# Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 28, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/two-new-full-frame-cameras-in-2014-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/two-new-full-frame-cameras-in-2014-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Two new full frame cameras coming?

</strong>We <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">see talk of two new full frame cameras</a> coming in 2014 with availability in the early part of 2015. It’s mentioned that the EOS 5D Mark III would move up the spec ladder once again, but wouldn’t be the camera for “total image quality”. That would be saved for studio based EOS-1 body that is coming next year.</p>
<p>There is no chance of an EOS-3D according to this report. Although medium format is “still an option”. This information apparently comes from a higher end dealer presentation that occurred in Japan.</p>
<p>This is the first mention we’ve seen for an EOS 5D Mark IV. If two new full frame cameras are on the horizon and one is an EOS-1DXs type of body, what could the other one be? I’m willing to wager the EOS 6D won’t be replaced before the EOS 5D Mark III or EOS-1D X.</p>
<p>I assume he above report doesn’t consider the Cinema EOS branded EOS-1D C as one of the “full frame” cameras.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Fleetie (Nov 28, 2013)

Why don't you think "the other one" will be the 5D Mk IV that you mentioned?


----------



## Viggo (Nov 28, 2013)

Eos M Fullframe ?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 28, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Eos M Fullframe ?



If it does materialize, I guess AvTvM will be happy ... but then, maybe not because it will be made by Canon


----------



## J.R. (Nov 28, 2013)

Two new FF in 2014 ... *Availability* in 2015? so basically only announcements for two FF in 2014 

I guess we'll have the "Canon is *******" trolls having a field day


----------



## M.ST (Nov 28, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Vikmnilu (Nov 28, 2013)

Well, I'll take this cautiously... does not affect us after all... YET. At least me, I am still holding to a EOS 5D mark II and if I get a grant or project (I am a researcher who just got his PhD) I will upgrade to 5D III or a APS-C second body.

If the "entry level" EOS 6D was about 2000 euros at launch, I dont know what these cameras will cost.... Prepare your wallets! ;D

Cheers from Finland!

Victor


----------



## pedro (Nov 28, 2013)

Well, it will be intresting how the 5DIV turns out spec wise. My 5D3 does very well so far. But I would be glad to see some nice improvement in high ISO IQ beyond 25k. Then I would gladly look forward to an eventually much more improved 5DV in about 5 years from now.

*OR: if the 5DIV moves further up the specs ladder, could this mean: *
1DXs US$ 8.5k
1 Dx US$ 7 k
*5DIV (at the price of 1DIV) US $ 4.5k *
6DII (revamped, new 5D3ish cam?) US $3.5k
xD Full frame Rebel? US$ 1.9k

Time will tell


----------



## Woody (Nov 28, 2013)

I am 90% certain one of the FF cameras is for film.

PS: This is a NL rumor, so take it with a huge grain of salt.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 28, 2013)

M.ST said:


> But if I look on the camera market it is possible that we will see a mirrorless FF camera or a new video FF DSLR with CFast card slots in 2014.



a canon manager just said there is no mirrorless FF or retro camera planed.

so no.. a FF mirrorless is very unlikely in 2014.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 28, 2013)

At this point, I'm completely satisfied with the MK3. What I'd like is some new lenses.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Nov 28, 2013)

Vikmnilu said:


> Prepare your wallets!



Isn't that the truth.

I certainly don't really follow the 'bleeding edge' of the camera curve, with the possible distant exception of mirrorless - I am intrigued why we still have mirrors, at it would appear the those days are numbered - perhaps a larger number than I would like but numbered none the less.

I am hoping for a highly competent "M2" either FF or APC If one thinks of the camera body as the sensor,cpu,battery, human interface to the glass tube called a lens... why does it have to be sooo big and shaped the way it is? Why can't small work? why not shape it like a reversed "L" with the controls extending similar to a video camera??? (tradition & convention I got that but...)

Hold your hands up to your face and mime short lenses and long ones (when I do it I find myself instinctively tilting my head so that my right arm is braced against my body -i.e. pre I.S. oooff I am old) and see what is truly comfortable and relaxed.

left hand under the lens, right hand???? switches around a bit depending on the available real estate.

Just things to ponder -


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2013)

To get me upgrade to 5D Mark IV, Canon needs to have these:

1. One full stop better in high ISO
2. 8-10 fps (even when the battery at 3/4 or half left)
3. Tries not to sell @ $4000 from beginning, then, drops to $2500 few months later


----------



## Zv (Nov 28, 2013)

The 5D3 will be 2 years old next March, which isn't that far away. We can likely assume that there will be at least an announcement of a 5D4 later on in 2014, can we not? Isn't that one of the full frames? The other would be the high megapixel studio beast 1DXs. 

3 years does seem kinda short for the 5D line to be upgraded though. 2 years seems very unlikely so I think we can rule out a 5D4 coming next year! 

Could there be something FF that we haven't seen before? What could that be? I just want this year to end so I can find out already! ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 28, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> To get me upgrade to 5D Mark IV, Canon needs to have these:
> 
> 1. One full stop better in high ISO
> 2. 8-10 fps (even when the battery at 3/4 or half left)
> 3. Tries not to sell @ $4000 from beginning, then, drops to $2500 few months later



That last point was completely avoidable, If you bought from BVI.


----------



## dolina (Nov 28, 2013)

Looking forward to this. I hope they slot above the 5D Mark III. Looking forward to unload my two 7D and 5D Mark II.


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 28, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/two-new-full-frame-cameras-in-2014-cr1/\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/two-new-full-frame-cameras-in-2014-cr1/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>Two new full frame cameras coming?
> 
> 
> ...



The new high-MP 1D body and a 5DIV actually make for 2 new FF bodies. Did I miss something?

The 5D3 is from March 2012, a replacement in early 2015 is in line with the usual 3-year lifespan.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 28, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > There is no medium format camera from Canon out for testing. Maybe not in development until today.
> ...



he is the CR oracle.. no real facts just misty bits of information. 
and like all good oracles 50% of his predictions have some truth in it.

it´s like good guessing.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > To get me upgrade to 5D Mark IV, Canon needs to have these:
> ...



;D


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 28, 2013)

I just need my 50mm F1.8 IS. Please!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 28, 2013)

congrats on the PhD- a great accomplishment.

sek


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 28, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> two new full frame cameras coming in 2014 with availability in the early part of 2015.


EXCITING!


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 28, 2013)

I am with you on this Dylan. I am just trying landscape photog this week so I can see what many are saying about more DR (please no flame wars, but I do now see the point). Having used the camera almost since it came out, I am still trying to master it. Hopefully by the time the IV comes out, I will have done so. So my addition/question to you post is, beyond what we agree on, what else might be on the horizon that could make the IV great, that we didn't think of? Hmmmm?

sek



Dylan777 said:


> To get me upgrade to 5D Mark IV, Canon needs to have these:
> 
> 1. One full stop better in high ISO
> 2. 8-10 fps (even when the battery at 3/4 or half left)
> 3. Tries not to sell @ $4000 from beginning, then, drops to $2500 few months later


----------



## J.R. (Nov 28, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> At this point, I'm completely satisfied with the MK3. What I'd like is some new lenses.



+1 ... Same here.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 28, 2013)

What is BVI?



RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > To get me upgrade to 5D Mark IV, Canon needs to have these:
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Eos M Fullframe ?
> ...



oh yes, I would be very happy to see an EOS M with FF sensor from Canon any time soon. 
As a matter of fact I am not anti Canon. I just criticize them for not being more innovative and not giving us better products today rather than just dishing out improvements only in ever so small increments, each of which costs a couple grant. 

After all, I do prefer the Canon EOS user interface over anything else I've tried so far from other manufacturers. It is really well done - physical layout, hardware control elements and menu system. 
Wow, I guess I am a little too gentle with Canon today. ;D

Now an EOS M ... hell yes, if it has all the good from the 6D [WiFi, GPS, more sensitive central AF field] AND everything good from the 5D III [AF-performance, fps] AND a 36 MP sensor AND 14 EV DR AND 1 EV better ISO 3200 than 5D II ... ah yes, and please totally silent operation - ideally with purely electronic global shutter and X-Sync down to 1/1000s AND not larger than Sony A7R ... AND not more expensive. hehe! ;D


----------



## J.R. (Nov 28, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> What is BVI?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I initially thought why the heck "British Virgin Islands" ??? but then it struck me ... BigValueInc


----------



## RAWShooter126 (Nov 28, 2013)

Cinema FF in the mid price range (5Dc) would be nice. New 1D model is very likely. But I feel like Canon is sort of the Apple of the photog industry where it continuously pushes new technology, instead of developing around the old ones. Would like to see some epic glass come out so I'm not tempted to jump ship as I think Nikon is slightly better in that department.
I would like to see a FF with some more Dynamic range. Don't care for too many more megapixels because I think 22 on my 5D3 is enough. Low light on the 5D3 isn't bad really, even at 6,400 in my opinion, but I highly doubt I would upgrade at all for the next 3 yeas or so, which a 1D would be my most likely target, if I don't end up with a "D4s" or something, if the green screen tint issue in the D4 is no longer present.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 28, 2013)

Woody said:


> ...This is a NL rumor, so take it with a huge grain of salt.



Yes, and it's kind of garbled too.

Break it down: 

_*The 5D IV will push toward higher specs.*_ No Sh*t Sherlock. Did you think it would push toward lower specs? No information on when this would be released. Could be 2015, could be 2016, who knows. Just a random statement tossed in there.

*Canon's new studio camera will be the one to maximize image quality *Again, let's state the obvious. If it's a studio camera it better maximize image quality, else why make it?

*There will be no 3D* Of course not, Canon will never use the 3D designation unless they build a stereo camera. Too confusing.

*By early 2015 there will be four full frame cameras* Let's see: a 6D, a 5D, a 1Dx and a studio camera. Yep, that's four.

*Two of which will be announced next year *Okay, if they have three cameras now. They aren't replacing any of the three, but adding a fourth, where does the "two" come from. Either somebody is bad with math or one of the three could be updated. But which one?

*My suspicion is that the 6D won't be updated for awhile *says Keith

*I’m willing to wager the EOS 6D won’t be replaced before the EOS 5D Mark III or EOS-1D X. *says Craig

First off, neither Keith nor Craig are particularly good at predictions. No assessment of their ability to extract information from inside sources – there is a big difference. Craig has the best sources in the industry, and once a rumor hits CR2 or CR3 he's almost never wrong. I'm just saying that when it comes to personal opinions/predictions, the batting average doesn't seem to be any better than anyone else on this forum.

So, let's discount the idea that the 6D won't be replaced before the 5D or the 1D and put them all on equal footing. 

Me, I'd bet on the 6D being updated first. There is a lot of headroom between the 6D and the 5D so Canon could throw a 70D/7D autofocus system into the 6D II without seriously impacting sales of the 5D or 1D. The 6D also seems like a prime candidate for the current dual pixel technology. I don't see 5D or 1D owners particularly caring about that until it shows some significant benefits beyond what it offers in the 70D. 

The 1Dx is the oldest in the lineup, so it could be updated, but neither Canon nor Nikon like to update the flagship too frequently because the professional customer base just isn't that into frequent upgrades. Still, a late 2014 announcement with availability in 2015 is certainly possible.

Or, it could be the 5DIII. The only reason to update the 5DIII would be because I just bought one, so with my track record, it could get an update. But, honestly, I'm pretty hard pressed to see what they would update that would motivate buyers to upgrade. Especially since the current 5DIII has been a pretty phenomenal seller.

Bottom line, I'd be surprised to see any of these three updated, but my personal bet is the 6D.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 28, 2013)

I think that the dual pixel technology will make its way into full frame. Obviously, Canon is putting a lot of effort into the technology, and it might even make the mirror go away sooner than I think its possible.

Getting rid of the mirror and pentaprism is going to reduce manufacturing costs. Canon has already stated that Cameras will be robotically assembled by 2014, so it makes sense to design a simpler camera as soon as its possible.


----------



## keithcooper (Nov 28, 2013)

"...This is a NL rumor, so take it with a huge grain of salt."

Yes I do too too, sorry I didn't point this out, but I generally assume that anything more than 3 months out gets what here would be an automatic CR1 rating.

Much like Craig I get a lot of (very) obvious rubbish sent (like the detailed list of 14 EF, EF-s and EF-m lenses for 2014 last week) but sometimes it sounds more plausible than others (YMMV)


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 28, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> If two new full frame cameras are on the horizon and one is an EOS-1DXs type of body, what could the other one be? I’m willing to wager the EOS 6D won’t be replaced before the EOS 5D Mark III or EOS-1D X.



I'd bet on the same side - what do you think?

POLL: 6D2 or 5D4 in 2014?: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18330.0


----------



## Rick (Nov 28, 2013)

Why does a "studio" camera need to be large and heavy? To impress the customers? Weatherproofing? I don't think it'll be raining in the studio.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 28, 2013)

my bet is that the 6d will get it's II marker before we see a 5dIV. It's the entry level model after all, and they can do some very minor tweaks which will improve the camera without interfering with higher level models (5d3 and 1dx). 

6d upgrade - 

up the frame rate slightly, add the cf card slot, add a sync port...done....that still leaves room for improving (up the sync speed, add a few Xpoints, etc etc...)

edit --- with that said, I could see them announce a 5d14 in 2014! Announce is not release though - if they announce it it won't be released for a while --- they could announce the mk4 in 2014 but release it 2015, then turn around and announce the 6d2 and release it very shortly after (like they do with XXD and XXXD models) (still seems like a really short lifespan for the mk3 though).


