# *UPDATE* Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 3, 2012)

```
<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/2012/06/canon-rebel-t4i650d-on-june-8-2012-cr2-5/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-rebel-t4i650d-on-june-8-2012-cr2-5/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-rebel-t4i650d-on-june-8-2012-cr2-5/"></a></div>
<strong>*UPDATE*


</strong>I upgraded the announcement date to [CR3]. The specs I’ll leave at [CR2], I haven’t heard a confirmation of the short list below.</p>
<p><strong>New Rebel this week?


</strong>It appears June 8, 2012 may be the announcement date for the new Canon EOS T4i/650D. I am told the NDA’s lift that day. Friday seems to be the new favoured day of the week for Canon announcements. I didn’t get any new specs on the camera, so I posted the specs we reported earlier. I’ll post more if I get more.</p>
<p>I also expect a new EF-S 18-135 IS to be announced alongside the EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake.</p>
<p><strong>Specifications

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>18mp (no word on whether or not its a new or modified 18mp sensor)</li>
<li>9 AF Points, all cross-type</li>
<li>Touchscreen LCD</li>
<li>Continuous AF in LiveView & Video Recording</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;"> c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## EOBeav (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

Yeah, I still don't know if I could get used to a touch screen on a dslr. Still, though, this should be a pretty sweet body for anybody just getting started out. Put some decent glass in front of it, and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get some nice images.


----------



## RC (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

Is it just me or do others also think a touchscreen on a camera is lame? Why would you want to muck up your LCD with smudges and fingerprints so it becomes a big messy glare?

It seems to me is just a _"oooh cool, lets get this one Martha, it has a touch screen"_ gimmick? :


----------



## nicku (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

hmmm.... Canon give us a good reason to upgrade from 550D to 650D ... don't mention the 600D to 650D. Disappointing, i have expected at least a 20MP sensor. Nikon ( if the rumor is true) , Canon just drove your D3200 sales up, UP, UP.


----------



## draexler (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

Any rumours on how the touchscreen will be integrated into the overall controls layout? Less buttons than the 600D or the same layout but with more quick-access features with the touchscreen?


----------



## tylerfrankling (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

I do hope the touch screen isn't necessary, and will just compliment the physical buttons. Poking the screen is just going to make it impossible to see with the finger print marks, and if you tried to clean the screen quickly without turning it off, who knows what random settings you would change.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



RC said:


> It seems to me is just a _"oooh cool, lets get this one Martha, it has a touch screen"_ gimmick? :



No offence to Rebel/xxxD owners, ... but isn't that pretty much their target market?


----------



## nentraC (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

i think screen's are being smudged all redy by noses poking at them wen looking thru the viewfinder. So no diference there.


----------



## RC (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



nentraC said:


> i think screen's are being smudged all redy by noses poking at them wen looking thru the viewfinder. So no diference there.


Valid point but this is the better argument:



tylerfrankling said:


> ...and if you tried to clean the screen quickly without turning it off, who knows what random settings you would change.


----------



## daveheinzel (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



tylerfrankling said:


> I do hope the touch screen isn't necessary, and will just compliment the physical buttons. Poking the screen is just going to make it impossible to see with the finger print marks, and if you tried to clean the screen quickly without turning it off, who knows what random settings you would change.



I remember the same argument when the first iPhone came out. Let's give Canon the benefit of having most likely addressed these obvious issues and see what they come out with. I'm curious to see what sort of software they've come up with to accompany touch input. Will be interesting to see how phone-like it is or if they've gone the extra mile to make it great, as opposed to just barely good enough.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



RC said:


> Is it just me or do others also think a touchscreen on a camera is lame? Why would you want to muck up your LCD with smudges and fingerprints so it becomes a big messy glare?


Most companies have done a pretty good job of solving this issue; don't see too many people freaking out that they can't see their iPad screen, and yet that is entirely a touch-screen interface.



> It seems to me is just a _"oooh cool, lets get this one Martha, it has a touch screen"_ gimmick? :


Sort of like a flip out screen was for the T3i. They basically didn't upgrade anything, but added a gimmick. Welcome to the Rebel line, where the T2i was the last really innovative upgrade. Reviews will tell, but it seems like the T4i is getting a few gimmicks (touch screen, video AF), with the AF being potentially the only real upgrade.


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

If it gets DIGIC 5 thats another good upgrade.


----------



## Silverstream (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

I saw a touchscreen on another point and shoot once. It was simply used to direct the focal point in live view quickly and easily which is something I find very slow with the current buttons. As to leaving marks on the screen, since I normally use the viewfinder, I am constantly smearing the lcd with oil and or sweat from my face when I'm working and just as constantly, wiping it off. I don't see how my fingers touching it will be worse than that if any worse since my fingertips are not as oily or as sweaty as my face.

