aging film star with less earning potential each year!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2015)

infared said:


> Your donut does not change the facts.



Your irrelevant statements based on personal definitions of 'better' aren't facts. The graphic represents factual sales data.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2015)

Canon may be at a dead end with their current R&D, which is the real issue we are facing--not sales history.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon may be at a dead end with their current R&D, which is the real issue we are facing--not sales history.



Sure, could well be true; however, we have no knowledge of that. It's also possible that Sony is at the dead end with their current R&D, and what they have on the market is all they have. All we really know is what they show us.

Again, you may well be right, as might CR Guy. My original objection to his statement is its certainty: we really don't know what the market will demand from the next round of bodies, and we certainly can't extrapolate from the few vocal opinions on camera forums. All I can say is that if I were inclined to bet, I would not bet against Canon's profitability, which is not the same thing as betting on their future Dx'oh! scores.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon may be at a dead end with their current R&D, which is the real issue we are facing--not sales history.



Given the topic – sensor-related patents filed by Canon 1.5 years ago – I wonder if you have any evidence to corroborate your statement. 

Beyond just sensors, given that Canon typically has >2,000 patents granted every year, a blanket statement like the above is pretty silly.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon may be at a dead end with their current R&D, which is the real issue we are facing--not sales history.



I was waiting for this. I work for a company that does nothing but R&D with materials for electronics and imaging companies, including big imaging companies. To say that Canon is at a dead-end with their R&D is totally and completely wrong. 100% wrong. And this is the problem. We have a bunch of people on here who don't have facts or when they get the facts, they still ignore them. I think THAT's the real problem.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon's sensor technology is beginning to look like Tom Cruise, an aging film star with less earning potential each year!



Again, FACTS and STATISTICS would 100% disagree with you here.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may be at a dead end with their current R&D, which is the real issue we are facing--not sales history.
> ...



Supposition, not a statement.

The shared anxiety stems from Canon showing little improvement in shadow and lower light performance since the release of the 5DII.

Huffing and puffing can't blow this truth down, but a better sensor could!


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 7, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's sensor technology is beginning to look like Tom Cruise, an aging film star with less earning potential each year!
> ...



Some stats / facts

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actors/tom-cruise-net-worth/ 

N.B. a closer look indicates his earnings go up and down. 

Peace y'all! Happy photography everyone! 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> The shared anxiety stems from Canon showing little improvement in shadow and lower light improvements since the release of the 5DII.



Shared by whom? :

What horrible cataclysm in Canon's dSLR sales has been brought about by this supposed 'problem' you seem so anxious about? If, in your opinion, other manufacturers have shown significant shadow and lower light improvements, has that translated to significant gains in market share at the Canon's expense?

Oh, by the way, my 1D X gives me at least 3 more usable stops of higher ISO than my 5DII – that seems like a pretty significant 'lower light improvement' to me. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your opinions.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > The shared anxiety stems from Canon showing little improvement in shadow and lower light improvements since the release of the 5DII.
> ...



Please share some tests that show the 1DX has a 3 stop improvement at a given ISO.


----------



## YellowJersey (Dec 7, 2015)

Wow, an awful lot of butthurt in this thread. Let's face facts, at the very least there's a perception that Canon's sensors are old tech. Even if this isn't a tech problem, it's an image problem. Canon seems to have stuck its fingers in its ears and largely refused to acknowledge that the market has changed.

I really don't understand the ferocity of brand loyalty. This doesn't just apply to Canon, btw (I'm looking at you, Apple fans). Criticising Canon is not an attack on you. And whenever someone puts a product out for sale, it demands to be criticised. If Canon really is the market leader, then its products should be unambiguously superior, and that's not the case. They're not necessarily inferior, but when a company stops innovating, usurpers move in. I feel like Canon's innovation has slowed, and companies like Sony and Panasonic have moved in the provide photographers and videographers with the products that Canon isn't, or isn't providing at a reasonable price. Even if Canon's sensors aren't as bad as the detractors say, that's no excuse for Canon not putting out better. 

We must _always_ demand better, even if better isn't necessarily, er, necessary. This is a cut throat market and Canon can't afford to let its guard down. After all, it's hard to get to the top, but even harder to stay there.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> Wow, an awful lot of butthurt in this thread. Let's face facts, at the very least there's a perception that Canon's sensors are old tech. Even if this isn't a tech problem, it's an image problem. Canon seems to have stuck its fingers in its ears and largely refused to acknowledge that the market has changed.
> 
> I really don't understand the ferocity of brand loyalty. This doesn't just apply to Canon, btw (I'm looking at you, Apple fans). Criticising Canon is not an attack on you. And whenever someone puts a product out for sale, it demands to be criticised. If Canon really is the market leader, then its products should be unambiguously superior, and that's not the case. They're not necessarily inferior, but when a company stops innovating, usurpers move in. I feel like Canon's innovation has slowed, and companies like Sony and Panasonic have moved in the provide photographers and videographers with the products that Canon isn't, or isn't providing at a reasonable price. Even if Canon's sensors aren't as bad as the detractors say, that's no excuse for Canon not putting out better.
> 
> We must _always_ demand better, even if better isn't necessarily, er, necessary. This is a cut throat market and Canon can't afford to let its guard down. After all, it's hard to get to the top, but even harder to stay there.



You've read this thread as 'butthurt' brand loyalists getting upset?

The same old suspects are talking about the same old thing - the sensor issue. Nobody has contested it. Others have - with some grace and civility, and a few facts - shown it's not causing any trouble for the company's market share, which was the original contention.