----------



## Chimay (Nov 28, 2013)

Canon will obviously have to respond to the competition (Nikon D800, Sony A7R) and put out a high-end / pro-level camera with more resolution. A new 1 series and a new 5 series are the most obvious answers for that. It doesn't take an oracle to figure out that pretty much any FF camera in the pipeline now will have more pixels than the current line up (as well as, hopefully, better IQ, dynamic range, etc.). 

Yes, I know that every time this gets mentioned, there are inevitably people out there who chime in with remarks about how 23mpix is plenty, and how it's not about the pixels, etc. And for those people, that's probably true. But if you are a landscape or architectural photographer - or even if you just like to crop your photos a lot - then you probably want higher resolution and more pixels. 

Speaking as an architectural photographer, I can tell you that the ideal tool for my job is a medium format technical camera with a digital back and lenses with no barrel or pin distortion, that I can shift to maintain perspective control and stitch multiple frames together. But they are cumbersome and extremely expensive, so I'm always looking for the best DSLR that gets closest to that ideal. For me, 23mpix barely cuts it. 36 or higher would be welcome.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 28, 2013)

Well, the big MP camera is the first obvious camera. But I thought the new 5D would come out in late 2014. Hmm..

I think the 6D is going to be refreshed then. It may be the FF equivalent of the Rebel. A refresh every year or so...


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> up the frame rate slightly, add the cf card slot, add a sync port...done....that still leaves room for improving (up the sync speed, add a few Xpoints, etc etc...)



Not sure why they would bother adding a CF slot. SD cards are comparable in maximum speed, and typically lead capacity-wise (256 GB SD cards were available for an entire year before anyone announced a comparable CF card). SD cards also take up less space in your camera bag, and have the advantage of being compatible with readers that are built into most laptops, whereas CF cards aren't.

Two slots of the same type are much more user-friendly than two different slot types, because you don't have to carry around cards of two different types. And given that SD is ahead of CF and is likely to continue pulling ahead (because CF-based devices are basically lost in the noise as a percentage of cameras sold), I'd much rather see them do dual SD cards that can be used either in alternation (which would increase your shots per second or ensure that your buffer never gets full or both) or in combination (as a backup) at the user's option.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > up the frame rate slightly, add the cf card slot, add a sync port...done....that still leaves room for improving (up the sync speed, add a few Xpoints, etc etc...)
> ...


I would hope to start seeing CFast card slots in the cameras. They are supposed to support transfer rates of 1GByte/sec and storage capacities of 2TBytes


----------



## traveller (Nov 28, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > ...This is a NL rumor, so take it with a huge grain of salt.
> ...



You're assuming that a second full frame DSLR won't be something totally new, like some cr*ppy Nikon Df me-too ;D


----------



## klickflip (Nov 29, 2013)

Depressing news for people that would like to see a high MP studio camera sooner (like myself) 

It really is shocking that Canon will prob take 3 years to announce a high MP D800 equivalent, since the D800 was outed/released, or 4 years to actual release - Q1/2 2015.
Which probably means that the D800 was in Dev for 2 years before Feb 2012. Or another way to look at it is canon is 5 years behind Nikon / sony tech. And for sure they will not be sitting on their current tech gleeing for 5 years which it what it seems since the success of the 5D mkII. 

What will Nikon / Sony be offering in 2015, Sony doing a mirrorless Medium format / larger sensor with Zeiss lenses at a half the cost of anything comparable? Imagine a larger A7r for $5-6K and lenses 1.5K a pop, bargain of the century which will kill the 1D xS DOA!! 

Or Fuji stepping back into pro MF which they do so well - they designed and made the hasselblad HD platform and lenses and now they have some nice sensor tech too, plus they have a brilliant heritage in large Rangefinders, so a larger format x-pro like the old 67 and 69 ones in late 2015 could happen also.

What in the hell happened to the ones they were meant to be testing at the 2012 olympics??? My bet is that it was a higher MP sensor but the same IQ which they are struggling with. 
And the statement from 2012 I remember from a Canon exec that said if the market wanted a higher MP camera they could deliver that tomorrow ... !

I for one will probably be getting a Sony A7r to fill the gap and if it and the zeiss lenses are any good. Will be hiring one soon to test it out, and more amazing all for a very reasonable cost you can get a decent camera with excellent sensor and a couple of decent primes. 

I'm still slightly bemused by the 1D form, as weather sealing will be low on many's list - Studios?! landscape/ outdoor advertising photogs maybe but most will be used to setting up hides / gazebos to wait out the weather to get the shot.

A chunkier 5Dish or mini 1D would be nice, I never use anywhere near 1 battery's capacity on a busy shoot ( event and wedding and sports guys may eat a lot more tho) 

What I do feel is it will be a way to make more profit, as Canon do know a lot of people are waiting such a camera. So charging premium will help, but they must have done the maths as a 5Dish body with a high MP sensor would be more accessable and sell more units. But say a 1D form body would make $3K profit and a 5Dish body may make $500 per unit. 

It had better be one hell of a camera to justify a $7-9K price tag. We will be looking for sensor quality much beyond a D800 - more like Phase One P45 or IQ40 or HD5 50, and if they keep the flash sync to 160/200( needs to be 320+ at least) it will loose some appeal from people that use location flash units, which would be a big group of users in my eyes, that will be also eyeing up MFDB options by now.

As a general pro camera I think they got the 5D III right (a better sensor would have been nicer) Its lovely to use, quick enough for most circumstances even sports and with a decent set of L's (primes for me ) its a great combo. 
So I'm not sure what upgrades they can do - maybe a 24MP sensor better IQ, wider AF coverage, little bit more FPS? Dual pixel looks very good for video.. which I hardly every use and many in this position too. Could Dual pixel AF be made to work with translucent mirror and get much more instant and accurate focus on any lens ( from copy to copy)? Now that would be interesting, and maybe useable Wifi that can cope with raw files. 

I guess alot of video guys would love dual pixel AF on a 5D, so that may get released sooner than we think. 

If it wasnt for my love of the L Primes i'd be outa here a long time ago!! Arghhh.


----------



## Zv (Nov 29, 2013)

klickflip said:


> Depressing news for people that would like to see a high MP studio camera sooner (like myself)
> 
> It really is shocking that Canon will prob take 3 years to announce a high MP D800 equivalent, since the D800 was outed/released, or 4 years to actual release - Q1/2 2015.
> Which probably means that the D800 was in Dev for 2 years before Feb 2012. Or another way to look at it is canon is 5 years behind Nikon / sony tech. And for sure they will not be sitting on their current tech gleeing for 5 years which it what it seems since the success of the 5D mkII.
> ...



Maybe Canon realized there weren't enough people out there that needed a 40MP camera three years ago so waited it out? Even now there are very few DSLRs over 30MP. Look at the infrastructure - lenses aren't quite up to scratch yet, Canon are working on that first. Then there's memory, we are only now seeing CFast cards appearing. And then there's processing power. Three years ago most folk had about 4Gb RAM average on their MBP or whatever and were using Lightroom 3 or older. And then there's screen resolution. What are you gonna view that giant file on? 4K screen? Do you have one yet? 

Maybe next year we will have all these things in place, right on schedule for a high MP body release. Nikon went and released something with high MP early without good glass. All you'll get is mush and a slow ass computer to look at your mush. 

Patience young grasshopper, the real deal is coming!


----------



## klickflip (Nov 29, 2013)

Zv said:


> Maybe Canon realized there weren't enough people out there that needed a 40MP camera three years ago so waited it out? Even now there are very few DSLRs over 30MP. Look at the infrastructure - lenses aren't quite up to scratch yet, Canon are working on that first. Then there's memory, we are only now seeing CFast cards appearing. And then there's processing power. Three years ago most folk had about 4Gb RAM average on their MBP or whatever and were using Lightroom 3 or older. And then there's screen resolution. What are you gonna view that giant file on? 4K screen? Do you have one yet?
> 
> Maybe next year we will have all these things in place, right on schedule for a high MP body release. Nikon went and released something with high MP early without good glass. All you'll get is mush and a slow ass computer to look at your mush.
> 
> Patience young grasshopper, the real deal is coming!


 
I like your reasoning Zv! You are right in many ways, maybe entirely in the view of the average enthusiast/ event/ wedding/ social portrait photographer, and that may have been Canons take on it too.. 

i do completely agree that Canon are doing the right thing with updating the lenses first, this will always be the weakness. But I do think they are being slow at this too, to mask / work with the slow dev of the camera. look how fast Sigma are working at the moment.. they're on fire ( I love my 35 1.4!) 

One thing too, its as much about the IQ as it is about the MP. Canon files break up soo easily when you push them a bit, I've tested D800 files side by side and its breathtaking how much you can push n pull them - as much as 16 bit MFDB files of which I have a lot of experience retouching with, no banding no shadow noise and breaking up. 
Now some say if you expose correctly, yes I do for the most part but I like to give my work distinct looks and colour tonal shifts that easily begins to push a 5D III file. 

I guess in an average city there are prob 500 proper pros that mainly do weddings , events, social that the 5D III is perfect for. For some reason many wedding guys use Nikon while in the Advertising & high end corporate nearly everyone in UK uses Canon(alongside Hasselblads and Phase one but everyone I speak to would love a high MP 5D III for the useability), but then again there are prob only 50 of these guys out of the 500 - and these are the main market for such a camera.
And how many (rich) photo students, colleges and enthusiasts in each city may buy one? 
Say thats 100 in every decent city in the world will buy one.. and in big in cities like London, NY, LA, Tokyo, Paris etc it may be 10,000s how many would that be ..so an average of 150 per city say? 

By my guestimations there are 2500 cities with decent population- Now that would be 150x2500 which would be a potential market of 375,000, and in 3years double that because computers and screens will have caught up hi-res will be the norm. 
I believe they have the market waiting, but if they wait too long more options like the Sony will come along and people will crack. And if what I was saying is right that Sony & Nikon are not sleeping they are developing the next generation now whilst canon is developing the current generation at the same time.. Its always going to be a leap frog game but this could cost canon the hi-end pro market in the long run. 

I think canon have done the maths and rekon that making a 5D type version, considering how perfect the 5D III is for the average pro and enthusiast. They will not sell more than 3 or 4 times the 1D version, but the 1D version can net 4times the profit easily. 

Sidestepping slightly - how many Nikonians said in the past that they don't need the pixel size and now own a D800, but this may be different because of the price point , where they bought it because it was a long awaited logical affordable upgrade I see a lot of students and tourists with D800s btw, as I do with 5D IIIs

The 1DxS is long awaited, but not necessary a logical and definitely not affordable to the masses upgrade.

And the computer / monitor argument is valid, in a mirror to the Canon high MP scenario i've been waiting on the new Mac Pro for 2 years! As have many more video editors, and many have switched to PC's in the meantime and found them very cost effective compared to a Mac, but a Mac is a Mac and it runs better / nicer to use - which is similar to how I see a Canon functioning over a Nikon in ease and ergonomics. 

As for monitors thats not quite relevant as much,( once we get 4K screens into the norm everything will look great tho) I retouch a lot of my images and combine different elements and passes, so work at 100- 200% zoomed in anyway. But more often thesedays I get client's wanting to use an image in multiple formats ( to get more usage from the shoot) So one image may be used on super wide thin crop , plus be cropped for a bus shelter or vertical banner display. 
Yes thats why many use 50MP medium format cameras, but they are not half as nice to use with irritatingly slow AF. 
Thats why i'm so keen for Canon to bring out one soon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 29, 2013)

unfocused said:


> *Canon's new studio camera will be the one to maximize image quality *Again, let's state the obvious. If it's a studio camera it better maximize image quality, else why make it?



Hopefully by this they mean that the 5D4 will have improved DR but perhaps be 32-44MP while the 1DsX will have the same image quality only just some crazy MP like 60-80MP or something and not that only the 1DsX will have better image quality at low ISO (ignoring MP counts).

If they mean you need an $8000 brick to get more DR and if they lock down the 5D4 video and cripple it so that 5D3+ML RAW is as good or better and with more usability then I foresee used prices on 5D3 holding up VERRRRRY well and the A7R really taking off for Canon users. I could see people shooting 5D3+A7R or 7D2+A7R (if they care more about action reach than video) rather than 1DsX $8000 brick. And some maybe going to Nikon, depending.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 29, 2013)

klickflip said:


> Depressing news for people that would like to see a high MP studio camera sooner (like myself)
> 
> It really is shocking that Canon will prob take 3 years to announce a high MP D800 equivalent, since the D800 was outed/released, or 4 years to actual release - Q1/2 2015.
> Which probably means that the D800 was in Dev for 2 years before Feb 2012. Or another way to look at it is canon is 5 years behind Nikon / sony tech. And for sure they will not be sitting on their current tech gleeing for 5 years which it what it seems since the success of the 5D mkII.
> ...