I am set to order this T4i as soon as it is available to order as long as it has a new sensor. That to me is the heart and soul of the camera. There are other issues/features I'd like addressed particularly better faster low light focusing, but without a new sensor, I will not upgrade.


----------



## idimoe (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



preppyak said:


> Sort of like a flip out screen was for the T3i. They basically didn't upgrade anything, but added a gimmick. Welcome to the Rebel line, where the T2i was the last really innovative upgrade. Reviews will tell, but it seems like the T4i is getting a few gimmicks (touch screen, video AF), with the AF being potentially the only real upgrade.



Some would argue that the flip out screen is *not* a gimmick and is actually practical in some applications.


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

the current 18MP sensor is terrible. Not event my best resolving lens produces sharp photos on my 7d, whether it is the AA filter or the sensor itself, Sony, pentax and Nikon have been killing Canon in this regard for years. How many years since they produced a new APS-C sensor, its been too long and they're losing customers because of it...or should be atleast(their brand name is what sells the cameras, not the cameras themselves for many rebel owners). I'm too invested in Canon gear to change and the 5d really was Canons saving grace for me, but seriously this coming has enough money to be upgrading low volume super teles and yet the cash cows have been englected, doesn't make much business sense to me, though niether does producing a lens almost two years after announcing it.


----------



## Halocastle (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

Since when did a "gimmick" become a bad thing? 

"An ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal." - Dictionary.com

If a touch screen on a DSLR is a gimmick, great. I trust it will increase sales and Canon's marketshare.

Gimmick today, copied tomorrow (yes, the first "mirrorless" camera was a gimmick).


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

As to the debate about gimicks....

Vari-angle screens.... My personal opinion is that they are absolutly useless for hand held photography, yet when on a tripod live-view and vari-angle screens become useful, and when the camera is used on the telescope they are vital. In short, my opinion of them depends on how I am using the camera. There is no simple answer.

Touch screens..... look at the screens on a Ipod... you can expect this quality or better.... and just wait a few years till you see ipad apps controlling the camera with the live-view on the ipad.... and if you don't believe this could happen then don't use Ishutter for long exposure camera control and stay away from tethered shooting. In astrophotography we are already there.

These are starting points.... not the future... I remember the first digital camera that I used... 320 by 200 resolution in 16 colors.... now it wouldn't have the resolution to make a thumbnail.... we have to start somewhere and just because it isn't the way Ansel Adams did it, does that mean it is wrong?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



RC said:


> nentraC said:
> 
> 
> > i think screen's are being smudged all redy by noses poking at them wen looking thru the viewfinder. So no diference there.
> ...



Depends what kind of touch screen it is. If it requires, human heat like the iphone it is unlikely to be an issue.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

@daveheinzel


> Let's give Canon the benefit of having most likely addressed these obvious issues and see what they come out with.



5D3 LCD backlight issue. 5D1 mirror issue. 1D3 AF issue. 50D banding issue. 7D Sandisk issue. 
Lets not assume anything! Let the usual mugs buy the first ones at 25% more and beta test them for the rest of us.

@Chewngum


> the current 18MP sensor is terrible. Not event my best resolving lens produces sharp photos on my 7d, whether it is the AA filter or the sensor itself,



Either your best resolving lenses aren't as sharp as you think, or you haven't set the camera up properly, or you can't use DPP or photoshop. 99% of 7D IQ moans are from people who would have been better sticking to rebels. The 7D is a camera that needs set up. Full stop. Set it up. Learn it. Tweak it. Much like the 1D users have been doing for years, and you'll get further. Expect it to behave like a rebel or x0D and you really have wasted your cash.

Nikon users have enjoyed, and enjoy to this day, better JPEGS out the body, price for price point.

Canon users have benefitted more from proper RAW processing, particularly sharpening and luma channel NR.

The 7D gets a poor rep on some forums. I think users who buy a camera designed to give you choices and to be set up and who fail excercise those choices or to spend time setting it up are the real problem. 

If you own a 7D and aren't getting the results you want:

A) Chuck anything with a slower constant max aperture than f2.8
B) Chuck anything without a focus limiter switch
C) Chuck anything without a USM ring motor
D) Check out the CPS videos on AF set up.
E) Go out and practise on traffic through fences. Birds through trees.
F) Tweak it.
G) See E
H) See F
I) See G
L) See H
M) Use it in anger. 
N) Try using a zone rather than just using auto select AF
O) Once you've got the hang of zones, try linked points
P) Once you've got the hang of linked points try individual points.