The market leader's products should be unambiguously superior? Even if you could establish an objective measure of superiority, in what other field is this true? Are the biggest restaurant chains and supermarkets, or car manufacturers providing the best products? Or is marketing and business strategy more important?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


With read noise, the 1DX has 1.2 (e-) and the 5DII has 3.0(e-) and beats every Nikon except the 7100 at 1.1(e-) and every Sony except the A7S at 0.4(e-).... that's about 1 1/2 stops cleaner at the bottom end....

The quantum efficiency of the 1DX is 48% while the 5D2 is 31%.... there's about 1/2 of a stop more signal at the top end....

There's 2 stops of performance increase with just two factors.....

The 5D2 is rated for ISO 100-6400. The 1DX is rated for ISO 100-51,200. There's your 3 stops of improvement.

However, if you are really looking for a camera for low light, you should take a long serious look at the Sony A7S... It has the lowest read noise of ANY DSLR or mirrorless, and with a relatively high quantum efficiency of 65% and larger pixels (only 12Mpixels) it generates over twice the signal per pixel as the 1DX. While the top extended ISO for the 1DX is only? 204,800 the A7S tops out at ISO 409600....

But remember, this is comparing an old camera with a new one... When the 1DX2 comes out, we can expect better QE than the 59% of the 7D2, and that cuts the gap to about a half stop....


----------



## dak723 (Dec 7, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> And whenever someone puts a product out for sale, it demands to be criticised.



Demands to be criticized?? How about enjoying the product, or isn't that why you got it on the first place? Apparently people buy things now with the intent to criticize. if you don't see something wrong with this attitude, I feel sorry for you.



YellowJersey said:


> We must _always_ demand better, even if better isn't necessarily, er, necessary. This is a cut throat market and Canon can't afford to let its guard down. After all, it's hard to get to the top, but even harder to stay there.



You have no right to demand anything. Canon is allowed to do what they feel is best for their company. If you don't like Canon products, then buy someone else's. If Canon loses market share and falls to number three, why do you care? I couldn't care less. As a backup camera, I have an Olympus. Do I care that they aren't the market leader? Not one bit. 

When I look for a new camera, I compare the images from various brands if possible. The most important things to me are color, contrast and a tonal curve that separates light and shadow. For those reasons, I chose Canon (not because of any brand loyalty, I have owned other brands and probably will again). I suppose if I were a Sony customer and had the same attitude as you I would demand an optical viewfinder, better color and certainly better ergonomics. How dare they (or any company) not give me what I want. Whaaa, whaaa whaaa. Maybe what you want isn't what others want.


----------



## YellowJersey (Dec 7, 2015)

scyrene said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, an awful lot of butthurt in this thread. Let's face facts, at the very least there's a perception that Canon's sensors are old tech. Even if this isn't a tech problem, it's an image problem. Canon seems to have stuck its fingers in its ears and largely refused to acknowledge that the market has changed.
> ...



It's the effort that people go to justify Canon's actions rather than demanding better that bewilders me. Just because it's good for Canon, doesn't necessarily mean it's good for us. Canon is not your friend. It's not your enemy, but it's not your friend. Canon is like a stripper: it doesn't actually like you, it just pretends to so that you give it your money.


----------



## YellowJersey (Dec 7, 2015)

dak723 said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > And whenever someone puts a product out for sale, it demands to be criticised.
> ...



Does a product demand to be criticised the instant it is on the market? Absolutely. It's positive and negative qualities should be discussed. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as reviews and this forum would not exist. That doesn't stop you from enjoying the product. I love my 5DmkIII, but nothing is perfect, and this camera is certainly no exception. I didn't buy it with the intent to criticise it, but I'm going to criticise it. "Criticise" does not mean "insult." You can love something while still acknowledging that it's no perfect. I enjoy my Canon, but want better. 

I absolutely have a right to demand better, but don't have a right for Canon to provide. If Canon wants to keep me as a customer, it will have to provide better. That's kind of how it works. I demand what I want. If Canon provides, it gets my money. If it doesn't, I give my money to someone else who does. 

Nothing gets better without coming to terms with its faults or without people demanding more. It's this attitude that "Canon can do no wrong, it's products are perfect, so just shut up" that drives me up the wall. If the response to criticism is "shut up and enjoy the product" then this isn't a discussion forum, it's just an advertisement that Canon didn't have to pay for.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2015)

What's missing, glaringly, from this thread, is any prediction of better performance in the 5DIV.

Where is the optimism?


----------



## YellowJersey (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> What's missing, glaringly, from this thread, is any prediction of better performance in the 5DIV.
> 
> Where is the optimism?



Where is the optimism? Apparently buried under people telling others to shut up when anyone says that Canon's sensors need/should be improved. 

I'm cautiously optimistic about the mkIV. The 7DmkII and 5Ds/r seem to indicate that Canon's sensors are starting to get better.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 7, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> Wow


First, thanks for keeping your comments civil, even though I disagree with much of what you wrote. 

You seem to have completely misread what has been said in this thread. No one is exhibiting ferocious, or even tepid, fan loyalty. If you disagree, go back through the thread and pick out specific examples where someone has made untrue positive assertions about Canon.



> Let's face facts, at the very least there's a perception that Canon's sensors are old tech.


There is, but only among a very small number of people. I happen to be one of them, but my individual perceptions are irrelevant to Canon.



> Canon seems to have stuck its fingers in its ears and largely refused to acknowledge that the market has changed.


Product lines have changed, but Canon continues to out-sell the competition. While Canon may not be selling the product that you or I want, they are selling products that make them gobs of money. Any corporation would make the same choice: making lots of money selling "old" tech is better than making little money selling new tech.



> I really don't understand the ferocity of brand loyalty.


Have you seen it in this thread? If so, please cite an example of a person making false supportive statement about Canon.



> Criticising Canon is not an attack on you.