I still remember the Canon rep bragging about how Canon were the kings and at least a decade ahead of anyone for FF sensors and that as kings they saw no need to do anything. We are kings! Kings of the hill! Why do we need to do anything? And we could always instantly respond to ANY challenge in the shocking case it need be so. We doubt Nikon will even release a FF for another 10 years at least! We are the kings!! Kings of the hill! We have no need to put out a higher performance FF body we are kings! etc. etc. etc.

oops




> As a general pro camera I think they got the 5D III right (a better sensor would have been nicer) Its lovely to use, quick enough for most circumstances even sports and with a decent set of L's (primes for me ) its a great combo.
> So I'm not sure what upgrades they can do - maybe a 24MP sensor better IQ, wider AF coverage, little bit more FPS? Dual pixel looks very good for video.. which I hardly every use and many in this position too.



perhaps go to 7-8fps from 5.9fps

dual pixel for video AF

WAYYYYY improve low ISO DR

native 2k RAW video

regular 4k video (need to make digic chips process video better or have marketing not force them to apply gaussian blur or who knows what else to mess up the signal)

essential video usability basics native such as zebras, magic focusing boxes, focus peaking, etc.

bump MP to 32-44MP

finally working autiosio??? seriously how does it take 10 years, what the heck is wrong with Canon marketing that they treat it like some magical thing when every other maker has put it in even the lowest end models in working fashion for ages

For it's release date the 5D3 was excellent other than lagging way behind in DR at low ISO which was a bit disappoint for sure (it actually, somehow ended up with a trace WORSE DR than even the old 5D2 at low ISO?!?!) and the video features as natively offered.

While the MP was lower than some others that also let it get astonishing RAW video quality without line skipping (well at least once ML unlocked what marketing crippled) and 5.9fps in FF mode so it was a fair trade at the time (although for the stills only people I guess it could've had more MP and the same fps if they put dual digic 5+ into it (before you scream they did put dual digic in the 7D) but at that time that might have had to hurt video quality).

The video improvements that are native to the 5D3 were weak, they left out all the key usability upgrades, such basic stuff, and mangled the amazing quality the HW was capable of. Thank god for ML! The 100% rescued it regarding video! WITH and ONLY WITH ML, the video on it is astounding.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > If two new full frame cameras are on the horizon and one is an EOS-1DXs type of body, what could the other one be? I’m willing to wager the EOS 6D won’t be replaced before the EOS 5D Mark III or EOS-1D X.
> ...


I'm saying neither


----------



## lol (Nov 29, 2013)

Just give me a D800 in a 5D body and a 7D2 on the side, and I'll take on anything!


----------



## zim (Nov 29, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Me, I'd bet on the 6D being updated first. There is a lot of headroom between the 6D and the 5D so Canon could throw a 70D/7D autofocus system into the 6D II



for me anyway that would be too good to be true

6D should have been a FF 60D from the start (without the extra sensitive centre point)
6D2 should have the 70D/7D points
They should kept the super centre point for the 1Dx & 5D3 sucessors


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 29, 2013)

lol said:


> Just give me a D800 in a 5D body and a 7D2 on the side, and I'll take on anything!



hehe ... had the 5D III come with the D800 sensor, I would have bought it and not needed anything else.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

dilbert said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > lol said:
> ...


With Oil ;D


----------



## 100 (Nov 29, 2013)

We all have our individual wants and needs, but Canon (and all other big camera manufactures) are not into the tailor made trade. They listen to majorities. Remember which improvements the majority of 5DII users wanted? More megapixels and better low ISO performance weren’t high on that list. Better autofocus and higher fps were and that’s what we got. And even at + $500 compared to the high mp high dynamic range Nikon D800 they sell and probably outsell them. 
Sales numbers, market share and profit, that’s what drives a company like Canon and there are no real indications that their current product range is hurting them in those areas so to them this is confirmation they made the right choices. 

A new 5D next year? Don’t think so.
5D => 5DII 3 years;
5DII => 5DIII 3.5 years;
5DIII => 5DIV… 3 to 4 years probably.
So it will be well into 2015 and probably 2016 before we get a new 5D.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

100 said:


> We all have our individual wants and needs, but Canon (and all other big camera manufactures) are not into the tailor made trade. They listen to majorities. Remember which improvements the majority of 5DII users wanted? More megapixels and better low ISO performance weren’t high on that list. Better autofocus and higher fps were and that’s what we got. And even at + $500 compared to the high mp high dynamic range Nikon D800 they sell and probably outsell them.
> Sales numbers, market share and profit, that’s what drives a company like Canon and there are no real indications that their current product range is hurting them in those areas so to them this is confirmation they made the right choices.
> 
> A new 5D next year? Don’t think so.
> ...


+1


----------



## lol (Nov 29, 2013)

While I agree Canon will do what it thinks will give them the best return, they can't ignore the market either. As a general trend, dominant companies in mature markets can be slow to react to a changing environment, although that doesn't rule them out from doing something different either. Looking to the past to guess the future only works if you expect them to do "more of the same". If they have something really new, anything goes.


----------



## Gino (Nov 29, 2013)

If Canon delivers the following enhancements in the 5D Mark IV, I would be a buyer at a price under $4,000:

* A significant improvement in Dynamic Range (at least 15 EV) sensor performance. *This is the most important enhancement I'm looking for.*

* The enhancements that the 1DX autofocus and metering system offers (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition with face detection). Hopefully with wider focus points coverage.

* A much improved buffering capacity for shooting RAW at 6-7 fps in full resolution

* In camera crop mode with 8 fps 

* Dual compact flash memory card slots


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 29, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > up the frame rate slightly, add the cf card slot, add a sync port...done....that still leaves room for improving (up the sync speed, add a few Xpoints, etc etc...)
> ...



while SD are smaller and get the job done and do support high capacity - CF is currently a lot faster and are more durable. 

And the point wasn't really a statement of how cf is better than sd or vice versa --- my statement was more about the simple little things they could do on a 6d2 that wouldn't mean a ton of R&D $$ and time - things they can do without revamping the whole assembly line.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 29, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> while SD are smaller and get the job done and do support high capacity - CF is currently a lot faster and are more durable.



Quite the opposite. Chances are, Canon skipped CF on the 6D because it was too slow. Notwithstanding deficiencies in the camera bodies themselves, SD cards *smoke* CompactFlash performance-wise. And because most flash card R&D is going into the SD side of things (because that's what nearly every camera out there is using), SD's advantage is likely to continue to grow.

The fastest CF cards, at least to the best of my ability to determine, can achieve about 160 MB/s. CF cards have not gotten any faster in nearly two years (the first 160 MB/s cards came out in January of 2012). Based on that, it seems unlikely that the CF standard will advance much past 160 MB/s, so IMO, CF should be considered an evolutionary dead end.

By contrast, the fastest SD cards currently available provide a whopping 240 MB/s write, 260 MB/s read. At that speed, if your camera can't handle continuous shooting at ten or twelve frames per second in RAW mode, the bottleneck is not the flash card. In fact, we're probably no more than one or two SD card generations away from the cards themselves being fast enough to handle full-motion full-sensor RAW video (assuming someone were crazy enough to attempt it).

Now if you're willing to change to a completely incompatible card format like CFast, you can get something with approximately the same physical form factor as CompactFlash that can outperform SD, but you won't be able to use your existing cards, and CFast cards cost a small fortune because there's not a ready supply of slower, cheaper cards to compete with them and pull prices down. And their performance benefit over SD is likely temporary unless that standard sees widespread adoption. I honestly don't expect CFast to catch on except perhaps in 4K cinema cameras, and probably not even then, given that A. SD is only about 20 MB/s shy of being able to handle uncompressed 4K RAW video at 24p and will probably cross that threshold within a single-digit number of months, and B. nobody in their right mind would write RAW video to flash when you only get about 15 minutes per 256 GB flash card. But I digress.


----------



## 100 (Nov 29, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > while SD are smaller and get the job done and do support high capacity - CF is currently a lot faster and are more durable.
> ...



So you never heard of CFast 2.0 ...
http://www.sandisk.com/about-sandisk/press-room/press-releases/2013/sandisk-launches-world%E2%80%99s-first-cfast-20-memory-card/

_Canon is also a supporter of the CFast 2.0 standard. Masaya Maeda, managing director and chief executive of image communication product operations at Canon said, "With extremely fast performance, CFast 2.0 memory cards will enable us to develop next-generation cameras with more powerful features, enabling future 4K Ultra HD video recording capability."_


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > *Canon's new studio camera will be the one to maximize image quality *Again, let's state the obvious. If it's a studio camera it better maximize image quality, else why make it?
> ...



If Canon doesn't end up releasing a highMP part in the $3000-$3500 range, then I very well might pick up an A7r plus an EF adapter so I can mount my current lenses on it. I guess I don't really foresee Canon stuffing their only modern-day high MP part in the most expensive cost bracket with growing competition in the high MP market from multiple competitors...but then again...it's Canon. They've never really competed directly with anyone, they always do their own thing in their own way.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2013)

100 said:


> We all have our individual wants and needs, but Canon (and all other big camera manufactures) are not into the tailor made trade. They listen to majorities. Remember which improvements the majority of 5DII users wanted? More megapixels and better low ISO performance weren’t high on that list. Better autofocus and higher fps were and that’s what we got. And even at + $500 compared to the high mp high dynamic range Nikon D800 they sell and probably outsell them.
> Sales numbers, market share and profit, that’s what drives a company like Canon and there are no real indications that their current product range is hurting them in those areas so to them this is confirmation they made the right choices.
> 
> A new 5D next year? Don’t think so.
> ...



Agreed. I suspect we'll have a 5D IV announced late 2014, and delivered summer timeframe in 2015. Seems way too early to be getting the 5D III replacement.


----------



## pedro (Nov 30, 2013)

jrista said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > We all have our individual wants and needs, but Canon (and all other big camera manufactures) are not into the tailor made trade. They listen to majorities. Remember which improvements the majority of 5DII users wanted? More megapixels and better low ISO performance weren’t high on that list. Better autofocus and higher fps were and that’s what we got. And even at + $500 compared to the high mp high dynamic range Nikon D800 they sell and probably outsell them.
> ...



I like Canon to take their time. As it has a positive effect on their next product tech wise. I won't be in the game for a 5DIV. The 5D3 still remains more camera than I ever can handle properly 8) So as improved high ISOs beyond 25k are my main interest, I will be glad to see the 5DIV's specs which will kinda forecast what the 5DV will be based on. 1/2 a stop to a full stop better high ISO by 2018 would be a tremendous leap for the 5DV. Till then I am well equipped. Still working on my first 10k frames with the 5D3.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 30, 2013)

All this 5D4 talk has got me thinking about what it would take to make me plunk down more cash and it's not really the sensor. 

1. Built in RT transmitter. 
2. Linked AF metering to point
3. a blinky AF point. 
4. Improved sync speed to 1/250th or higher if possible.
5. Wifi - GPS 
6. 7 fps
7. Dual CF
8. Lastly is a modest bump in the sensor IQ.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2013)

pedro said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Just out of curiosity, when you say half a stop to a stop better high ISO...what do you mean by that? I'm sure Canon could simply add a native ISO 51200 or even native ISO 102400, without really changing anything.

That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a _*true*_ two stops better performance than the current 5D III...not without significantly increasing pixel size, or increasing pixel size to some degree and maximizing Q.E. to nearly 100%. To achieve a literal reduction in noise by an actual full stop, one would need to either double the Q.E. (which would put it at 98%...so far, achieving Q.E. above 90% requires some significant and powerful cooling to keep the sensors at -80°C), or double the pixel area (which would require sensors with twice the pixel pitch, or four times the area...so pixels would jump from 6.25µm to 12.5µm...a megapixel count of about 5.5mp). Neither of these seem likely...the cooling isn't possible in a battery powered mobile package for Q.E. of over 90%, and the reduction in megapixel count to a mere 5.5mp would deter the majority of potential buyers (although I'm sure there are some low light fanatics who would absolutely LOVE to have a legitimate, low noise ISO 25600 and usable ISO 51200.)

Anyway...just curious what people mean, or think, when they ask for "two stops better high ISO performance". Are they just asking for two more stops of high ISO settings...or are they asking for two stops better noise performance at those higher ISO settings. The former is possible, the latter...probably not so much...not for a while for one stop better performance (we'll need either a radical breakthrough in circuit design and/or wafer materials...or incredibly efficient supercooling that fits into the area of a couple inches square), and two stops is probably impossible due to the physical nature of light and how it's handled by a sensor.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2013)

dilbert said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > So you never heard of CFast 2.0 ...
> ...



Hmm. So, so far, it seems most of the speed improvement in CF cards has been to read speed. Even the fastest 1000x CF cards today still seem to have woefully slow write speeds (in the grand scheme of things). I haven't found anything on CFast yet that mentions write speed...does it improve it? Will we finally have write speeds topping 200mb/s? Or is it still going to be slower, even significantly slower, than read speed?

Just as much as a 100Gb video file can take forever to read off a card, as higher megapixel cameras reach the market, its taking longer and longer to write them to the memory card. The D800 has pitifully slow write speeds, and when it's buffer is full, it can take a painfully long time before you can start shooting again. For a stills photographer, while read speed is important, write speed is just as important...


----------



## 100 (Nov 30, 2013)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Sandisk says: 
_The 120GB1 SanDisk Extreme Pro CFast 2.0 memory card is the world’s fastest memory card, with read speeds of up to 450MB/s2 (3000X) for maximum workflow efficiency *and write speeds up to 350MB/s2* (2333X) for faster recording performance. _


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2013)

100 said:


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



Awesome. Definitely looking forward to that, then. I wonder how long it will take to actually find it's way into cameras, though... UDMA 7 took a bit too long...


----------



## 100 (Nov 30, 2013)

jrista said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Canon (Masaya Maeda) say they'll use it for the next generation camera's. 
A big megapixel 1D body and anything with raw video and/or 4K video are likely candidates.