And this is before you get to the post processing side, and post processing is something Canon users have always had to live with. Not just on the 7D.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

Sorry but A + B are absolute load of rubbish. Are you seriously saying that someone with a 400 f/5.6L and a 7D should chuck the lens? What utter nonsense. What would you suggest they get at say 600mm? Does anyone have enough cash to develope a f/2.8 and the strength in their arms to lift the amount of glass that would be required?

Focus limiter? What about using manual focus if your AF isn't working very quickly?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

A) Faster lenses focus quicker, and f2.8 or faster bring things like the dual cross point sensors into play. If you aren't getting the AF you want then, yeah, maybe the f5.6 lens has to go. 

B) FTM's great, do you really need to focus from 1.5m rather than say 3m? If not, flick the switch and watch your hit rate rise through the roof.

I play to some degree devils advocate. My over-riding point remains, there is a type of user who buys a better camera and thinks thats all they have to do. Their photos aren't any better, or are in some cases worse. So it must be the camera? Right?

It can't be the shitty slow lenses they use, or the fact they are shooting in auto-af point select mode can it?

I would suggest they concentrate on getting their camera working well at 200 or 300 with a decent lens and some time spent on set up, and then crop if they need to.

A sharp image taken with a 200 and cropped is better than a soft image taken at 600, or 400. No?


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



paul13walnut5 said:


> @Chewngum
> 
> 
> > the current 18MP sensor is terrible. Not event my best resolving lens produces sharp photos on my 7d, whether it is the AA filter or the sensor itself,
> ...



My sharpness testing was done using macro lenses, far outresolving the sensor, MF, tripod mounted etc... I have tweaked every single setting of the camera to my specifications. Took 2 years to get the settings right. Don't get me wrong its a great camera for everything other than sharpness and contrast. Just imagine the 7d with the 16MP Sony sensor thats in the d7000, that'd be a killer camera. I defended the 7d for a while because i owned one but now i accept that if I'm going to need 100% crops then I won't use it, my 50d and 40d produce more detail than it despite the MP drop. Its just a half done camera, even if they put the 40d sensor in it I'd of been happy, but the 7d sensor does not wow in any way...its adequate but could have easily been so much better. Sharpness is achievable with the 7d, but only when you downsize.

I think its funny that you 100% assume user error, God forbid a person doesn't have the same standards as you and actually isn't happy with what you're happy with. I sold my 7d because i gave it enough time but i can repeatedly get better results with much cheaper options.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Canon Rumors said:


> ...the EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake.



I'm interested if this has anything to do with mirror-less.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



idimoe said:


> Some would argue that the flip out screen is *not* a gimmick and is actually practical in some applications.


As someone who does video, I'd agree with you. I don't need it, as I could get every shot I now get with my 60D on my 50D, but it makes some things more convenient.

But, I say it as a bad thing on the T3i because they put it on a T2i and changed nothing else for 95% of end users (the other 5% being those that use slave flash on a T3i, and that is probably an overestimation). If it was such a necessary item, why wasn't it on the camera's earlier; they've had the tech for long time. They just suddenly needed something to differentiate it and charge a premium...

The touch-screen might actually be useful since the button arrangement has always been awful on the Ti cameras, they're desire to include very few buttons might work. We'll see.



Daniel Flather said:


> I'm interested if this has anything to do with mirror-less.


The general consensus is that any Canon mirror-less won't be EF mount...since the point of mirror-less is to be smaller, and the EF mount makes the camera about twice as large as it'd need to be. More likely its just another light, portable lens like the 50mm f/1.8.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



idimoe said:


> Some would argue that the flip out screen is *not* a gimmick and is actually practical in some applications.



That depends on the definition. The standard 7d's and enthusiasts' definition would be "only the rebels have it, it can't be good, pro or l33t" (this seems strange to me because the flipout screen has no drawbacks whatsoever, only potential advantages). Like a lightweight body is a gimmick, because a real man's camera couldn't be carried by a woman


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



preppyak said:


> The touch-screen might actually be useful since the button arrangement has always been awful on the Ti cameras, they're desire to include very few buttons might work. We'll see.



I just hope it's a decent touchscreen. My Canon Vixia HF M41 has a touchscreen, and while I love the camcorder for the most part, the touchscreen is a real pain - insensitive and mushy.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



neuroanatomist said:


> I just hope it's a decent touchscreen.



What's "decent" and for what users - you won't get a 650d anyway  ? Since it's aimed at amateurs that don't need quick changes (or they'd get a body with buttons) and given the expected price tag ~550d ~600d and <60d it's doubtful if a top-grade touchscreen is either economical or really appreciated.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

@chewngum


> I think its funny that you 100% assume user error



I didn't. If you care to re-read my post you shall confirm that I actually assumed 99% user error. Perhaps you are amongst the remaining 1% who can actually work and learn a complex camera, understands post-processing and just happened to get a dud.