You've misread the thread: I haven't seen anyone here who's personally offended by true statements, even negative ones, about Canon. I'm annoyed by people who extrapolate their personal preferences (even those that agree with mine) to the market as a whole. The fact that you or I want better sensors or enthusiast-level mirrorless offerings is not important to any company unless it's in quantities large enough to drive the market.




> And whenever someone puts a product out for sale, it demands to be criticised.


Sure, that's no problem at all. First criticism: Canon sensors have (generally) worse low-ISO DR and shadow noise than Sonikon. What's the next one?



> If Canon really is the market leader, then its products should be unambiguously superior


100% false: "market leader" means exactly one thing: selling the most product. Earlier this year, Volkswagen overtook Toyota to become the #1 selling (i.e. "market leader") in the world. Would you say they were unambiguously the best cars? Maybe Volvo or Mercedes-Benz is a better vehicle? The notion that there can be a single camera brand that's unambiguously best at all things is not viable.



> but when a company stops innovating, usurpers move in.


That hasn't happened yet, which is the point Neuro keeps making with the sales charts. The supposedly-superior products of Sony, Nikon, et. al. are NOT allowing the usurpers to "move in."



> I feel like Canon's innovation has slowed, and companies like Sony and Panasonic have moved in the provide photographers and videographers with the products that Canon isn't, or isn't providing at a reasonable price.


That's great! There's no problem at all with that, I applaud it!



> Even if Canon's sensors aren't as bad as the detractors say, that's no excuse for Canon not putting out better.


You keep forgetting that Canon is a business, not a performance artist or athlete: they're not in the business of "putting out better," they're in the business of "bringing in more money." If they can bring in more money with older tech they will do so, whether we like it or not. 



> We must _always_ demand better, even if better isn't necessarily, er, necessary.


Again, unless "we" are a large enough group to affect Canon sales, "our" opinions are unimportant.



> This is a cut throat market and Canon can't afford to let its guard down.


It seems a fair assumption that Canon knows this better than any of us.



> After all, it's hard to get to the top, but even harder to stay there.


But somehow Canon has managed to stay there for 11 years.

Summary: be careful not to confuse the camera that you want with the camera that makes money for Canon. This is a business, nothing more.

Cheers.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 7, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> Just because it's good for Canon, doesn't necessarily mean it's good for us. Canon is not your friend. It's not your enemy, but it's not your friend. Canon is like a stripper: it doesn't actually like you, it just pretends to so that you give it your money.



That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. Stop thinking of Canon as your friend, and instead think of them as a money-making business. Once you come to peace with that everything gets easier. My only goal in this thread is to convey to the anti-Canon crowd the idea that you've eloquently stated above. I'm tired of reading broken-hearted posts from people who really want to fall in love and have a meaningful relationship with Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > Just because it's good for Canon, doesn't necessarily mean it's good for us. Canon is not your friend. It's not your enemy, but it's not your friend. Canon is like a stripper: it doesn't actually like you, it just pretends to so that you give it your money.
> ...



Been saying this for years, but people will go on 'threatening' to switch brands and claiming doom unless Canon makes a camera to meet _their_ specific needs, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 7, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may be at a dead end with their current R&D, which is the real issue we are facing--not sales history.
> ...



Precisely, not to mention wannabe fortune tellers! 

Jack


----------



## unfocused (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > YellowJersey said:
> ...



There seem to be many people on this forum who believe that Canon is their enemy. They take it very personally that Canon has made business decisions that do not necessarily reflect their wishes. I guess it is easier to believe that a company is somehow purposely refusing to give you the product that you personally want, than it is to accept that your desires are out of the mainstream and do not reflect the majority of buyers.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 7, 2015)

I appreciate Orangutan's incredible patience.

There are a few things I want to add.

First, I am not as willing as he is to simply concede that Canon is behind on sensor tech. There are many areas of sensor development where Canon is clearly the leader, most notably DPAF. The patents that form the basis of this thread are another indicator that Canon continues to innovate in sensor R&D. 

When people say Canon is behind, they really mean that Canon trails in one metric that seems to have an outsized importance to some users -- Dynamic Range at base ISO. But there certainly can be legitimate debate as to how important that metric is to most photographers. I am one of those who doesn't happen to view it as all that important.

Frankly I resent those who have appointed themselves the arbiters of what is important in DSLR development. Just because they believe dynamic range at base ISO is important doesn't make it important to a majority of photographers. It may be, but we have no evidence to support that and what evidence is available (the market) would indicate that most buyers don't care.

Would I take higher dynamic range? Sure. But, I would find it much more important at higher ISOs, an area where Canon is very competitive with other brands. And, in the list of things I would like to see in future cameras, dynamic range doesn't even make it into the top 10.

Far more important to me as someone who earns a fair share of my income from photography would be the following in a 5DIV:

Incremental improvements in high ISO performance;
The film-like appearance of noise that the 7DII offers (as well as the 5DR from what I understand);
Autofocus improvements on a par with the 7DII or even better;
Using DPAF to implement automatic micro adjustment of lenses;
A higher fps rate;
Touch screen;
A user friendly implementation of wifi;
Ability to do some minor edits in camera or at a minimum to transfer files seamlessly to a tablet for quick edits under deadline;
Retaining the same battery and battery grip as the current 5DIII;
Expanded autofocus points so that they cover more of the viewfinder;
Holding the megapixel count to 24mp or so, with a corresponding improvement in high ISO performance (there are always trade-offs and I would happily trade additional megapixels for less noise at higher ISOs).

This is my wish list. I'd welcome any other advancements Canon may offer. I'm not about to cry and pout if they don't offer the changes I hope for. I will simply evaluate the next generation and determine whether or not it is enough of an improvement for me to upgrade.