----------



## pedro (Nov 30, 2013)

jrista said:


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



Well, thank you jrista for your tech background. Then, my little dream is over. I meant better IQ. Lacking your technical background, I couldn't recognize the physical realities. Then I just hope they don't increase the MP count as long as they remain with their type of sensortech. But I also understand, that Canon can't decrease it without getting into 1Dx territory. Anyway my 5DIII will remain a great allround camera for quite a while. I will surely welcome your assessment once another 5D hits the shelves. Regards, Peter


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 30, 2013)

100 said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Now if you're willing to change to a completely incompatible card format like CFast ...
> ...



Heard of? The entire last paragraph was about CFast. Calling CFast CompactFlash is roughly equivalent to calling SATA IDE.  CFast is not compatible with existing CF cards or readers, which makes it a relatively expensive standard for users to adopt, because no low-end CFast cards exist, as far as I can tell.

Worse, in spite of that added expense, the critical write performance is not *that* much better than SD, at 350/450 MB/s versus 240/260 MB/s for SD. And the SD standard currently supports up to 316 MB/s data rates (without further tweaks), but nobody is bothering to build parts at those speeds because little to no camera hardware would be capable of actually pushing that much data yet.

Further, even if the cameras had chipsets that could push that much data, the number of users who would benefit from >12 fps continuous RAW shooting is dwarfed by the number of users who would benefit from the comfort of having a backup of every photo.

Like I said, I'd expect to *maybe* see CFast in 4K cameras for supporting RAW. I don't see any obvious benefit to adopting it in still cameras until they get fast enough that the cards are in danger of becoming the main bottleneck. Right now, the SD cards are fast enough to handle 12-14 RAW files per second at 20-odd megapixels in continuous shooting mode without any buffering at all. That's more data than any DSLR actually supports, AFAIK. There's no benefit to building faster cards until there's a camera that actually has to buffer data at those rates.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 30, 2013)

I would like to see following out of 5D4:

Wifi
GPS
DPAF
Touchscreen for DPAF focus
Touchscreen for Pinch to Zoom image preview, quicker image proofing
Articulating screen if they are able to make it durable for creative shooting purposes
Image quality improvement
Dual SD slots that fully support UHS II standard
micro USB 3.0 cable support for faster cable transfers to PC


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 30, 2013)

Ruined said:


> I would like to see following out of 5D4:
> 
> Wifi
> GPS
> ...



I would tweak that to say "Dual SD slots that fully support UHS-II (up to 316 MBps)". 135 millibits per second (about 16.8 kilobytes per second) isn't very fast. ;D

But otherwise, yeah, that would be a really nice enhancement to the 5D line.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 30, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see following out of 5D4:
> ...



Ha ok done


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2013)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a _*true*_ two stops better performance than the current 5D III...
> ...



This is the opposite of what I'm talking about. At low ISO, dynamic range is limited by read noise. Canon has gobs of read noise at low ISO thanks to their ADC. 

What I am talking about is noise performance at high ISO. Read noise is practically non-existent at high ISO for most cameras, meaning that noise at high ISO is completely dominated by photon shot noise. The only ways to reduce photon shot noise are either using bigger pixels (which is roughly the same as downsampling in post), or improving Q.E. You will notice in those charts that once you get past ISO 800, DR falls off in linear fashion, and there is little difference between the two cameras. To get a true two stop improvement in high ISO performance, you would have to shift the plotted lines upwards on the graph. The only way to do that, really, is to increase Q.E. At best, with Q.E. currently around 50% or so, it is impossible to get a full stop better noise performance at high ISO, let alone two stops.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



And again, that isn't what we are discussing. Low ISO factors are well known, and have been beaten to death. Read noise, not photon shot noise, dominates at low ISO. Some newer sensors have very low read noise at low ISO, hence their improved DR. That has nothing to do with how a sensor performs at high ISO, however...which is dominated by photon shot noise. 

Quantity of light converted into charge in a given time interval is what matters at high ISO. You can increase that quantity/time ratio by doing one of two things: increase pixel area (or, downsample in post)...or increase Q.E. (which is the ratio of photons converted into charge in a photodiode). Since Q.E. in modern sensors is already between 50-60%, and stops refer to changes by powers of two, at best, assuming manufacturers find a way to achieve 100% Q.E. at room temperature, we could see one true stop of better high ISO noise performance. For sensors that already achieve over 50% Q.E., we can't even hope to see one true stop better.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 1, 2013)

I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo. It has no immediate practical relevance to a photographer. 

Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today. 

Today's situation is simple and clear:

Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts. 
D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts. 
D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash. 
And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible. Or leapfrog Sony/Nikon ... if they are able to. Canon should not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), since this is a high risk strategy. After all, to most photographers, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device. 

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 1, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo. It has no immediate practical relevance to a photographer *me*.



FTFY.



> Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.


True dat. And also how to budget for their future gear purchases.



> Today's situation is simple and clear *to me*:



FTFY



> Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts.
> D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.
> D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash.
> And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx



None of which means anything if:

You need AF speed/accuracy more than IQ/DR
Your budget does not allow you to switch from your current gear collection
Your shooting style does not depend on these qualitative differences



> Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should *and I want them to* do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible *to accommodate my preferences*.



FTFY



> Canon *should* would not rely *much longer solely *on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), *since* if this is *a* were high risk strategy. After all, to *most photographers* *me*, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device*, **and I feel that I'm unable to take satisfactory photos with a current model Canon*.



FTFY



> Therefore *I would like *a 5D IV *should* *to* have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% *competitive*technically superior and lower-priced than all other competing models in 2014/15.


FTFY


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 1, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo. It has no immediate practical relevance to a photographer.
> 
> Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.
> 
> ...



Very interesting. How has this affected your photos? That is if you don't mind sharing a few photos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see following out of 5D4:
> ...



Dual card slots are a gimic? That's pretty dilbert-y, even for you.



AvTvM said:


> Today's situation is simple and clear:
> 
> Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts.
> D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.
> ...



Today's situation is simple and clear:

Currently Canon 5DIII and 1D X have better AF than any Nikon or Sony camera.
5DIII has a faster frame rate than D800/E + A7R, 1D X has a faster frame rate than D4. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.
Above ISO 1600, settings which are commonly used by many photographers, D800/E + A7R + D4 have no DR advantange over 5DIII + 1D X.
Generally speaking, Canon has better lenses where there are equivalent options, and more unique lens offerings than Nikon.



AvTvM said:


> Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible...



Nikon and Sony have been lagging behind Canon in market share for years, and have been trying to do everything they can to close the gap…but they've failed.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 1, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> FTFY.


*Thanks, but **no* *thanks*.

*got it, OrangUtan ... from your apparent love for red ink and in-text corrections you must be an old-style school teacher by profession and a Canon fan-boy by vocation.* *Too bad I am not one of your students. *

I therefore ask you politely to refrain from defacing my posts and twisting my words using bolded bi-color full text quotes. It is bad style and hurts *my* readers' eyes. 

@ RLphoto: No, I won't ever show any of my images here. And not necessary ... since the shortcomings and limitations in Canon's sensor tech and subsequent image quality relative to better camera gear can be seen and studied in a large number of images readily available on the net.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 1, 2013)

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ... but when asked to share at least a few images to show how Canon sensor has affected, just give lame excuses and run for cover ... now that's a lame clever way of avoiding, which helps no one, other than come across as a biased DR fanboy. If Canon Rumors is supposedly for Canon fanboys, why do the DR fanboys hang around here? why don't they c0pulate in DR forums? wait there is no such forum coz DR in sensors holds no value for those who really know how to work DR with proper lighting and diffusion. Photographers worth their salt don't crib about "mommy my camera ain't got DR, I can't take photos without a new Sony sensor, but I still like to come and crib in Canon forums".


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 1, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> *you must be an old-style school teacher by profession and a Canon fan-boy by vocation.* *Too bad I am not one of your students. *



Wrong on all counts. I'm not a teacher, nor am am I a fan-boy, nor am "old-style" in most ways. In fact, if I were to start my kit today I might well buy Nikon since their current offerings suit my current style of photography just as well as Canon. 

The difference for me is that I don't expect Canon to do anything other than attempt to make a profit. I am not offended when they don't produce the equipment I want to buy at a price I consider "fair." Unlike you, I do not presume that everyone does photography the same way I do, nor do I believe I know how others do photography, nor what equipment other people want. On the contrary, I assume that Canon is capable of effective market research and analysis, and will produce the products that will make them a profit.

There is one and only one option open to me: I can use my money as I see fit. I can choose to buy more Canon gear...or not. At some point I could choose to sell my Canon gear and buy another brand...or not. Telling others what they should expect from Canon is...well...silly.

It is entirely legitimate for you to express your preference for future Canon equipment. It's not legitimate for you to presume to speak for the silent masses suffering under the yoke of (slightly) lower DR or IQ.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 1, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > FTFY.
> ...



the funny thing about this is that when I search for images to gain inspiration, I see wonderful images coming from each of these systems. If it were that obvious then you wouldn't see plentiful examples of amazing images. Therefore I have to agree with the rewrites of your post because it is clearly mainly an issue for you. So much so that you seem to be embarrassed by your images - which is a shame because I like many others here are making wonderful images using canon gear - hell, even the lowly 6d continues to impress me. So, I'd say its time to post some real images man, not shots of test shots, not intentionally underexposed imaged lifted 6 stops to show what happens when you push an image too far...real examples of how canon gear's shortcomings are ruining all of your images. Others here aren't scared to post, why are you????


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> > Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about resolution as it increases the difficulty in obtaining sharp images.



Not at all. If you take a photo at 80 MP, but the lens's focusing accuracy limits the effective resolution to 20MP, then you aren't getting any benefit out of the higher resolution, but the picture is still just as sharp as it would have been if you were shooting with a 20MP camera.

Yes, if you zoom in on the actual pixels on a photo taken, you get a fuzzier image, but that's only because you're looking at a portion of the image that is one-fourth as big. If you zoom out to a 2:1 view so that you're looking at the same-sized portion of the image, you'll see the same sharpness with the 80MP photo in a 2:1 view as you do with the 20MP photo in a 1:1 view.

Mind you, there's probably minimal benefit to bumping up the resolution of the full-frame sensors unless they bump up the lens resolution to match, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...
> ...



What about composition and focus? A poorly composed or poorly focused shot with high DR goes in the bitbucket. However, a well composed and well focused image, with slightly less DR, can be outstanding.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...
> ...



And you do know that quite a number of photographers happily did away with color entirely, and explicitly chose a large grained, highly grainy film ON PURPOSE, for aesthetic reasons, right? You also know, then, that many digital photographers these days spend a lot of money trying to find, or a lot of time trying to perfect, one way or another of replicating film grain in their digital photos. 

So sorry, but it is NOT all about the finest grain or the purest color reproduction. From an artistic standpoint, offset color and grain both have a long-standing place as a tool to improve aesthetic appeal.

That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days. As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 1, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > FTFY.
> ...



It's one thing to moan about limitations and it's completely different to actually hit them. Quite frankly from your posts, I haven't seen you hit the limitations of a 3.1mp d30.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 1, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Orangutan and Rienzphotoz, you just don't understand.

Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith...all those people and others...their pictures are great because of dynamic range. 

It's a well-known fact that Robert Frank was the most influential photographer of the second half of the twentieth century because his images were always sharp, full of dynamic range, without visible grain and perfectly in focus. Oh...wait...they weren't any of those things. You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo.



NSS! We all knew that already.



AvTvM said:


> Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.



Hmm, interesting. If photographers only care about the images their gear produces...then, that must mean that Canon produces IQ that is more than sufficient for the majority of photographers...who, as statistics would have it, use Canon gear...right? 



AvTvM said:


> Today's situation is simple and clear:
> 
> Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts.
> D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.
> ...



And, how well...exactly...have the D800 and A7r, or D600 or D300 or D7100 sold, in comparison to the 5D III, 1D X, 1D IV, 5D II, 7D, etc. from Canon? Again, given the facts, Canon cameras sell significantly better. Canon cameras maintain the top slots in best seller lists around the world. Canon cameras are ubiquitous and endemic at sports and the Olympics, by orders of magnitude above any other brand. Canon cameras dominate wedding photography. Canon cameras are the most seen camera brand on back country trails where landscape photographers dominate. Canon sells, Canon is extremely successful, and some of the best photos in the world are made with Canon equipment, printed on Canon printers.

So...how well has this improved DR improved SoNikon's market position? Seems to me it hasn't really done much of anything. Nikon is still in decline (something, to be quite frank, I do NOT want to see...a competitive marketplace is essential for the consumer, and if Nikon continues to fail, it will disappear....go the way of Kodak, or be absorbed by a larger entity like Sony...either way, fewer competitors is BAD...and I don't want that to happen.) Sony, while their sensors power half the known market of digital photography devices, has yet to demonstrate it can make a _good __*camera*_.

I believe Sony and Nikon are making the fatal mistake individuals like yourself seem to demand they make: _Cater to every customer whim_, rather than *be a successful business*. Sony's electronics division hasn't been a successful business for over a decade...it's hemorrhaged money for over a decade. Nikon has compelling products, but they can't seem to turn them into products that sell well enough for their business to succeed. It may be that Nikon invests too much money on R&D, and not enough money on manufacture, on their supply chain, on optimizing the efficiency of their manufacturing pipeline, etc. Whatever it is, neither company is successful, at the moment, as a business. Businesses make money, in the form of revenues, that then fuel further PRODUCTION, and if you have revenues left over, R&D. Canon excels at business. Their manufacturing pipeline is ideal. Their supply chain is usually stuffed. They, too, have compelling products, and they too continue to research new products and technology....they just do the whole business thing from top to bottom better.