Otherwise I really don't see whats funny. A lot of inept and impatient photographers with slow lenses let marketing fool them into thinking that a more sophisticated and accurate body properly set up shall yield them better pictures? 

Boom boom! I'm hear all week ladies and gentlemen!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



> My sharpness testing was done using macro lenses, far outresolving the sensor



Which macro lenses, and how do you know they far 'outresolve' the sensor? I can't think of a camera with a higher pixel density than the 18MP APS-C other than the Nikon D3200. Maybe the D800E, I would need to check. So I can only take it as fact that you've also tested your lens on a Nikon D3200 or a Nikon D800E and it's done much much better.

I'm sorry you didn't get on with the 7D. I use mine with a Sigma 70mm macro (I don't know how the 100mm f2.8 IS performs, but prior to this lens a good copy of the sigma resolved above the canon macros in every test I checked) 

Perhaps you are using too small an aperture and don't fully appreciate aperture limited diffraction which is more pronounced on smaller sensors and on cameras with higher resolutions. Blame physics.

Or perhaps you were one of the 5% of folk who bothered setting the camera up properly, but were one of the 5% of that 5% who got a dud.

No, it must be the camera. Has to be the camera. Couldn't possibly be technique or settings.

Joker: I find my 7D works a treat with one of the sharpest macro lenses out there.
Fall-Guy: Do you use AF?
Joker: No, I use a manfrotto micro adjust rail, tripod and the lens scale! Boom Boom!
Fall-Guy: Are you here all week?
Joker: Yup!


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



paul13walnut5 said:


> > My sharpness testing was done using macro lenses, far outresolving the sensor
> 
> 
> 
> Which macro lenses, and how do you know they far 'outresolve' the sensor? I can't think of a camera with a higher pixel density than the 18MP APS-C other than the Nikon D3200.


Also you said "Either your best resolving lenses aren't as sharp as you think, or you haven't set the camera up properly, or you can't use DPP or photoshop." 

Hmmm, if you give 3 options, all of which are user error, then that means you think its user error...no room for movement in your statement sorry. If you ever try a reasonable copy of the sigma 150 macro you will know what i am talking about when it comes to sharpness. The 7d did not render as much detail as the 50D despite having the same crop factor and more MPs. To explain it further, ever gotten a misaligned lens such that every shot taken with it appears slightly soft...I get that with every lens at every aperture on the 7d, and I have bought three 7d's over the course of 2 years and they all produced the same shots. So that begs the question, why did i buy more if i wasn't happy with the first...I was shooting sports where i was outputting at 10mp, downsizing makes the 7d appear a much better camera than it is.


----------



## Silverstream (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

To Chewngum:

I have been very pleased with the sharpness I have gotten with certain lenses on my t2i. Here is a link to a 100% clip from an above head to breast height image. F18 Iso100 1/160 with an EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS. See attachment.

I am very pleased with the sharpness I get. I just want a better low light sensitivity/less noise and better low light autofocus.


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Silverstream said:


> To Chewngum:
> 
> I have been very pleased with the sharpness I have gotten with certain lenses on my t2i. Here is a link to a 100% clip from an above head to breast height image. F18 Iso100 1/160 with an EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS. See attachment.
> 
> I am very pleased with the sharpness I get. I just want a better low light sensitivity/less noise and better low light autofocus.


The 7d has features which allow me to get a shot i may not have gotten otherwise, but ultimately i just dont think it had a sensor performing the way it should. Sharpness would only affect about 5% of the images i output, often reliability is more important. Anyway I am done on the 7d topic, I would apreciate Canon improving the APS-C sensor they are using...they have ergonomics, build and features where it counts but better image quality would make the the 7d the APS-C camera unbeatable in all aspects. I look forward to seeing what canon produces...I'm ready for similar IQ to the pentax and Fuji sensors.


----------



## Silverstream (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Chewngum said:


> The 7d has features which allow me to get a shot i may not have gotten otherwise, but ultimately i just dont think it had a sensor performing the way it should. Sharpness would only affect about 5% of the images i output, often reliability is more important. Anyway I am done on the 7d topic, I would apreciate Canon improving the APS-C sensor they are using...they have ergonomics, build and features where it counts but better image quality would make the the 7d the APS-C camera unbeatable in all aspects. I look forward to seeing what canon produces...I'm ready for similar IQ to the pentax and Fuji sensors.



If Canon released the t4i without a new sensor, I would have serious doubts about Canon's short term outlook in the low end DLSR market. It doesn't make sense that they would put out the same sensor when Sony and Nikon have the level of offerings they have. Canon has been at the forefront of development in this area for quite some time now. I doubt they want to relinquish the lead.