----------



## hmatthes (Dec 7, 2015)

Lots of crying but let's look at what Canon has done...
I rarely pack my old L glass since my cheapo STM lenses on the 70D produce stunning images that sell at 24x36 and larger with excellent DR and shadow details.
In my film days the Holy Grail was a 17-36 f2.8, the 28-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 -- a large budget for 3 lenses.
Now my kit is the 70D, the 10-18 STM, 18-135 STM, and the 55-250 STM -- smaller aperatures but consistently better images.
*The net: Today's 70D dual pixel, crop sized, sensor delivers outstanding images on "Prosumer" gear.*
Yes, I will buy the 5D-IV, replace my antique L lenses with modern counterparts, and get the marvelous quality that these L lenses produce. But it may not be recognizable to most clients who enjoy today's STM/70D images!


----------



## Woody (Dec 7, 2015)

I like the 2 links pointed out other folks previously:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/16/canon-maeda-promises-eos-m-enthusiasts-more-aps-c-lenses-new-printers

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Sony-bets-on-mirrorless-cameras-for-revival?page=2

BTW, I have been following BCNRanking that shows camera market sales in Japan. Seems that Sony is TOTALLY losing their mirrorless market shares to Olympus in 2015. So, great technology does not necessarily translate into better sales in Japan... and probably elsewhere on the planet too.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



So many of these threads are like listening to guys argue on sports talk radio.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



The technical information was provided by Don. Also, note that I stated 'gives _me_', not 'delivers based on technical specs (although the specs do, in fact, support the 3-stop improvement). 

Nevertheless, I notice you quite conveniently ignored the *fact* that Canon continues to maintain strong market leadership in spite of this 'anxiety' you seem to share with a few people on Internet forums.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 7, 2015)

Just checked the thread to see if anyone had spotted any more info in the patents I'd listed.

How silly of me 

I am minded to wonder how many people post such inane drivel carefully reasoned opinion when using their real names ;-)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 7, 2015)

For me it has nothing to do with brand loyalty, defensiveness, or fanboisim or whatever. It's the continued inability to take data and draw conclusions from that data. It's one thing to say that Canon sensors aren't as good as Sonikon sensors. It's the continued threat that Canon is ******* and had better shape up or they're done crap that is not supported by ANY data available. In fact, the data available suggests otherwise. That's really the big frustrating part of these garbage discussions.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 7, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> I am minded to wonder how many people post such inane drivel carefully reasoned opinion when using their real names ;-)



To which carefully reasoned drivel are you referring?


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > I am minded to wonder how many people post such inane drivel carefully reasoned opinion when using their real names ;-)
> ...


Oh, there's plenty to go around... ;-)


----------



## canonic (Dec 7, 2015)

Patents, patents and more patents!
Ok, i got this. Canon is the champion at making patents. 
Only if we could take photos with patents ;D


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > YellowJersey said:
> ...



Lol I like the analogy. But of course that's true of every company - if Canon users here get riled, it's because others treat Sony (or even Nikon) as somehow charitable institutions who only want the best for their customers.

I think if you asked, almost every current Canon user - even enthusiast or fanboy - would say they wanted better from future products. Of course! But what constitutes better varies by person, and whether offering one thing or another hurts or helps their sales is very hard to say.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I appreciate Orangutan's incredible patience.



And eloquence!


----------



## George D. (Dec 8, 2015)

There are now rumors of Panasonic fast-pacing 8k R&D with a view to introduce 8k consumer stills cameras and video in 2018 and broadcast Tokyo Olympics (2020) in 8K. Interestingly said, 33Mp stills can be extracted out of 8K/30fps video as compared to 8Mp out of 4K. Now that's a game changer. 

- Is the sensor patent in this thread related to higher resolution for extracting stills out of 8k video? 
- Does Canon have R&D for 8k like Panasonic now? 
- If 8k appears to be the next big thing around the corner are 1DX2/5D4 to be considered "intermediate" models lesser-priced than their predecessors? I guess everyone will be pressing Canon for 8k to extract stills.


FYI: http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Panasonic-resuming-image-sensor-R-D-with-eye-on-8K


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

George D. said:


> There are now rumors of Panasonic fast-pacing 8k R&D with a view to introduce 8k consumer stills cameras and video in 2018 and broadcast Tokyo Olympics (2020) in 8K. Interestingly said, 33Mp stills can be extracted out of 8K/30fps video as compared to 8Mp out of 4K. Now that's a game changer.



In the context of your post – Olympic sports, fast action – how would extracting stills from 30 fps video be game changing?




George D. said:


> I guess everyone will be pressing Canon for 8k to extract stills.



I rather guess not.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 8, 2015)

George D. said:


> There are now rumors of Panasonic fast-pacing 8k R&D with a view to introduce 8k consumer stills cameras and video in 2018 and broadcast Tokyo Olympics (2020) in 8K. Interestingly said, 33Mp stills can be extracted out of 8K/30fps video as compared to 8Mp out of 4K. Now that's a game changer.
> 
> - Is the sensor patent in this thread related to higher resolution for extracting stills out of 8k video?
> - Does Canon have R&D for 8k like Panasonic now?
> ...



you mean this

http://www.canonrumors.com/first-photo-of-the-cinema-eos-8k-camera/

a working tech demonstration 

The "appeal" of high MP stills from video is perhaps for journalists / sports photographers where they want to get the critical moment, and use video extracts rather than high fps. I'm sure you could extract frames whilst stepping through it on the camera, but I would guess you would do that on a computer instead. However, that is more a function of the dsp & processor than it is the sensor as I understand it (otherwise how would you know what frame you want to extract and how big would the buffer have to be for you to review?)

Looking at Canon's past strategy, I would suggest their 8K is firmly aimed at Cinema and the like, not for photographers. 8K also allows differentiation from the 4K and 6K crowd, perhaps providing some separation between what enthusiasts have access to.