I honestly have no worries that Canon will fail. On the contrary, I worry what will happen to Canon if their competition dries up because their competition listens to the whims of their bitchy customers too much, and fails at the business side of things. What would we have if Canon became a default monopoly? They are good at business...which is their strength....which means innovation would slow to a crawl as their business continued to thrive. IMO, Nikon and Sony need to get their shit together, and beef up their *businesses*, instead of spending tens of billions of dollars inventing new technology that may or may not be compelling enough to sell while their businesses *bleed out*. 



AvTvM said:


> Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible. Or leapfrog Sony/Nikon ... if they are able to. Canon should not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), since this is a high risk strategy. After all, to most photographers, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device.



Yeah, Canon's sensors lag behind. But their cameras are second to none. Image quality is not 100% dependent upon the sensor. If we take a very naive approach to determining what percentage each body factor affect IQ, we could simply divide it all up evenly: Sensor, AF System, Meter, Frame Rate. Four things, so each thing, in a naive distribution, has a 25% effect on IQ. Problem is, the sensor simply records whatever is projected on it. DR doesn't matter for squat if your image is focused incorrectly, metered wrong such that highlights are clipped, or doesn't include the best moment of action. As such, the sensor, in my opinion, should really have one of the lowest IQ factor ratings. I would say the meter is probably similar, again it is just a sensor and a little bit of logic to determine exposure. That makes AF and Frame Rate the two most important factors in IQ. Again, if you don't focus your subject, then frame rate doesn't matter...you'll get a string of missfocused frames that, even if they have gobs of DR and are perfectly metered, still go strait into the trash. That makes AF the most important factor in IQ. So, if we divvy it up more appropriately, we might get something like 50% AF, 25% Frame Rate, 13% Meter, and 12% Sensor. 

It's no wonder Canon hasn't put so much effort into their sensors lately. They already have a damn good sensor. Their AF systems consistently performed BELOW the bar before...particularly the 5D II and 1D III cameras. Their metering systems were lagging, either being simply monochrome, or basic two-color rather than full RGB. Their Frame Rates were always good, but now they are even better. Canon, in the last round of body releases, improved their worst-performing components that primarily affect IQ. The 1D X received a new high resolution, full RGB metering sensor combined with a dedicated DIGIC4 chip. The 1D X and 5D III both received a new record-breaking 61pt/41pt c/t reticular AF system with multiple double cross-type AF points and highly configurable zone selection. The new 61pt AF system has the widest frame spread of any FF AF system. The new 1D X meter and it's AF system are wired together, allowing the high resolution meter to identify subjects, which is then fed into the AF system to improve tracking. These were the low hanging fruit, and the most requested improvements (alongside better high ISO performance) from Canon's customers.



AvTvM said:


> Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.



Should it? Really? I'm sure the 1Ds X (or whatever name Canon ends up releasing the Big MP camera under) will have a higher resolution sensor, as that camera is explicitly designed for studio work, where resolution is critically important (however not more important than the AF system.) As for the 5D IV, if that is indeed what Canon is working on, why MUST it have a "significantly" higher resolution? Does that really fit with that bodies primary customers usage scenarios? The 5D III is a wedding camera, first and foremost. Like the 5D II and 5D before it, wedding photographers live and die by the 5D line (every wedding photographer I've ever met or known has used something from the 5D line, with the exception of one, who used a D3 and occasionally a D800). When it comes to which camera is most used and most loved by wedding photographers, the 5D III wins hands down. The D800, while used by some wedding photographers, is frequently talked about as being too much, being too slow with its huge RAW files, those RAW files being too hefty to process quickly, etc. The D800 is NOT an ideal wedding photographers camera. The 5D III, however, is...and its most loved feature? The sensor? Nope. The AF system!

Personally, I expect the 5D IV to get a modest boost in sensor resolution, along with the elimination of read noise (reduced from the 30e- or more that current Canon cameras have to the 3e- or less that is necessary for DR to improve to 14 stops) and a boost to low ISO DR. Too much more resolution and they take the 5D line out of its ideal positioning as the worlds best general-purpose FF DSLR, where as more DR is better for everyone. I don't suspect we'll see the shift to 16bit color with the next 5D...instead, if Canon does make that shift, I suspect it will be in the 1Ds X...so I wouldn't hope for more than 14 stops of DR in the next 5D either.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...
> ...



Well we didn't have an iso button for a start, then we might be shooting for slides (I have never gotten over the loss of slides printed via Cibachrome), negatives, or B&W, so that takes care of 12 or so emulsions, then the different manufacturers each had patents on their particular brews, so multiply that by three or four, for 36-48 emulsions as a basic. 

Then and only then, do you get down to colour differences, I suspect you have never printed with a colour enlarger onto colour paper, if you had you would know the intrinsic limitations of global CMYK adjustments. Ever wonder why the number of emulsions available dropped dramatically long before digital cameras became cost effective? It was because scanning beat them to the party, once we could scan a colour negative we could print it B&W (on native high quality B&W paper), colour, on Cibachrome via Lightjets etc etc. A semi skilled operator can partially correct colour, do global adjustments, dodge and burn all very quickly at a computer, compare that to a skilled printers abilities in a darkroom. Heck most printing machines could do their own auto colour corrects automatically, I used to pay an extra 30cents to get each of my wedding proofs hand (human) graded and adjusted, how fast do you think the techs had to do that.

Different emulsions gave different colour responses, all of them are comparatively easily replicated in a digital post process if you have the RAW data to a remarkably discerning eye. 

Hah, ever count sprocket holes in a partially exposed roll of film in a light tight bag so you could use the rest of it? If you haven't, forget your film references.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



+100!


----------



## 100 (Dec 1, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



Cfast (2008) and Cfast 2.0 (2012) are not the same thing. CFast 2.0 support speeds up to 600MB/s
You’re quoting out of context by the way. You also wrote: "_I honestly don't expect CFast to catch on except perhaps in 4K cinema cameras, and probably not even then_"

I quoted Masaya Maeda, the managing director and chief executive of image communication product operations at Canon who said, "*With extremely fast performance, CFast 2.0 memory cards will enable us to develop next-generation cameras with more powerful features, enabling future 4K Ultra HD video recording capability.* 

If Canon (the market leader) say they will adopt the CFast 2.0 technology your expectations that it won't catch on don’t make much sense to me. Unless you hadn’t heard about Cfast 2.0 and Canon’s position towards it. 
Nikon put a XQD Card (up to 500MB/s) in de D4, also not backward compatible with “old” CompactFlash (and with “new” CFast cards for that matter) and Sony (who developed XQD with SanDisk and Nikon) said they’ll make their Broadcast Camcorders XQD compatible. 
Combined Canon, Nikon and Sony have over 80% market share and they all seem to be committed to the next gen CF. 

I don’t see the fact that Cfast is not compatible with CF as a problem. Little over 10 years ago I bought a Canon Powershot G2 with a 32MB CF-card. I still have both the camera and the card but never use them anymore. If I put it in my 5DIII I could put one (sic) raw file on that card. 
I’ve got a box filled with “old” CF cards that will fit all my gear and are in perfect working order, but what good are they if they lack capacity and/or speed? I also got old card readers USB 1, USB 1.1, USB 2… 
I update cards and card readers anyway so another format in a new camera is no big deal. Is that just me? I highly doubt it. 

You say there's no benefit to building faster cards until there's a camera that actually has to buffer data at those rates. 
You could also reverse that, what's the benefit of building a faster camera if memory cards can’t keep up with it? 
The answer to the “problem” is quite simple. Collaboration between camera companies and memory card builders. That's why the Nikon D4 got XQD and the new generation Canon (pro) camera’s will have CFast 2.0 memory cards.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 2, 2013)

100 said:


> You say there's no benefit to building faster cards until there's a camera that actually has to buffer data at those rates.
> You could also reverse that, what's the benefit of building a faster camera if memory cards can’t keep up with it?
> The answer to the “problem” is quite simple. Collaboration between camera companies and memory card builders. That's why the Nikon D4 got XQD and the new generation Canon (pro) camera’s will have CFast 2.0 memory cards.



I honestly don't think one can argue this logic, CFast 2 is the future, I actually looked to see if I could use them in my 1Dx, unfortunately not, so perhaps the new High MP Canon will have this tech built in, I hope so. Only downside at all to the Tech is initial cost for the Cards, which will come down as companies implement the tech into their products.

Nikon took a leap of faith with the D4 and XQD, I honestly don't think any prospective buyers of this Camera didn't buy because of the XQD Card system, my Lad uses these Cards in his Sony XDCAM HD422 they work wonderfully well from what I can see, expensive ?? Yes, but as most things in life, you tend to get what you pay for, mostly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.
> ...



Because of a basic understanding of digital imaging and camera technology. I haven't ever seen jrista mistake a lens for a camera, as you've done, nor refuse to admit he was wrong about it, as you've also done. 

Do you want to know how I know that? :


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 2, 2013)

This is getting rather petty. (so what's new?)

To summarize:


I think everyone agrees that more DR is better in at least some circumstances
More DR does not make a bad photo good, nor is it impossible to make good images with slightly less DR
The importance of DR depends on the individual photographer's style, vision and subject matter.
None of us on this forum, neither as individuals nor as a group, are in a position to say definitively what demand actually exists for greater DR. Those on the so-called Canon fanboi side (myself apparently included) seem to believe that Canon's sales numbers give strong basis for inference on that question.

PS to dilbert: I believe the Zone System has 11 zones, corresponding to 11 stops of DR.

Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U? ("U" is for unicorn)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I think you forgot to include Ansel Adams? You know, the guy that invented the zone based metering system?



The Zone System is not a "zone based metering system" it is a system of prioritising the import part of a scenes dynamic range before exposure to maximise that tonal areas reproduction in a subsequent *print*. Printing is the be all and end all of Adams' system, how best to expose the scene within the DR limitations of the camera system to achieve what he foresees in a print.

Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U? ("U" is for unicorn)



Doh! Now you've done it! _"Unicorn."_ It'll be a mythological creature forever.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.
> ...



I know it because I've studied the subject. It's a bit of a hobby (a very time consuming one...)

It is also *common sense*. If color wasn't primarily a mathematical thing, then why is it that the 5D III photographs I see from the world's best...landscape photographers, portrait photographers, macro photographers, etc....have color that is just as good as any photo from the D800? Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output. 

I think unfocused put it best:



unfocused said:


> You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!



The quality of a photograph, assuming it was captured properly, has everything to do with the photographer. Artistic vision is what makes a good photograph good. 

Cameras are simply about enabling the photographer to capture photos well. It doesn't matter how good a camera you have, or how good it's native color reproduction...if the photographer has no vision, they will never make visionary photographs...

I know a lot about the technical aspects of photography. They matter, because that knowledge helps me choose the tool that will best service my skill to realize my artistic vision. That said, the thing I care about most, more than the technology, is: How do my photographs look? 

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself. 





dilbert said:


> And you know this because...?



So, how do I know? Well, common sense, really. An eye for the obvious.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 2, 2013)

jrista said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U? ("U" is for unicorn)
> ...



It's bad luck to be superstitious!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...
> ...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I see the error of my ways ;D ... one must have a new Sony sensor with DR of mythical proportions to make good images ... wait I tried that, but the bloody camera did not have lenses that I wanted ... but I suppose the Sony sensor does not need any lenses as it can take photos even if I put nothing in front coz its the God of all things photography. ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Today's situation is simple and clear:
> 
> Currently Canon 5DIII and 1D X have better AF than any Nikon or Sony camera.



Actually I still quite a bit of open debate on this.



> 5DIII has a faster frame rate than D800/E + A7R, 1D X has a faster frame rate than D4. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.



It can be, unlike more DR which is of course useful only a vanishingly smaller percentage of the time than 14fps are over 12fps.



> Above ISO 1600, settings which are commonly used by many photographers, D800/E + A7R + D4 have no DR advantange over 5DIII + 1D X.



Yes, although actually the D4 has better DR at ALL ISOs than the 5D3, and of course ISO1600+ is commonly used by photographers unlike ISO100-400 which are used only for a ******vanishingly****** small percentage of photos.



> Generally speaking, Canon has better lenses where there are equivalent options, and more unique lens offerings than Nikon.



agreed




> Nikon and Sony have been lagging behind Canon in market share for years, and have been trying to do everything they can to close the gap…but they've failed.



Yes and this is critically important because THE single most important thing to help the photographer out in the field get the shot they want is to be using only each piece of equipment that has the largest market share.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 2, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> wait there is no such forum coz DR in sensors holds no value for those who really know how to work DR with proper lighting and diffusion.



and there he goes again

and you wonder where the DR crowd gets the mad, simply mad idea, that the fanboys ever say such things about more DR is useless or is only needed by incompetents

BTW, please come to my next shoot and make sure to bring enough lights to light up a few square miles and enough helpers to do it all instantly at the snap of a finger and oh make sure they do it in a way that looks natural and that none of their equipment shows up in the shot. And make sure you are always there at a snap, whenever needed.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > wait there is no such forum coz DR in sensors holds no value for those who really know how to work DR with proper lighting and diffusion.
> ...


Send me return air tickets plus all expenses paid and I'll show you how I do it with my Canon sensor to get the same results.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I think you forgot to include Ansel Adams? You know, the guy that invented the zone based metering system?



PrivatebyDesign has answered that one far better than I could (as usual).



dilbert said:


> Anyway, do you have an example to draw on that includes modern day people and art rather than historical?