On the 7D note, there were rumors posted about merging the 7D and 60D bodies to make way for a low end full frame in their price lineup. I personally would buy a 70D in a heartbeat over the T4i if both were available simultaneously soon (For hopefully even better autofocus and microlensadjustment if the new 70d had it).


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Chewngum said:


> The 7d has features which allow me to get a shot i may not have gotten otherwise, but ultimately i just dont think it had a sensor performing the way it should. Sharpness would only affect about 5% of the images i output, often reliability is more important. Anyway I am done on the 7d topic, I would apreciate Canon improving the APS-C sensor they are using...they have ergonomics, build and features where it counts but better image quality would make the the 7d the APS-C camera unbeatable in all aspects. I look forward to seeing what canon produces...I'm ready for similar IQ to the pentax and Fuji sensors.



As a 7D user I agree with you that the 7D with the Nikon D7000 sensor (+electronics) would by far be the best APS-C camera around. 

At the same time I do not find the sensor in my to be "terrible" at all. I am quite pleased with sharpness as well as overall image quality I get, although the 7D sensor is technically outclassed by the best newer cameras by now - but more so in DR and low-ISO noise than in sharpness. 

Maybe you really got a sub-standard camera.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



AvTvM said:


> Chewngum said:
> 
> 
> > ultimately i just dont think it had a sensor performing the way it should.
> ...



He said he'd tried three. The usual error is comparing 100% crops.


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Silverstream said:


> If Canon released the t4i without a new sensor, I would have serious doubts about Canon's short term outlook in the low end DLSR market.



7d...550d...60d..600d? I had serious doubts when the 60d had the sensor. Canon have too much big brand name'ness' about themselves and i see too many people buying Canon thinking they're getting the best without even researching what suits them. I rarely see someone buy nikon unless they've done a little research. I worked camera retail for 2 years and it was often a mission to convince yuppi's to buy anything other than canon.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Chewngum said:


> Silverstream said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon released the t4i without a new sensor, I would have serious doubts about Canon's short term outlook in the low end DLSR market.
> ...



At least telling from the dslr stuff tourists (there are a lot in Berlin) carry around, it's 2/3 Canon and many many nowadays rather cheap 600d. So releasing the same sensor over and over again really doesn't seem to matter to the xxxd crowd, and rightly so, they'll hardly ever reach the sensor's limits and/or wouldn't notice a slight improvement. But they would notice if the body price went up $100 because Canon wouldn't put it the standard sensor in it anymore.


----------



## eyeland (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

I have been saving for a new DSLR for a while now and as the money intended for a FF had to go to a new laptop I have been searching for a decent budget DSRL to keep me going until I can afford FF . I think the only thing that kept me from getting the 550D/600D is that upon testing them, I found the AF system not just surprisingly inferior but almost useless (given that one shoots under sub-optimal conditions and like to change AF points). I grew up with Film, and the Rebel AF system would have been a minor gripe for me if it hadn't been for the VF making precise MF very difficult especially in the situations where the AF fails. (Granted, LV zoom and Magic Lantern aids the use of MF greatly but it can be quite hard to use without something to stabilize the cam.)
Of course the sensor is important, but I would take improved VF and/or AF any day over improved sensor in this price-range.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*

@chewngum


> Also you said "Either your best resolving lenses aren't as sharp as you think, or you haven't set the camera up properly, or you can't use DPP or photoshop."
> 
> Hmmm, if you give 3 options, all of which are user error, then that means you think its user error...no room for movement in your statement sorry.



Once again you misquote, or deliberately misinterpret me. I really tried to give you that 1% out that it may be a faulty camera rather than the more likely fact that you can't work it properly. Especially given that you've went through three. 

Interesting that you mention you get on fine with the more basic 40D and 50D which have AF that doesn't require setting up. I thinks me sees the problem maybes. The 7D is really for advance users who are willing to read the manual and spend some time setting the camera up. 

Maybe a camera that works reasonably right out the box is your best bet.

I gave three scenarios: crap or faulty lenses, poor camera operation, or poor post-processing. In 99% of cases it will be one of, two of or a combination of all three. See there's still that 1% to let 'those with a dud camera' off the hook.

You also allude to pixel peeping. I'm sure I made it a resolution of mine a few years back to stop debating with pixel peepers.. How did you get on when you shot film? Did you complain to kodak that the silver hallide grains were the wrong shape or not sharp enough, or did you not look at your negaitives through a microscope?

Please don't misquote me again. Go and buy something simple that you can work. The 7D is obviously a rung above your aspirations / ability.