I guess once they have 8K, then 4K might be more prevalent in their photography gear


----------



## George D. (Dec 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > There are now rumors of Panasonic fast-pacing 8k R&D with a view to introduce 8k consumer stills cameras and video in 2018 and broadcast Tokyo Olympics (2020) in 8K. Interestingly said, 33Mp stills can be extracted out of 8K/30fps video as compared to 8Mp out of 4K. Now that's a game changer.
> ...



For example 1DX has 14fps to capture the precise moment of the runners on the finish line, this would then be achieved from extracting a single shot out of an 8k/30fps movie and at 33Mp resolution. Depth of field is also said to be manageable in post. Same convenience can be at hand during filming a wedding (in movie mode). The game changer is the 33Mp pic extraction, currently unavailable on dSLR.


----------



## George D. (Dec 8, 2015)

@stu_bert: No, I mean this http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3071034479/panasonic-to-restart-development-of-image-sensors-to-fast-track-8k-video?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

Not Lumix of course but dSLR. Mind 4K is now coming on dSLR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

George D. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > George D. said:
> ...



George, you are missing the shutter speed out of your equations. Video is slow at 1/50-1/100 sec per frame, sports stills need 1/500 to not get blur. The two are incompatible.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 8, 2015)

George D. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > George D. said:
> ...



As a sports shooter I have to ask:

What??


----------



## George D. (Dec 8, 2015)

So we're talking about 30fps hi-res movie mode at 1/100sec max each. I'm interested more in what's possible out of this rumor.


----------



## msm (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



There is absolutely nothing preventing faster exposures with video. The real problem would be rolling shutter and compression. It would take either an extremely fast readout to scan an 8k image as fast as a mechanical shutter or a global shutter to avoid rolling shutter issues. And preferably some sort of raw video to avoid the heavy compression.

But I wouldnt be surprised to see mirrorless cameras use something like this to challenge the DSLRs in their last niche soon (sports / wildlife / fast action), stacked sensors should help.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > George D. said:
> ...



There is nothing physically to prevent it, but look at the reasons why video uses long shutter speeds, they want he blur to make the images appear seamless to our eye.

https://vimeo.com/blog/post/frame-rate-vs-shutter-speed-setting-the-record-str


----------



## msm (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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



If your goal is to make pleasant video sure. I thought the idea discussed here was to make stills from video though, in which case you can use fast shutter speed to make sharp still images.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

George D. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > George D. said:
> ...



I think you're missing the point that the optimal shutter speed for high quality video is not generally adequate to freeze action. The ability to extract blurry frames from 30 fps video won't be changing anyone's game. Well, if you take that convenient route at the wedding you mention, the bride's lawsuit might change _your_ game. 

Of course, you _could_ shoot video at high shutter speed for the sole purpose of extracting still frames (meaning the video quality would be crap), and in that case by the time you'd uncompressed the video file for frame-by-frame extraction, picked your key image from the race finish and submitted it...the 80 other photogs shooting at 10-12 fps on a D4s or 1D X have already uploaded their jpg file and your editor has fired you for not getting the shot submitted in a timely manner. Also not game changing. 

The 8 MP extracted from 4K is plenty for most press uses – how many sports photogs do you see shooting video from the sidelines to extract stills? I'd wager the answer is none, and 8K won't change that.


----------



## Proscribo (Dec 8, 2015)

msm said:


> If your goal is to make pleasant video sure. I thought the idea discussed here was to make stills from video though, in which case you can use fast shutter speed to make sharp still images.


I think we do that already. It's called continuous shooting, burst, whatever.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

msm said:


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



See neuro's answer below.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 8, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > If your goal is to make pleasant video sure. I thought the idea discussed here was to make stills from video though, in which case you can use fast shutter speed to make sharp still images.
> ...



+1

I have to add another comment. Obviously some individuals on here have never shot sports for organizations. You only have so much time and why in the heck would I want to move to a slower process, much slower, when I already can fire off 12-14 fps, upload to my laptop, pick the photo and send? I can literally have a shot to the editor or SID in less than 5 minutes from shutter firing.


----------



## msm (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


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



Yeah and as usual he has no vision past current Canon DSLRs. If they want to make a camera like this, they can easily make the firmware extract the stills for you automatically so you can extract the stills and upload them just as you would single images. That is just a question of a suitable storage format, a little processing power and trivial software implementation.


----------



## msm (Dec 8, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > If your goal is to make pleasant video sure. I thought the idea discussed here was to make stills from video though, in which case you can use fast shutter speed to make sharp still images.
> ...



Yeah except that you can accomplish several times the burst rate in a much smaller camera which can also be cheaper to produce, and without mirrors and shutters spitting oil all over your mirror box and sensors and getting worn out.


----------



## George D. (Dec 8, 2015)

Well I can't vouch the future of dSLR is a super-zoom and a killer movie mode but movie mode is indeed getting a lot of attention lately.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 8, 2015)

I've never seen how the whole "extract frames from video for stills" thing ever got to be a "thing". Sure in perfectly controlled applications it works ok when time is not of the essence (like film production). But as it's been said, if you're shooting standard FPS of 24 or 30 (film or video) then your shutter speeds are going to be 1/50th or 1/60th of a second. Great for film and video, not so great for stills. The only feasible way to get around this is to shoot slo-mo 120FPS where your shutter should be at 1/250th a second, but then you have to work around the issue in post if you didn't want slo-mo. And the video cameras that can faithfully capture at those speeds in 4k or even HD are not cheap. If you're really trying to stop fast action then 1/500th per second is more ideal and for that you need to be shooting 240FPS slo-mo (again, provided you want GOOD video/film results and not shooting exclusively to extract stills) .... ok to get those speeds, you're talking ARRI stuff at 4k or beyond at the price of a Mercedes Benz SUV. This is why a stills camera like a 1DX (which is now priced at a damn steal) at 12-14FPS and super accurate AF is still clearly the superior option (in addition to the mere seconds it takes to have a finished product out the camera and available for use)


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 8, 2015)

As for the original post. it's exciting to say the least to see this stuff spilling out of Canon at the same time. We know how tight lipped they are with models like the 1DX2, so perhaps they waited as long as they could to file the patents on what could be matured technology ready for market. PERHAPS. Not making any bets here just yet. But I suppose it wouldn't surprise me at this point.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 8, 2015)

msm said:


> Proscribo said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Nikon had the oil problem, not Canon.