Ryan McGinley, Rineke Dijkstra, Martin Parr, Nan Goldin, Susan Meiselas would all be good ones to start with. And...by the way...Robert Frank is still living.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



Are you truly serious? Or are you just trolling? Because this is a ludicrous response....


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2013)

> "So you've never heard someone say "I like the green from Nikon DLSRs better" or "I like the blue from Canon DSLRs better"?"



Only people who don't understand RAW files, who don't use camera profiles (that are basically nicely designed GUI one button programs now) and who don't know what they are talking about.

I can use a Nikon and a Canon at a wedding and both sets of files look identical, same skin tones, same dress colour, everything. RAW data is just that, it doesn't reduce image quality one iota to tell a pixel registering as 243,127,76 to display at 240,125,84. 

You need to learn about colour dude.

Now explain to me, which of these two swatches is the original and which is degraded by adjusting the colour.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



Sure I have. I've also seen their results, which, as I said, look nothing like what actually came directly out of the camera.




dilbert said:


> And if what you were saying was true then the graph attached at the bottom would show both lines together, right?



The graph represents an imperceptible difference that can only be discerned by software. And, again...it is based off the strait out of camera RAW. You can RADICALLY change those results by tweaking the raw with a very basic algorithm. You can make the 5D III better than the D800, or make the D800's margin even wider. Color is all about mathematical processing. 



dilbert said:


> Depending on how much time you spend in "Photoshop", you can change the colour or compensate for the lack of colour, white balance, etc, to come close to making it not matter which camera you use. But just as using RAW is better than using JPEG (because the data you have available is better to work with), so too is higher quality data (from e.g. the D800) better.



The D800, in some respects, does have MORE data. It has less read noise, so it preserves more data in the shadows. Beyond that, "higher quality"? Nah. It's all bits...ones and zeros, encoding some known original quantity that can be reduced, divided, and redistributed however we please. We aren't talking about preserving analog data in it's original untainted form here. 

Think of it like comparing a purely analog audio system in a hard core audiophile's home, the best of the best, $400,000 worth of vibration replication perfection, reading a pure analog signal off a pristine record played on a turntable with 10 degrees of vibration reduction, piping it through the highest quality vacuum tubes and analog processors, sending the filtered signal that is nearly entirely free of noise along the highest quality cabling to a pair of $100,000 (each) speakers, set in an audio room with the most exquisite wood supports and wall paneling that enrich the unmitigated perfection of musical sound permeating every cell of your body (trust me...it really IS like that! ) The equipment, in that circumstance, is EVERYTHING. You can't beat audio from such a system, it is pure bliss, music of the gods to the ears...literally. 

When it comes to playing back CDs? There are a few things you can do in order to improve the quality of your sound. You can buy high quality electronics that don't introduce much *additional* noise of their own, and for every bit less noise, you pay another order of magnitude in cost. But the simple fact of the matter is that a CD has already been limited, already been restricted, already been diminished from the original source. It doesn't matter if your working with 20 bits or 24 bits, the original unfettered, pure fidelity of the native analog signal is lost. You cannot replicate it, no matter how good your equipment. The vast majority of people who play their CDs can't tell the difference between 44khz and 48kz, let alone 96khz...or 20 bits vs. 24 bits. The frequencies that those bits represent, while a $100,000 CD playback system may preserve them, are beyond the average range of human sensitivity. 

A DSLR is basically synonymous with Audio CD systems. It doesn't matter if your color quality is 23 bits or 24 bits...the original fidelity of your native image signal, the one projected by the lens, was lost the moment a sensor packed with evenly arranged discrete sensing elements recorded that signal, and converted it into a sequence of...numbers. From that point on, everything about that image was digital and mathematical.

Now, if your personal style is to take photos and print em strait up, without any processing, then sure...these minute differences in cameras could very well matter. You might not ACTUALLY be able to tell the difference, but if knowing that one particular camera has half a bit more accurate color reproduction makes you feel as though your raw work is better, more power to ya. If you are like 99% of the rest of the billion plus photographers on planet Earth...sorry, they don't really matter much at all. The most significant benefit of the D800 is its extra DR, but that simply improves your editing latitude, allowing you to extract detail in areas where detail was lost to electronic noise. It doesn't do a damn thing for the final color quality of your post-process results. And it only does it at low ISO, to boot, so the value of improved DR is limited in applicability. 



dilbert said:


> > Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right however everyone wants the best possible source material to work with or else they wouldn't use RAW, would they?



RAW, sure. Doesn't matter what camera the RAW comes from. Again, the RAW is the *source*. What you end up with rarely ever looks like the source, or is even "color accurate", because it is based on artistic vision, personal style, not hardware. What matters is what you end up with...the _destination_, per-se. I'd challenge you to pick out which camera made which photo if I presented you a range of, say, landscape photos from some photo site or sites (that had all EXIF information stripped). You would certainly randomly guess a few correctly, but in general it would all just be guesses. You can't tell from the final results of an artists processing where their photos came from. It's all the same in the end...the result of mathematic functions applied to an input stream of pixels, rendering an output stream of pixels. Discrete data, in digital form, all having lost the purity and infinite precision of the original. The data doesn't matter. What matters is the photographer's vision. 



dilbert said:


> > I think unfocused put it best:
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Nice. Clever, underhanded way to fling out an insult. Your very good at that, I applaud your skill...you've apparently put just as much time and effort into honing that as I do into honing the art of my photography.

I would be curious to know if you honestly think my work is "junk", though...as I suspect your words were simply poorly chosen:

http://www.jonrista.com


----------



## eml58 (Dec 2, 2013)

jrista said:


> I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself.



Lovely stuff, it's what I read CR for, small pieces of Eloquence, be it technical, Images or just plain nicely put.

Thank You jrista, honestly made my day.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 2, 2013)

eml58 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself.
> ...


+1 
If I should rate my missed shots (of which there are plenty) and split them in a My-fault:Equipment-fault rating, it would probably be a 99:1


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work.
> ...


WOW!  ... jrista was talking about his images which you may wanna look at ... and you imply that they are "junk"? ... man that is rude.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 2, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


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


Dilbert, you just became the last entry on my Ignore list. I have seen nothing from you I´d like to see again. Your´re a joke and a rude one on top of that!


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 2, 2013)

jrista said:


> Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.


Neither do we!


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.
> ...



+1... Jon, there are some posters here who simply need to be ignored.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.



Well that's a real pity dilbert, it's a reaction one would expect from an immature 10 year old, when your frustrated at not winning the argument, you resort to blanket insults in the hope that the shock factor will win you the point, it's just not how mature adults conduct themselves, perhaps it's time to take a break.

On the the point of "Images" good or bad, most people that actually post images on CR do so because they want to share these Images with other like minded people, not all the Images Posted are or claim to be "Ansel Adams" quality, they don't need to be, most post Images for constructive feed back in an endeavour to better their Photography, and most people that understand this give constructive criticism, constructive criticism is not the same as your comment above, your comment, unfortunately, is just plain bad manners.

And yes, often less than stellar Images receive positive reviews from people on CR, it's called "being positive", or "being nice", which seems to me to be so much easier than the opposite, which in case I need to spell it out, is "being negative" or "being an arsehole".


----------



## eml58 (Dec 2, 2013)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.
> ...



Absolutely, neither do we, in fact I've looked at your website and find your work damn fine.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

eml58 said:


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


AMEN! ... I've seen many of the images posted by jrista both in CR and on his website - they are brilliant ... the only way someone can call those images "junk" is if one is being deliberately obtuse ... either that or they probably need a new Sony sensor in their brain so they can recognize the DR in those images - no wait, they already have that sensor, (in their brain), and yet it does not seem to do a good job of recognizing what is good and what is junk ... well so much for its DR capability ;D


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

eml58 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.
> ...



Well said! 

BTW, has dilbert ever posted photos his masterpieces of artwork on CR?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I know of several of his master-p!sses  ... one of which is on the previous page


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



I'm sure I won't be doing that regardless of who took them because an image might mean nothing to you but may mean the world to the person who made it. Nevertheless, IMHO it is poor form to call someone's images junk while not posting your own.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 2, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Hah, ever count sprocket holes in a partially exposed roll of film in a light tight bag so you could use the rest of it? If you haven't, forget your film references.


No, but I have rewound film back into the canister, keeping track of how many exposures were taken, and at some later time fished the leader back out, reloaded the film, and taken lens cap shots till I got to unexposed film, and carried on from there..... Does that count?

And I would carry a body loaded with 100 and a second loaded with fast film.....


----------



## Woody (Dec 2, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Latest informationen from Canon Japan:
> 
> The new EOS 1 body will have two CF card slots (none of them are CFast slots).
> 
> Don´t expect a big megapixel camera or a medium format camera in 2014. But expect more than 18 megapixels, dual pixel tech., a bigger camera display and better IQ.



Canon Japan drop hints on future EOS 1 body? Seriously?


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

Woody said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > Latest informationen from Canon Japan:
> ...



The CR Oracle (albeit with a rather low success rate) has spoken : ... now it is for Canon to deliver. 

BTW, Correct me if I'm wrong ... doesn't the current EOS-1DX have two CF card slots? so what is this "new" stuff are you talking about?


----------



## M.ST (Dec 2, 2013)

I don´t need to talk about new gear because I have it.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...


And sometimes we post images for other reasons. I have seen a number of low quality images posted with questions like "can anyone identify this bird?". Last week I posted 4 images of very low quality of a bald eagle killing a goose and asked if anyone had seen this behavior before.... The images were crap and blown up from about 50 pixels in the centre of the image, but I learned from the responses...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.
> ...



How about you know this by definition. In the digital world, things are digital. You do not get colors or brightness out of a digital camera, you get bits of information. You process those bits with mathematics. You send those numbers to disks for storage. You send those numbers to output devices for display or printing.... It is all about mathematics....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...


+1 ... why should we "just rip" someone's photos "to shreds"? ... if one cannot praise or offer constructive criticism, the least we can do is refrain from insulting someone's work. What surprises me the most is that some people are willing to argue/counter argue about every "technical aspect" of photography or how a particular sensor can give better DR or whatever, trying hard to prove that they are right ... surely, if one can argue that much about everything under the sun, they can easily post a few images to prove their point ... if they post some images to show how the DR in the image made by a Sony sensor cannot be matched with a Canon camera + lenses, I'd be happy to change my mind ... but the DR fanboys never seem to back their tall claims with any photos they'e made ... maybe they are just ignorant of the saying "a picture speaks a thousand words".


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I won't be doing that regardless of who took them because an image might mean nothing to you but may mean the world to the person who made it. Nevertheless, IMHO it is poor form to call someone's images junk while not posting your own.
> ...


A food/movie critic is paid or/pays for the food/movie he eats/watches ... nobody in CR paid you and nor have you paid them to be their critic ... I thought you were just rude, but seems like you are also an enemy to humility. Everything you say here sounds so artificial and lacks any credibility, no wonder so many people are shocked at your rather immature and unnecessary comment.

Pride makes us artificial and humility makes us real - Thomas Merton


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Does a movie critic need to make their own movie in order to comment on a movie?
> Do food critics need to offer up their own food in order to be accepted?
> And so on.
> The world is full of people offering up opinions on whatever without providing their own for comment on just about every topic imaginable. Get over it.



Oh, I didn't realize you were offering an unsolicited critique to jrista's photos, in which case it is nothing short of a personal attack because his photos are not "junk" (not to me at least). Maybe you need an eye exam. 

Commenting on photo on CR to movie / food critics ... clutching straws are we? Movie / food critics exist as a source of information (whether biased or unbiased) for prospective customers of a particular product. I don't understand, was jrista selling something which you were critiquing and coming up with the "junk" opinion? 

As far as your comments regarding movie critics, the only thing that comes to mind after reading your post is ... Rotten Tomatoes ... hell, it could even be Pure Mashed Potatoes! 

I'm with Eldar on this one ... you join as a member of my ignore list.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I don´t need to talk about new gear because I have it.



Excellent ... so can you please post the photo of your EF-1200mm lens taken with the new EOS-1 body?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Oh, I didn't realize you were offering an unsolicited critique to jrista's photos, in which case it is nothing short of a personal attack because his photos are not "junk" (not to me at least). Maybe you need an eye exam.
> 
> Commenting on photo on CR to movie / food critics ... clutching straws are we? Movie / food critics exist as a source of information (whether biased or unbiased) for prospective customers of a particular product. I don't understand, was jrista selling something which you were critiquing and coming up with the "junk" opinion?
> 
> ...


Well said! ... More than an eye exam, me thinks he is in desperate need of a sensor change to correct his DR (*D*umb *R*esponses) ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I don´t need to talk about new gear because I have it.



If you 'don't need to talk' about it, why are you constantly doing so? The possible answers are:

1) You have new/prototype gear, and you *can't* talk about it because you signed an NDA (but if that were true, public blabbing like this would mean Canon would cut you off),

2) You have new/prototype gear, and Canon has authorized you to 'leak' information (in which case the frequency of your posts and the absurdity of some of your statements, such as Canon letting you permanently keep a prototype, has destroyed any credibility you may have had, and with it your value to Canon and they'd cut you off),

-or-

3) You're a liar. 

Anyone who's been following this forum for a while knows which one of the above is correct.


----------



## pedro (Dec 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...



M.S.T. seems to have a german or a german swiss background or maybe it's the netherlands or skandinavia, based on the quote: latest *informationen*...