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 4, 2012)

Paul I know the AF back to front of all my cameras and many i dont own. I spend many hours getting to know a camera before i try and use it for paid work. I have never had a real problem with AF, especially on the 7d. The reason i preferred the 50d and 40d was their sensors. There is a distinct difference between OOF and not sharp that you dont realise obviously. Also I am 21 and only used film for kicks for 5 years before switching to all digital 5 years ago. I never complained about film because i was born into an age where I can pick apart equipment and where small tolerances do affect me, especially if I am putting 10k+ investment into it. If you love film so much then shoot exclusively on film, it wont affect me. Sharpness doesn't always matter but start printing 1mx2m prints and you might realise thats where a good combination of sensor and lens will shine!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 4, 2012)

Which would be the 3rd possibility, poor postproduction.
Have you tried processing with usm in dpp or acr? I had a 400d, same senor as 40d (though older 12bit d2 processor) and my 7d images (and t2i & t3i) outperform those from the older sensor. I do more post prod and will more often than not shoot RAW, but I've had no reason to think the camera us inherently unsharp. How close do you stand to your 1m x 2m prints? Like pixel peeping, when you consider the enlargement factor (postage stamp to 2m squared) i think maybe expectations are set a little high,


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 4, 2012)

All of this is besides the point. I am ready for a new APS-C sensor and can't wait for a 7dII or equivalent cam with it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 4, 2012)

We can agree on that, at least. Always interested to see where new tech takes us. And at least canon are finally realising the pixel quality is as important as pixel quantity.


----------



## SambalOelek (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Silverstream said:


> I have been very pleased with the sharpness I have gotten with certain lenses on my t2i. Here is a link to a 100% clip from an above head to breast height image. F18 Iso100 1/160 with an EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS.



If you are very pleased with T2i sharpness at f/18, you'll be blown away by its performance at f/5.6


----------



## Silverstream (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



 SambalOelek said:


> If you are very pleased with T2i sharpness at f/18, you'll be blown away by it's performance at f/5.6



I have had a shoe issue with my T2i that makes TTL work rather flakily at times. It will go to full blast exposure occasionally. I can then reset my camera by turning it off and on which sometimes works, OR, in a pinch, I just adjust my camera to compensate as I did here. As soon as I get a new body, this T2i goes in for repair. The flash was an Einstein 640 w/ Beauty Dish in conjunction with a reflector. I was going for a high key look after all!

FYI, it worked flawlessly for quite a while btw. But since it started doing this, it has been a serious pain in the butt at times.


----------



## trulandphoto (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



SambalOelek said:


> Silverstream said:
> 
> 
> > I have been very pleased with the sharpness I have gotten with certain lenses on my t2i. Here is a link to a 100% clip from an above head to breast height image. F18 Iso100 1/160 with an EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS.
> ...



Right. Here's my favorite diffraction resource: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 4, 2012)

Silverstream said:


> I have had a shoe issue with my T2i that makes TTL work rather flakily at times. It will go to full blast exposure occasionally.



Had that with 430EX/2s - its most likely an alignment problem, one contact slips of its counterpart and the flash reverts to standard middle contact operation.


----------



## Tymo93 (Jun 4, 2012)

I like how canon experiments on the xxxd line rather than xxxxd line.


----------



## Silverstream (Jun 4, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> Had that with 430EX/2s - its most likely an alignment problem, one contact slips of its counterpart and the flash reverts to standard middle contact operation.



Thanks for the thought! It is definitely in my camera shoe as I've done testing with multiple 580s at my nearby rental store. I did hammer (very lightly and carefully!) the top of the shoe down just a bit and it seemed to make it somewhat better. I may try and bring the sides in a teensy tiny bit after I get the new T4i body and before I send it in for service. It seemed to be caused (I'm guessing) by having a speedlite mounted on top of my PW flex-tt5 which puts an abnormal amount of pressure on the shoe and a lot of vertical/horizontal movements.

BTW: Truland Photo - Thanks for that diffraction resource. Quite interesting and informative.


----------



## trulandphoto (Jun 4, 2012)

> BTW: Truland Photo - Thanks for that diffraction resource. Quite interesting and informative.



Your welcome. My first practical experience with the issue was taking waterfall shots on a 50D at F22 with a polarizer to get a slow enough shutter speed to blur the water. I couldn't figure out why since I was using a tripod and shutter release they weren't sharp.


----------



## gavntery (Jun 5, 2012)

I found this pic in a Chinese sina weibo. The address is http://weibo.com/kencc. I'm not sure is it true.


----------



## nentraC (Jun 5, 2012)

If it was shot whit the 650d then the IQ is wors then 600d


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 5, 2012)

I think it's fake, do canon usually fit UVs to their demo cameras?