----------



## msm (Dec 8, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Proscribo said:
> ...



Well maybe you missed the 1DX recall and the countless threads from people complaining about it even after getting it back from service.


----------



## George D. (Dec 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Makes sense. Let's see how this evolves though. I think we have a lot more to see.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 8, 2015)

msm said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



I guess so. I did miss that, but I sure didn't miss the D600 fiasco and Nikon's public statement setting aside $17.7 million to repair D600 units and restoring it's reputation. That was harder to miss.

Anyways, I'd be totally open to MILC if the AF matched the 1Dx. Anyone would. But shooting video and extracting stills in place of what we have now is asinine at best, that is really my only point. I have nothing against MILC.

My earlier point in another thread (not directed at you) was that Canon certainly has a ton of R&D going on and these patents simply prove that. If you can think of it, Canon already has and already has thought of things that you haven't and is already working on them. I think what is frustrating some people is the implementation of these technologies into products that they can buy.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 8, 2015)

No, you can't get an effectively higher burst rate by shooting video at 30fps and proper video shutter speed be damned.

1DX stills = 18MP RAW

4k @ 30FPS = 8.8MP compressed

1080p @ 30FPS = 2.2MP compressed

Want 120 FPS? Ok. Most cameras have to step down to 720p. That's what, like 1.5MB?

So sure, you can snag a lot more "pictures" using video mode so long as you don't care that you're generating an image that's about 50% - 90% smaller... No thanks.



bdunbar79 said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Proscribo said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

msm said:


> Yeah and as usual he has no vision past current Canon DSLRs. If they want to make a camera like this, they can easily make the firmware extract the stills for you automatically so you can extract the stills and upload them just as you would single images. That is just a question of a suitable storage format, a little processing power and trivial software implementation.



Yeah and as usual you fail to consider practical realities. It's so trivial it's been done with 1080p and 4K already, right? More importantly, as usual you ignore the reality of business. Even if it's trivial to do from a technical standpoint, it's not worth doing if there's no consumer demand. You can use the current implementation and extensive availability of on-board still frame extraction from 1080p and 4K video to gauge that demand.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

George D. said:


> Makes sense. Let's see how this evolves though. I think we have a lot more to see.



Five years ago, Canon said you'd see it...in 2030. 

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/06/canon-wonder-camera-concept-promises-single-lens-perfection-vid/


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 8, 2015)

George D. said:


> @stu_bert: No, I mean this http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3071034479/panasonic-to-restart-development-of-image-sensors-to-fast-track-8k-video?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
> 
> Not Lumix of course but dSLR. Mind 4K is now coming on dSLR.



You asked if Canon was developing 8k video, that was the link I provided


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 8, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> As for the original post. it's exciting to say the least to see this stuff spilling out of Canon at the same time. We know how tight lipped they are with models like the 1DX2, so perhaps they waited as long as they could to file the patents on what could be matured technology ready for market. PERHAPS. Not making any bets here just yet. But I suppose it wouldn't surprise me at this point.



Looks like the dual gain amps which I think are in one of those patents are being shown along with the 250MP APS-H sensor in Jan - look at a news article for 6th Dec at the other Canon rumour site (CW)...

I think along with Maeda's comments about agreeing to the cost for onchip ADC, means maybe 2016 will see some more significant changes in Canon's sensor tech.

I agree with your comments - Canon often waits for the tech to mature and achieve a level of reliability for them (in terms of perfecting new manufacturing techniques), along with the combination of sweating their existing manufacturing assets and deciding when they need to change their sensor tech. Canon has always been good at deciding when it needs to make changes, and I would guess it made that choice shortly after the 1DX etc were released based on how long I think significant changes take (maybe longer).

I'm still just curious as to why the 5Ds was released "early" (ie without these changes), unless Canon was using it to test the market (their user base, not the wider user base) or just that it wasn't ready? Perhaps the cinema video market is also different, hence again not such a burning need.

I know people like to discuss the tech a lot here, but in addition I would love to know how Canon gets such good information about their user base. Sure they're not perfect, but they do seem to have a good finger on the pulse.


----------



## George D. (Dec 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > Makes sense. Let's see how this evolves though. I think we have a lot more to see.
> ...



The exact article I said I can't vouch on it. Keep in mind Canon sometimes goes with the flow. If in late '80s you were telling me Autofocus would be the norm I'd say it's not going to happen. So let's see what others are also doing (with 8K).


----------



## msm (Dec 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah and as usual he has no vision past current Canon DSLRs. If they want to make a camera like this, they can easily make the firmware extract the stills for you automatically so you can extract the stills and upload them just as you would single images. That is just a question of a suitable storage format, a little processing power and trivial software implementation.
> ...



Maybe you should get reading glasses, the part that is trivial is the software implementation of a solution to your imaginary problem you just invented above.