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t need to talk about new gear because I have it.
> ...



He cannot possibly have the prototype as he has himself said - 



M.ST said:


> Latest informationen from Canon Japan:



So basically all we are left with is option 3 :-X


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I think I see one of the problems here:

First, dilbert wants the right to insult others, yet objects when others offer retorts.

Second, eml58 did not call dilbert an "immature 10 year old," he suggested that his reaction was something to be expected from an "immature 10 year old." There is a difference: the latter is directed at the specific behavior/incident; the former attacks the person. It's legitimate to critique specific behavior; however, except in unusual circumstances, we don't know each other well enough to offer opinions on the whole person.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

Gentlemen, please step back from the brink..... a lot of you are getting way to personall and it would be a shame if the moderators had to step in.

I value all civil voices and like to hear both sides of the debate, but only when it is civil. When you resort to name calling and taunting each other, anything good that you have to say gets lost in the noise.

Take a deep breath, count to 10, go take some pictures, whatever.... let us restore our sanity.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 2, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Gentlemen, please step back from the brink..... a lot of you are getting way to personall and it would be a shame if the moderators had to step in.
> 
> I value all civil voices and like to hear both sides of the debate, but only when it is civil. When you resort to name calling and taunting each other, anything good that you have to say gets lost in the noise.
> 
> Take a deep breath, count to 10, go take some pictures, whatever.... let us restore our sanity.



+1 ... Well said. I agree


----------



## traveller (Dec 2, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Gentlemen, please step back from the brink..... a lot of you are getting way to personall and it would be a shame if the moderators had to step in.
> ...



This topic is now ruined by this argument: I haven't read it all, because I really don't care about its contents. It's a shame, because it puts people off posting who might have something genuinely interesting to write...


----------



## Woody (Dec 2, 2013)

All this fuss over some CR1 rumor from NL? ;D Not worth it, ya?


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I think I see one of the problems here:
> ...



That's a legitimate question, and the answer is "sometimes." Yes, criticizing behavior can sometimes be a proxy for an insult to the person; however, there needs to be a way to criticize the behavior without ad hominem. In forums like this we don't have access to non-verbal cues that could remove the ambiguity (not to mention language differences, misbehaving auto-correct features and haste) I'd suggest that it's preferable to err on the side of tolerance. 

So no, I'm not seeking to define "rules," but I'm also noting that anyone who looks for insults will find them, whether they were intended or not.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> ...
> I'm sure I won't be doing that regardless of who took them because an image might mean nothing to you but may mean the world to the person who made it. Nevertheless, IMHO it is poor form to call someone's images junk while not posting your own.



Does a movie critic need to make their own movie in order to comment on a movie?
Do food critics need to offer up their own food in order to be accepted?
And so on.
The world is full of people offering up opinions on whatever without providing their own for comment on just about every topic imaginable. Get over it.
[/quote]

What i don't get is that your thick skinned enough to put yourself out there in a discussion like this, but not to put your images out there.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > +1 ... why should we "just rip" someone's photos "to shreds"?
> ...



Seriously? Insulting just one of us wasn't enough, so now you have to insult the whole lot of us by calling us "pack animals"?

You have lost all credibility. You've fallen back on the most baser level of animalistic instincts yourself here, and stooped to the lowest level. There is nothing more to say to you.

I encourage everyon to ignore Dilbert, either figuratively or literally via this forums ignore feature, and get back to the original topic of discussion. Because this man is _*NOT * _ worth responding to.


----------



## sanj (Dec 3, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > What i don't get is that your thick skinned enough to put yourself out there in a discussion like this, but not to put your images out there.
> ...



it is ok, relax. We all feel insecure about our work. But it is important to share photos and get into healthy discussions to open up and grow. If we all wait for just the best of the best before posting, we may never ever post.


----------



## Zv (Dec 3, 2013)

I had to go back 4 pages to catch up on this latest CR drama! 

Still not sure what sparked it, was it Dilbert's DR graphs? Then some talk of RAW files and color and then a snide comment about Jrista's photos and here we are! 

I have to say the outlook doesn't look to good for our antagonist, Mr Dilbert! I'm sure he's a nice fellow an all but come on, seriously, don't be dissin other peoples work. That's not cool. You'd have to be extremely talented (even then it's so not cool) to offer criticism like that without backing it up with evidence of your experience. And experience can be taking pictures, working as an editor etc etc. so if you are such an expert shouldn't you offer constructive advice? 

But whatever, carry on this is amusing and it distracts me from work which is very boring right now! Haha!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


On second thoughts (after I had a chance to step back and cool down a bit) I don't think its a nice thing to ignore someone because of a comment we feel is rude ... but I've said/done a lot of things in life that I'm not particularly proud of, but God has still been kind to me and am glad that people who I've wronged did not ignore me. I would ignore a pervert or a stalker but not a long time forum members who does have some valid points at times, who knows if we were to meet him personally we might all get along famously. OK, I'm not giving a lecture to any one, this is for me personally ... just "thinking out loud".
jrista, for the record, I still feel strongly that, what dilbert said was not cool ... but what I said wouldn't be considered cool either. I come to CR to learn and maybe share whatever little that I know ... I've always learned a great deal from the photos you post and I'm glad you post them.
Hey dilbert, no hard feelings man, nothing personal ... but try and be nice to us sometimes  Cheers and have a good day.


----------



## jrista (Dec 3, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


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



To be honest, I really don't care if someone thinks my work is junk. Dilbert is free to have his opinions.

The thing that really ticked me off was him calling the whole lot of us "pack animals". That is pretty low, a blatantly and intentionally rude jab, the kind of thing a child usually does when they lose an argument.

Sorry that it made me angry...but it made me angry. Your response here is dead on, and very commendable. Honorable and reasonable. I truly applaud your will. 

I debate because I want people to have truthful information to work with, not because I have any kind of personal vendetta (although I'll happily admit I really personally despised Mikael...that guy was the epitome of a narcissistic, arrogant antagonist who seemed to have an unhealthy attachment to dynamic range..........I can't say how much I'm glad he's gone...) When people stoop to childish lows and start making things personal and insulting, or try to evade a reasonable discussion about facts vs. conjecture with snide and rude remarks, it really irks me. It's uncalled for, it doesn't help anyone, and it derails topics like this.

I can't say I'll ever stop trying to keep the facts honest. And I mean facts...people are free to rumormonger and share their wish lists and the like, but I'll probably always step in when someone gets going about how canon equipment "sucks" because they don't have the absolute best of the best top notch world dominating drguzzling sensor on the market, or how they can't even compete anymore because they are dominated by the marketing monster or crap like that. When people like dilbert start flinging around global insults, sorry...but that isn't acceptable. He can insult me personally all he wants, I'm happy to let all that slide off my back (although I might point it out...very powerful debating tool that, when someone decouples their responses from the argument and gets personal. ;P) 

It just isn't right to call *everyone* animals when you lose an argument... 



Anyway...as for the topic at hand. 



pedro said:


> I like Canon to take their time. As it has a positive effect on their next product tech wise. I won't be in the game for a 5DIV. The 5D3 still remains more camera than I ever can handle properly 8) So as improved high ISOs beyond 25k are my main interest, I will be glad to see the 5DIV's specs which will kinda forecast what the 5DV will be based on. 1/2 a stop to a full stop better high ISO by 2018 would be a tremendous leap for the 5DV. Till then I am well equipped. Still working on my first 10k frames with the 5D3.



This was my last favorite comment from this thread. I totally agree...Canon can take their time on the 5D IV and 1D neXt. Far too early to replace those cameras. I suspect the big camera Canon will be at least announcing next year will be the big megapixel camera...the 1Ds X or whatever then end up naming it. The landscape and studio photography camera.

Personally, I hope it gets the following (this would be my wish list for the 1Ds X):


180nm sensor fab process, 60% Q.E.
46mp (8350x5567) or 54mp (9000x6000)
16-bit on-die parallel ADC (3e- flat read noise)
15+ stops DR
ISO 52100
1D X meter and AF system
61pt AF unit
5fps frame rate (FF), 7fps (APS-H cropped), 9fps (APS-C cropped)
Integrated intervalometer, 9999 max frame count, configurable inter-frame delay, configurable pre-start delay, manual mode or bulb mode support, bulb-ramping
Price not to exceed $6,999


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > I like Canon to take their time. As it has a positive effect on their next product tech wise. I won't be in the game for a 5DIV. The 5D3 still remains more camera than I ever can handle properly 8) So as improved high ISOs beyond 25k are my main interest, I will be glad to see the 5DIV's specs which will kinda forecast what the 5DV will be based on. 1/2 a stop to a full stop better high ISO by 2018 would be a tremendous leap for the 5DV. Till then I am well equipped. Still working on my first 10k frames with the 5D3.
> ...


+1 ... I totally agree!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I don´t need to talk about new gear because I have it.



I see that our dear friend, M.ST, has left our tight-knit little community. How very, very sad. No more will we get to hear about the great performance of the 1D Xs MkIII and 5D MkVIII bodies that he's been using for years now…

Unless, of course, he turns up again like some other bad pennies have been doing… :


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 3, 2013)

I'm relatively new, so I don't know about the forum dynamics/politics/etc., but in my short time as a member I've seen a lot of negativity on this board.  Not sure what to make of it, exactly, but it's discouraging.

As for the topic. I'm reluctant to believe that the 5DIII will get upgraded to a 5DIV next year. I see 2015 being the year for that. Especially as Magic Lantern is getting more and more attention and Canon can milk an existing product that appeals to budget-minded aspiring film-makers. As I understand it, right now the 5DIII is the top-dog for Magic Lantern given that they're hesitant to touch the 1Dx after getting threatened with legal action (which IMO Canon would have a difficulty following through with if you are familiar with the cases _Sega Enterprises v. Accolade Inc._, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and _Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp._, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) - even though these cases are both from the 9th circuit).

However, more full-frame cameras is otherwise great news to me. I think it will result in more lenses designed with full-frame users in mind. I might be wrong there, but that's how I view it.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 3, 2013)

not sure if this could happen, but...

2 FF bodies rumored, but not a 5d4 and not a split to the 1d line...

Many have said it could be a 6d2... I think this is very logical because its entry level which if it follows the pattern of other entry level products, 1-2 year cycle, so the 6d2 could very well be one of the new FF bodies..

the second...

how about this as an idea --- a 5dS perhaps? what else would they name a big mp studio camera that isn't 1 series? 2D? doubt it...3d...everyone says that won't happen... a 4D???/ maybe...5 is out, 6 is out, 7 is out...and I doubt they'd make an 8d or a 9d because that would be really confusing...


----------



## traveller (Dec 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> This was my last favorite comment from this thread. I totally agree...Canon can take their time on the 5D IV and 1D neXt. Far too early to replace those cameras. I suspect the big camera Canon will be at least announcing next year will be the big megapixel camera...the 1Ds X or whatever then end up naming it. The landscape and studio photography camera.
> 
> Personally, I hope it gets the following (this would be my wish list for the 1Ds X):
> 
> ...



Finally, we're back on topic (fingers crossed!). 

I notice that there's a rumour over on SAR that Sony has a 54MP full frame sensor in the pipeline, but at the moment it's too expensive to produce. 

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-54-megapixel-2/

There's probably some truth in this, as SAR is effectively an unofficial informal channel for Sony's marketing department! I wonder if they'll sell it to Nikon first for the rumoured (far higher price point) D4x? We may even see this sensor tech make it into the next generation of Hasselblads...http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-hasselblad-and-sony-to-make-a-joint-sensor-announcement/

Canon must be doing _something_ similar; maybe they're having cost/yield issues as well?


----------



## Artifex (Dec 3, 2013)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I'm relatively new, so I don't know about the forum dynamics/politics/etc., but in my short time as a member I've seen a lot of negativity on this board.  Not sure what to make of it, exactly, but it's discouraging.
> 
> As for the topic. I'm reluctant to believe that the 5DIII will get upgraded to a 5DIV next year. I see 2015 being the year for that. Especially as Magic Lantern is getting more and more attention and Canon can milk an existing product that appeals to budget-minded aspiring film-makers. As I understand it, right now the 5DIII is the top-dog for Magic Lantern given that they're hesitant to touch the 1Dx after getting threatened with legal action (which IMO Canon would have a difficulty following through with if you are familiar with the cases _Sega Enterprises v. Accolade Inc._, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and _Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp._, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) - even though these cases are both from the 9th circuit).
> 
> However, more full-frame cameras is otherwise great news to me. I think it will result in more lenses designed with full-frame users in mind. I might be wrong there, but that's how I view it.



Thank you for those judgement reference. Although I have very little knowledge in American laws and jurisprudence, I am very curious of the precedent that could apply to a possible legal action between Canon and ML, since American court would probably be the correct forum in this case (although I know nothing about American international private law). Still, I have one silly question, as a non-american and non-under-common-law person, what is the 9th circuit? Are those first instance court? Thanks for your help.
P.S: Sorry if I made mistakes, I studied law in a different country and a different language!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 3, 2013)

Artifex said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I'm relatively new, so I don't know about the forum dynamics/politics/etc., but in my short time as a member I've seen a lot of negativity on this board.  Not sure what to make of it, exactly, but it's discouraging.
> ...



From what I hear it's more that they have decided that they don't think it would be right to try to turn a 1DX into a 1DC and that they are also afraid of playing with the 1DX in general because they don't want Canon to try to lock out the next firmware for all cameras and also the 1 series bodies are expensive and they are not getting paid to do this work and a few 1DX test bodies costs a heck of a lot of money. Also, until very recently they didn't even have a clue how to work with dual digic bodies either.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 3, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.