Besides, if its asian website why isn't it a rebel or a kiss?

Even if it it is real, what does it tell us, the nomenclature that my goldfish had already worked out?


----------



## K_Elkhawaga (Jun 5, 2012)

nentraC said:


> If it was shot whit the 650d then the IQ is wors then 600d


I think it was shot with the front-facing camera of an iPhone or something.



paul13walnut5 said:


> I think it's fake, do canon usually fit UVs to their demo cameras?
> 
> Besides, if its asian website why isn't it a rebel or a kiss?
> 
> Even if it it is real, what does it tell us, the nomenclature that my goldfish had already worked out?


I don't know about the UV, but in Asia it's called a xxxD (except in Japan). The Rebel name is only used in the US, and the Kiss name is only used in Japan.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 5, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Chewngum said:


> the current 18MP sensor is terrible. Not event my best resolving lens produces sharp photos on my 7d, whether it is the AA filter or the sensor itself, Sony, pentax and Nikon have been killing Canon in this regard for years. How many years since they produced a new APS-C sensor, its been too long and they're losing customers because of it...or should be atleast(their brand name is what sells the cameras, not the cameras themselves for many rebel owners). I'm too invested in Canon gear to change and the 5d really was Canons saving grace for me, but seriously this coming has enough money to be upgrading low volume super teles and yet the cash cows have been englected, doesn't make much business sense to me, though niether does producing a lens almost two years after announcing it.



Please suggest this to Canon before Sony goes and Patents the applications for a DSLR sensor... http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/bilayer-graphene-extra-sensitive-photodetector/


----------



## nentraC (Jun 5, 2012)

K_Elkhawaga said:


> nentraC said:
> 
> 
> > If it was shot whit the 650d then the IQ is wors then 600d
> ...



Your right! And besides i think Canon should put instagram on this Baby 

Ok some sirious toughts on my side: I hope it has a new sensor, im not a huge fan of big MP i rether like good DR and IQ.

Im in the market for my first DSLR and cant wait to see how the 650 performs.


----------



## jrista (Jun 5, 2012)

*Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]*



Chewngum said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > @Chewngum
> ...



You don't understand spatial resolution, or what it means to "resolve". A macro lens *MAGNIFIES*...but that does _NOT_ mean it _outresolves_ a sensor. The 7D is a very high spatial resolution sensor, about 116lp/mm. That is not the highest resolution ever...there are 24mp APS-C sensors that reach around 128lp/mm, and some rare films have reached a few hundred lp/mm. Assuming an MTF @ 50% contrast (pretty standard for evaluating photographic IQ), you would only be able to resolve 116lp/mm at apertures wider than about f/6, and then, you would have to assume your lens was _diffraction limited_ at that aperture (i.e. a "perfect" lens at that aperture.) Most lenses are aberration limited at very wide apertures, such as f/2.8 and wider (even if they are extremely sharp lenses, its very rare to find a near-perfect diffraction-limited f/2.8 lens, and when you do, they are extremely expensive.) Some lenses are aberration limited past f/4, and many consumer-grade lenses are aberration limited down to around f/8! Optical aberrations tend to degrade IQ much more than diffraction, and by f/8, diffraction is going to explicitly limit your resolution to around 86lp/mm.

The problem is not the 7D...outside of a rather narrow band of apertures between around f/4 to at most f/6.3 your resolution is limited (depends on the lens...ultra high end superteles will often be near-perfect close to their maximum aperture, although you certainly PAY for that quality). Within that narrow band of aperture settings is the ONLY time you will be able to fully realize the potential of the 7D's sensor. At any apertures outside of that narrow band, and the 7D sensor is going to be outresolving the lens, and at 1:1/100% crop things are going to look soft. That is NOT a bad thing, though...it actually makes it easier to clean up noise and sharpen, as such artifacts are sub-detail level at that point!

That isn't all, though. The more dense the sensor, the more sensitive it is going to be to camera shake. Even on a tripod, slight vibration from wind, or the very slight tug of a cable release that you might be holding in your hand, can introduce enough camera shake to slightly blur your photos. As camera sensors like the 7D's continue to get more and more sense, lens functionality like IS will become more and more important, at shorter and shorter focal lengths, to help ensure camera shake does not blur fine detail. 

Neither the 40D nor the 50D produce more detail...it is simply that the detail they are capable of recording is intrinsically sharper as a consequence of lower spatial resolution. That would be one of the benefits of LOW resolution and LARGE pixels...less detail, but that detail is PERCIEVED as sharper "strait out of the camera". Its a matter of perception...but all things being equal, the 7D will *trounce* them on an actual "fine detail" level as it _does_ offer significantly more spatial resolution than either of those two cameras. A moderate amount of post-process sharpening will usually enhance a 7D photograph significantly, enhancing those finer details more, producing a photograph that is superior on a detail level to anything the 40/50D could produce. 