I have already mentioned some challenges which must be overcome before the video solution can be implemented like mentioned above, in addition you would need competitive AF and required processing power. But then again if someone would go that direction another advantage is that they can generate live view, autofocus data and images from the same data stream, no viewfinder blackout whatsoever. Such a camera could even store images of the last second continously in a ring buffer so that the photographer could record 1s from the past if he missed something.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Maybe you should throw away your rose-colored specs. Could have been done with 1080p. Hasn't been. Could have been done with 4K. Hasn't been. But it's coming for 8K? Right. :


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2015)

Good to see nothing ever changes around here... :


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> Good to see nothing ever changes around here... :



Hey Jon, good to see you still visit to observe that nothing changes; it's the funny pages in a different format - luv it. Like a microcosm of the world and very entertaining.  So how are the starry skies these days?

Jack


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> Good to see nothing ever changes around here... :



Every comic strip needs a few static characters to contrast with the more vital ones, for example the father in Calvin and Hobbes, or J.J. in Doonesbury...or all the characters in Peanuts.


----------



## DCP (Dec 9, 2015)

MrToes said:


> What if Canon catch's up in the sensor tech war. Then the competition comes out with something even better than the "New Canon Sensors" a week or month later? :'(
> 
> It's going to be a never ending sensor tech war until a real new quantum phase light sensor comes out!



Every industry goes through this, cars, car tires, skis, boats, bicycles, motorcycles, running shoes, stereo equipment, and surely cameras. Products evolve. As long as the consumer demands better, as long as egos are involved at the big corporate level we will get better products and not just a new paint job. We win. So let the 4 eyed geeky buggers at Canon and Nikon and Sony duke it out. Because we end up getting a better product every time a new version is released. Keep telling the companies directly they need this feature or that function to be better in the next camera, that is what keeps it all going forward for us the consumer.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Good to see nothing ever changes around here... :
> ...



You would think at some point people would stop trying to convince each other of things they cannot be convinced of.

Anyway, stars:







VDB 27 and friends.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 9, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Good to see nothing ever changes around here... :
> ...



Except this isnt supposed to be a soap opera or comic strip , and the useful comments & discussions get buried in the drama :

Nice picture Jon


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> You would think at some point people would stop trying to convince each other of things they cannot be convinced of.


I still have a (possibly unfounded) hope that we can achieve mutual understanding, even if we don't convince each other.



> Anyway, stars:



Very nice picture.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You would think at some point people would stop trying to convince each other of things they cannot be convinced of.
> ...



Diversity of views and perspectives and tolerance is a positive even when it seems a pain and it's entertaining as is seeing photos of the starry skies and other wonders. Life is good. Lightheartedness is a medicine and CR serves a very useful purpose overall! 

Jack


----------



## sanj (Dec 9, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


----------



## sanj (Dec 9, 2015)

CanonGuy said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



"Canon Guy" no more?


----------



## sanj (Dec 9, 2015)

FreshPicsUK said:


> I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why.
> 
> I've spent the last two years shooting with a pair of 5D3's and more recently, a 6D and before that 5D2's and before that it was 5D Mark 1's. I had a complete collection of L series lenses (15mm fisheye, 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II, 85 1.2 II, 24-35-50mm sigma ART's, 600EXRT's-Basically a wedding, commercial or landscape photographers standard setup).
> 
> ...



You are not the only professional who has left Canon. I know of 4 others I can think of immediately. I personally love the 1dc to think otherwise.. Wait maybe a light Sony for travel. Lets see.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> FreshPicsUK said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why.
> ...



Canon, Sony, Nikon et al all offer different abilities within their systems. Since cameras came out people have swapped brands, had multiple brands and multiple format kits, it is nothing new. People hone down their abilities and preferences and realise what they have is not best for them. 

There are many high profile users switching from Nikon to Canon, and some switching the other way, and some that are dropping both and going to Sony, I know one Nikon and two Canon shooters that have gone to Sony in the last six months, one Canon shooter switched back to Canon, so what.

Generalisations are difficult because they are, well, generalisations, but Sony make the best sensors and most limited AF and lens selections, if you shoot difficult lighting situations without the need for exotic lenses then Sony have a very compelling system. Canon and Nikon have 'better AF and lens selections, Canon's lens selection is unmatched and if you want the broadest range of exotic lenses and effortless radio flash then Canon wins, easily, but you really need to push that envelop a little, the 85 f1.2 on a 5DSR in a studio lighting environment is a thing of beauty that truthfully pushes to the boundaries of medium format IQ for a fraction of the price. Nikon fall some way between the two. 

There is no stand out must have system that beats all others, the better photographers we become the more nuanced our gear choices, 35 f1.4L or 35 f2 IS for example (neither of which have a direct equal in any other system!). If Nikon, Sony or Canon serves you better then go for it. But there are people doing your job just as well with another brand because that suits them, personally, better.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2015)

privatebydesign, kind of intuitively obvious and that would end the discussion but people like to keep these discussions going for some reason. 

Jack


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > FreshPicsUK said:
> ...



Good thinking privatebydesign.

I'm no hurry selling my Canon primes. The lenses will likely to be passed on to two grandsons.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Visited your site, good works. Your 5D III is not a proper choice for this type of photography.


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You would think at some point people would stop trying to convince each other of things they cannot be convinced of.
> ...



So long as everyone roams around these forums insulting everyone else, mutual understanding is never going to happen. I don't post much here because the inevitable result of voicing one's opinions here is that you get insulted. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, whether you are pro canon or pro exmor or diversified in your opinions or anything like that...the only constant is that these are some of the most hostile forums in the photography world. If you hope for mutual understanding....well, I'd call that a misplaced hope, at best. 



Orangutan said:


> Very nice picture.



Thanks.


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2015)

Mr1Dx said:


> Visited your site, good works. Your 5D III is not a proper choice for this type of photography.



Um, no. It's a horrible camera for astrophotography. It's excessively noisy, particularly during summer (dark current becomes the primary noise contributor, and my 5D III cranks out 8-10 electrons per second per pixel...and I used 10-11 minute subs on the image I shared!) However I will state this. I have quite thoroughly conquered my 5D III for this purpose, and I have no qualms about stating I get some of the best results around with a Canon DSLR. I even get better results than some of the long-standing DSLR greats who have been doing this for as much as a decade or more.