AFAIK, he also spent hours in the lab trying dodging and burning and trying to mess around with the chemical baths and so on to get more and more and more out of what he had to deal with, trying to get the most out of what existed and to further improve it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 3, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



even in the cases where the scene is too complex for split ND filters and stuff is moving too much for multiple shots to be combined?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 3, 2013)

Artifex said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I'm relatively new, so I don't know about the forum dynamics/politics/etc., but in my short time as a member I've seen a lot of negativity on this board.  Not sure what to make of it, exactly, but it's discouraging.
> ...



The difference between those cases and a possible Canon corp action against ML is size, both previous defendants were multi million dollar corps in their own right. ML is not, they could be swamped in legal actions with the bat of a multi billion dollar corps eyelid. They couldn't afford to counter the motions Canon could throw at them.

No they are an appellate court with regional jurisdiciton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 3, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.
> ...



He was good, no question about it, but with the limited dynamic range of the sensor he was using his HDR images always seemed to look like the colour was washed out...I'm sure that if he had a Nikon (Sony) sensor in his 8x10 camera that the blues of the sky would not have looked so grey


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 3, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Artifex said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



I don't disagree. I think maybe the EFF might be interested in representing them if they wanted to seek a declaratory judgment on the matter, but you've described an unfortunate classic problem in litigation and why many cases settle.

EDIT: OR why large entities with deep pockets can intimidate people into never filing a lawsuit to begin with or jumping through hoops to avoid a lawsuit being filed against them, even if it's frivolous.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 3, 2013)

With regards ML I think Canon have taken a masterful and probably coincidentally pragmatic approach, all the more remarkable given the type, size and style of company they are. 

ML adds a very welcome boost to 5D sales, it made the 5D MkII a cult product and that has continued with the MkIII, indie film makers, small time videographers and wedding photo/video shooters love them, but Canon have laid down their stance on encroachment of the Cine line, a much smaller and better funded market segment anyway.

ML have created a buzz and good feeling around the 5D, Canon have "let" them do it, a PR positive instead of the PR negative legal action would have generated. ML have helped sales, which I am sure Canon appreciate, but ML don't see the value, if any, in hacking the C line firmware, which Canon also love.

This has to be a very rare occurrence of everybody being happy and living in comparative harmony, wonder how long it can last!


----------



## jrista (Dec 3, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Artifex said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



Aye, these are the reasons I think ML guys gave themselves, particularly the last one, that buying several 1D X bodies is just unrealistically costly.


----------



## jrista (Dec 3, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.
> ...



That isn't all that different from what we do today. Even with a D800, you are still going to dodge and burn in photoshop or lightroom...those are LOCAL DR adjustments, not global, and if you really want to extract perfection from your work, they are two of the most critical tools for doing so.

I would also point out that these days, we have some pretty good tools, like Topaz DeNoise 5, which can recover lost dynamic range. Canon's worst problem, for example, isn't that they have noise in the shadows...it's the *kind* of noise they have in the shadows: banding. DeNoise 5 has some pretty amazing debanding and black point adjustment, which can clean up that nasty banding in the shadows, and fix the black point to recover DR. You can't recover all of the lost detail, but you can recover almost a stop, which puts Canon photos right back into the game with sensors that have more native DR.

As you said, you work with what you have, and you use the tools and techniques available to you to get the most out of your source materials.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 3, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> With regards ML I think Canon have taken a masterful and probably coincidentally pragmatic approach, all the more remarkable given the type, size and style of company they are.
> 
> ML adds a very welcome boost to 5D sales, it made the 5D MkII a cult product and that has continued with the MkIII, indie film makers, small time videographers and wedding photo/video shooters love them, but Canon have laid down their stance on encroachment of the Cine line, a much smaller and better funded market segment anyway.
> 
> ...



I'm glad you phrased it as *"let"* quotation marks and all because I just don't feel that legally there is much they could do about it *unless there are facts that I'm unaware of*. I think legal action would not only have created negative PR, but may very well have resulted in unfavorable legal precedent for Canon if the ML folks had adequate legal representation and some means of legal funding.

The problem as you pointed out earlier is that they likely have neither, and Canon could force an attorney for ML to rack up an unaffordably large number of billable hours responding to near-ridiculous motions. I say "near" with ABA PR Rule 3.3 in mind. (Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.3 cmt. 4 (1983)) - not proper citation form, but this is a forum discussion, not a brief. 

I'm not sure that I agree with you about everybody being happy. I imagine 1Dx owners feel a little bitter about sort of being penalized for owning Canon's non-C flagship EOS. No?

What would be interesting is if maybe one of the full-frames to come out next year is a 5DC - an entry level C-series EOS. Not saying I think it would happen, just that it would be interesting.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2013)

jrista said:


> I would also point out that these days, we have some pretty good tools, like Topaz DeNoise 5, which can recover lost dynamic range.



In credit of my 6d I have to say I didn't see any banding yet, ever, and shadow recovery with LR pv2012 is very good. But ettl it's still kind of a workaround, because when manually exposing (and not for example using auto-ettr of Magic Lantern) you still are operating on the edge of the camera's ability and have to spot meter all the time or guess what underexposure is necessary to prevent as many blown highlights as possible - no software recover these, the data simply isn't there.



jrista said:


> You can't recover all of the lost detail, but you can recover almost a stop, which puts Canon photos right back into the game with sensors that have more native DR.



Unless photogs with Nikon/Sony sensors also know Topaz which is a definite possibility


----------



## jrista (Dec 3, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would also point out that these days, we have some pretty good tools, like Topaz DeNoise 5, which can recover lost dynamic range.
> ...



Certainly. I have always felt that Canon cameras underexpose a bit much to preserve highlights. I always seem to have HUGE headroom in my RAW files. I photograph the moon a lot, and I can make it a nearly pure white disc in live view, and still not clip the highlights. The cameras meter tries to make it a medium toned gray disc, which is always significantly darker than the moon looks naturally.

I understand that preserving highlights is critical for certain kinds of photography, such as weddings and events, but you would think that they wouldn't try to preserve so much highlight headroom unless you enable HTP or something like that.



jrista said:


> You can't recover all of the lost detail, but you can recover almost a stop, which puts Canon photos right back into the game with sensors that have more native DR.



Unless photogs with Nikon/Sony sensors also know Topaz which is a definite possibility 
[/quote]

I'm not sure what Topaz has to offer an Exmor user. They already have practically zero noise...what exactly would they denoise? (BTW, debanding and DR recovery only really apply at low ISO...at higher ISO, it doesn't matter what brand you have...its all the same in the end.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2013)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I'm glad you phrased it as "let" quotation marks and all because I just don't feel that legally there is much they could do about it unless there are facts that I'm unaware of. I think legal action would not only have created negative PR, but may very well have resulted in unfavorable legal precedent for Canon if the ML folks had adequate legal representation and some means of legal funding.



... which of course they haven't, few people could stand against the global might of an enterprise like Canon if they are set upon sueing some individuals to the end of days. Canon might still try this, even if reverse engineering the fw is not forbidden in *all* download license agreements... but you have to break a very weak encryption to look at the code, which might be considered illegal or not.

The main thread above the heads of Canon users are:

Canon could try to invalidate all warranties if they manage to detect ML was installed (like if your camera breaks and you aren't able to remove the bootflag),
Canon they could add a *working* firmware* encryption, currently it's only weak XOR which means they *allow* the fw to be decrypted. The stronger AES is possible since 550d, but Canon chose not to use it (guess why ). If they really wanted, they could use really strong asymmetric public key encryption in the next camera models and the ML project would be dead since you cannot just dump the fw from the camera but have to re a fw update.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 4, 2013)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I imagine 1Dx owners feel a little bitter about sort of being penalized for owning Canon's non-C flagship EOS. No?



No, good point, but No.

For myself Canon could take out the Video function on the 1Dx, reduce the price 1k, and I'll sell my current 2 1Dx bodies & buy 2 of these, if I want video I use a Video Camera, or better still, let my Son take the video.

what would make me even happier (and I'm Happy with what I have, but happier is better, No ??), would be jrista's wish list. 



traveller said:


> Personally, I hope it gets the following (this would be my wish list for the 1Ds X):
> 
> 
> 180nm sensor fab process, 60% Q.E.
> ...



Which I feel could all be possible, except the last line, $6,999 ?? Possible ?? Yes, Probable ?? Don't think so, still, Canon will need to compete with the Nikon D4x due soon as well, so they'll need to keep the price competitive, but I see the 1Dxs being a premium over the 1Dx, maybe an 8k Camera Body.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


 ???


----------



## jrista (Dec 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Usually, in such cases, you would likely be at a (much) higher ISO setting than 100 or 200, which GREATLY negates the value of having that extra DR. Beyond ISO 800, there is no meaningful difference, either way...things become physically limited. Even in broad daylight, I rarely photograph birds at ISO as low as 800, and rarely shoot wildlife below ISO 400. That is maybe a fraction of a stop better DR in the best case, but generally speaking I can't recall needing to lift such photos by that much anyway.

There may be some circumstances where you are lucky enough to need more DR and have motion slow enough where you could get away with ISO 100. In those (very rare) situations, sure, more DR would be awesome.


----------



## jrista (Dec 4, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> With regards ML I think Canon have taken a masterful and probably coincidentally pragmatic approach, all the more remarkable given the type, size and style of company they are.
> 
> ML adds a very welcome boost to 5D sales, it made the 5D MkII a cult product and that has continued with the MkIII, indie film makers, small time videographers and wedding photo/video shooters love them, but Canon have laid down their stance on encroachment of the Cine line, a much smaller and better funded market segment anyway.
> 
> ...



Totally agree here. Canon only benefits from ML's activities and their firmware. It certainly doesn't steal sales from the company, on the contrary more often than not many photographers stick with Canon for the sole reason that ML exists for it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

jrista said:


> It certainly doesn't steal sales from the company



Maybe not on the accumulated sales side, but certainly a lot of people buy a Rebel because you can fix usability and feature shortcomings with ML and Canon cannot use "it has xyz brackets" as a marketing item. Also the raw video of the 5d3 might lose them some 1dx sales... 

... but I still think Canon profits from ML as a system, even if Panasonic recently prevented 3rd party fw on their cameras because of increased support costs there is a reason Canon does allow it.


----------



## sanj (Dec 5, 2013)

So so sorry but what is 'ML'. Pls do not laugh, just tell me the full form. Pls.


----------



## Zv (Dec 5, 2013)

sanj said:


> So so sorry but what is 'ML'. Pls do not laugh, just tell me the full form. Pls.



Magic Lantern

http://www.magiclantern.fm


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

sanj said:


> So so sorry but what is 'ML'. Pls do not laugh, just tell me the full form. Pls.



Magic Lantern an add-on that runs alongside the original Canon firmware and brings very useful to near-essential features to the camera (raw video & histogram, 14ev dynamic range, focus stacking, focus peaking, intervalometer, unlimited bracketing, ...). It's the one reason I'm using Canon and not Nikon. See link above for their homepage, they've also got a forum with tutorials over there.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 5, 2013)

In restrospect, magic lantern is a third party add on that only works with Canon DSLRs.
Of course, its helping Canon more than crippling them... because ML doesn't make hardware of their own, only software.

No point in thinking anything else... if you don't have a body, and its lenses... what good does the software that helps run it have?

Canon should really pay them for what they do.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 5, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Canon should really pay them for what they do.


Maybe they do  If so it would be a rather cunning way to verify new concepts and test reactions in the user community.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 5, 2013)

Eldar said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should really pay them for what they do.
> ...



Or maybe it just looks really good on your resume when Canon is interviewing software engineers.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 5, 2013)

mkabi said:


> In restrospect, magic lantern is a third party add on that only works with Canon DSLRs.
> Of course, its helping Canon more than crippling them... because ML doesn't make hardware of their own, only software.
> 
> No point in thinking anything else... if you don't have a body, and its lenses... what good does the software that helps run it have?
> ...



So Canon takes Magic Lantern to court and wins... and now the Judge has to award damages.... "So because of this unauthorized software you sold an extra 10,000 units and your company's profits went up by $5,000,000.. I award you damages of -$10,000,000.... please pay it to the people at Magic Lantern".... Just NOT gonna happen


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > With regards ML I think Canon have taken a masterful and probably coincidentally pragmatic approach, all the more remarkable given the type, size and style of company they are.
> ...


+1


----------



## sanj (Dec 6, 2013)

Zv said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > So so sorry but what is 'ML'. Pls do not laugh, just tell me the full form. Pls.
> ...



Oh ok. yeah I know magic lantern! Thx.


----------



## sanj (Dec 6, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > So so sorry but what is 'ML'. Pls do not laugh, just tell me the full form. Pls.
> ...



 Thx


----------



## Zv (Dec 6, 2013)

sanj said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



No problem there were some things I was unsure of at first and shamefully had to look up on Google! 

I remember being like "What the hell is AFMA??" I was convinced I could figure it out on my own but eventually gave up and Googled it! 

And it doesn't help when "ML" is sometimes used to say Mirror-Less, but I think context helps! Confusing when they are talking about Magic Lantern on a page about Mirrorless cameras!! Haha!!

There should be a CR glossary of terms!!


----------



## Ruined (Dec 6, 2013)

Anyone think they might make the 24-70 II a kit lens for the expensive hi-rez 1D? If so, that might really bring it down into a more affordable range for ppl.


----------