I have been working on getting a monochrome CCD camera, but those things are just NOT cheap. Especially if you want something with a sensor as large as the 5D III sensor. The camera I want is usually $11,000. That's just the camera, you still need a filter wheel (about $2000-$2500). You also need filters. For larger filters, they cost about $1200 for a set of LRGB and about $1300 PER narrow band filter...and I'd need at least three (Ha, SII, and OIII). To handle such a camera, which weighs a good deal, you need scopes and focusers that are capable of handling that kind of load. A focuser that can handle it costs about $2200-$2400 (FeatherTouch). The cheapest scope that can handle it costs about $6000, minus the necessary accessories to get it properly flattened or reduced, and all the various mounting accessories. That brings the cost up by nearly another $5000. 

That's a total cost of $31,650 or more to put together a 36x24mm or larger mono CCD imager and a scope that can handle it. Given that, I think I am WELL ahead of the curve with what I've been able to produce with my woefully inadequate 5D III and a Canon lens.  (And I really do agree, it is a WOEFULLY inadequate camera for astrophotography...but I'm not about to let that stop me.)


----------



## scyrene (Dec 10, 2015)

jrista said:


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



Well I've posted over 800 times and never been insulted. Mind you, I don't recall ever insulting anyone else either.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 10, 2015)

scyrene said:


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


----------



## jrista (Dec 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


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



Everyone was the wrong term. The people I'm talking about know who they are, I don't need to call them out.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 11, 2015)

jrista said:


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



Lol ok. I know  Incidentally, I have a few questions about astrophotography, but this is not the place. Your work is very good.


----------



## sanj (Dec 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > FreshPicsUK said:
> ...



In agreement.


----------



## weixing (Dec 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> Mr1Dx said:
> 
> 
> > Visited your site, good works. Your 5D III is not a proper choice for this type of photography.
> ...


Hi,
This is what my friend do to his Canon 5D2(2 stage peltier and liquid cooling) when he want to get the most of it for Astrophotography:
http://www.singastro.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12236

Have a nice day.


----------



## jrista (Dec 11, 2015)

I actually have a similar project going on to build a cooler for my DSLRs. I've got most of the parts, however I am building a more specific design that I can actually bolt into the tripod thread on the bottom of the camera. That is actually the only metal contact to the inside of the camera body, and I would like to be able to add and remove the cooler without having to disassemble it. I am working on a cold plate design that will have a set of gears, one soldered to the mounting screw, that can be controlled from the outside edge of the cold plate. To get that working properly, I need to have the cold plate custom machined, and I need to get the right gears to make it work properly. I'll also need to find the best way to solder a cap on top of the machined cold plate without losing the heat transfer efficiency of copper. Anyway, coolers like that are common in the astro world.  Mine just ended up being a bit overly ambitious, and I haven't had much time to work on it. I plan to have it ready by the end of next spring, though. 

You can only cool so much with a DSLR though. Cool too much, and you'll get condensation on the sensor, which aside from ruining the sub exposure, can fry the electronics too.


----------



## weixing (Dec 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> I actually have a similar project going on to build a cooler for my DSLRs. I've got most of the parts, however I am building a more specific design that I can actually bolt into the tripod thread on the bottom of the camera. That is actually the only metal contact to the inside of the camera body, and I would like to be able to add and remove the cooler without having to disassemble it. I am working on a cold plate design that will have a set of gears, one soldered to the mounting screw, that can be controlled from the outside edge of the cold plate. To get that working properly, I need to have the cold plate custom machined, and I need to get the right gears to make it work properly. I'll also need to find the best way to solder a cap on top of the machined cold plate without losing the heat transfer efficiency of copper. Anyway, coolers like that are common in the astro world.  Mine just ended up being a bit overly ambitious, and I haven't had much time to work on it. I plan to have it ready by the end of next spring, though.
> 
> You can only cool so much with a DSLR though. Cool too much, and you'll get condensation on the sensor, which aside from ruining the sub exposure, can fry the electronics too.


Hi,
May be you can explore what my friend did for his 450D (he mod many of his Canon DSLR)... he recirculated air using an aquarium pump and remove the moisture by pumping the air through a housing full of silica: http://www.singastro.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10936

Have a nice day.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 11, 2015)

jrista said:


> I actually have a similar project going on to build a cooler for my DSLRs. I've got most of the parts, however I am building a more specific design that I can actually bolt into the tripod thread on the bottom of the camera. That is actually the only metal contact to the inside of the camera body, and I would like to be able to add and remove the cooler without having to disassemble it. I am working on a cold plate design that will have a set of gears, one soldered to the mounting screw, that can be controlled from the outside edge of the cold plate. To get that working properly, I need to have the cold plate custom machined, and I need to get the right gears to make it work properly. I'll also need to find the best way to solder a cap on top of the machined cold plate without losing the heat transfer efficiency of copper. Anyway, coolers like that are common in the astro world.  Mine just ended up being a bit overly ambitious, and I haven't had much time to work on it. I plan to have it ready by the end of next spring, though.
> 
> You can only cool so much with a DSLR though. Cool too much, and you'll get condensation on the sensor, which aside from ruining the sub exposure, can fry the electronics too.



Hey Jon,

You probably recall some of my fabrication shots. Too bad I'm not closer to you. Fun isn't it. My only caution is don't get old while these projects get put on hold!  In this regard I'm an expert, believe me, and then at some point one's assumed health doesn't always go the way one would wish. I still have maybe 15 classic cars to restore, yeah, sure - LOL.

I admire your tenacity, energy and dedication. 

Jack


----------