So to be frank @Chewngum, as a satisfied 7D owner myself, you need to educate yourself before you make wild claims about how "crappy" something like the 7D's sensor really is. For your own sake, you should make sure you fully understand what it means to "resolve", what spatial resolution is and what magnification is, how those two differ, how lens and sensor resolution combine to produce the actual spatial resolution of a photograph, and what the benefits and tradeoffs of higher density sensors are relative to lower density sensors.

Resolution and detail are not the issues. The 7D excels in that area. The issue is, quite simply, electronic noise. The only real edge SoNikon have over Canon is Exmor, and its extremely low electronic noise across the board. That is ONLY an issue in the bottom two stops of ISO settings...at any other setting, Canon and Nikon are equivalent, as noise at that level is really a matter of physics.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 5, 2012)

trulandphoto said:


> Your welcome. My first practical experience with the issue was taking waterfall shots on a 50D at F22 with a polarizer to get a slow enough shutter speed to blur the water. I couldn't figure out why since I was using a tripod and shutter release they weren't sharp.


Yeah, I've encountered the same thing, though I often find I am happy with f/16 or f/22 over an ND filter and the resulting vignetting


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 5, 2012)

Jrista, you bore me.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2012)

excellent posting, Jrista! 

They only point were I do not follow entirely are your remarks regarding Canon - Nikon towards the end. Nikon's newer sensors (D7000, D800) have a significant dark noise advantage over Canon sensors - that makes a difference at higher ISO's as well ... DR is better, more shadow detail can be pulled out. 5D3 and D800 crossover at about ISO 6400. D7000 and 7D probably at no ISO.


----------



## jrista (Jun 5, 2012)

Chewngum said:


> Jrista, you bore me.



Please. Either you have a well founded, factually valid response, or you just validated my point about you.


----------



## jrista (Jun 5, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> excellent posting, Jrista!
> 
> They only point were I do not follow entirely are your remarks regarding Canon - Nikon towards the end. Nikon's newer sensors (D7000, D800) have a significant dark noise advantage over Canon sensors - that makes a difference at higher ISO's as well ... DR is better, more shadow detail can be pulled out. 5D3 and D800 crossover at about ISO 6400. D7000 and 7D probably at no ISO.



Above ISO 400, the advances in Exmor sensors are minimal. If we refer to low-level hardware tests, most, including DXO, indicate that the 5D III is actually equivalent or has a slight DR edge over the D800 at ISO's above 400 (DR "crossover", or where Canon DR is slightly better than the D800, is at ISO 1600 (Canon 9.23ev vs. Nikon 9ev), not 6400). Now, granted, Canon had to "cheat" somewhat to achieve that...their bayer CFA is a bit more color-blind in red and blue channels (they weakened those two filter colors, allowing more green light through...making red slightly more "orangish-red" and blue slightly more "cyanish-blue". This is largely immaterial, since it can be corrected with color profile curves...but still, its a cheat.)

The numbers, however, do indeed indicate that Canon has the DR edge at high ISO settings, however slim it may be. The electron saturation numbers indicate that both Canon and Sony sensors have about 3-4 electrons worth of "read noise" at higher ISOs (which is really a measure of all electronic noise in a circuit at the time it is read and converted), so Sony sensors don't really have much of an advantage. If and when they do, its at most 1 electron worth, which is going to be largely immeasurable unless you are severely underexposing, or trying to pull shadows so deep that there is a 1:1 or worse noise ratio and there isn't any useful detail there to start with.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2012)

jrista said:


> his is largely immaterial, since it can be corrected with color profile curves...but still, its a cheat.



That's certainly interesting, you certainly seem to have a clue about these things, please keep posting  ... where does the correction take place when shooting raw, in the in-camera digic or in the raw converter?


----------



## jrista (Jun 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > his is largely immaterial, since it can be corrected with color profile curves...but still, its a cheat.
> ...



Tone curves are essentially how the in-camera "picture styles" are achieved. Its basically the same as Photoshop RGB curves, allowing different attenuation per color channel. If you shoot JPEG, the raw data off of the sensor will be processed according to whatever picture style you have selected, resulting in a specific look and feel. The slight color cast that would be present in red and blue pixels from the 5D III (and, I suspect, 1D X) could be corrected with the appropriate red, blue, and green channel curves when saving out the JPEG. The same basic thing is done with RAW, however (outside of using DPP) each RAW processor (i.e. ACR, Lightroom, Aperture, RawThearapy, etc.) will usually have its own set of picture styles or camera profiles, and even in the case when they have profiles that match name-for-name those from a camera, the results will usually be a little bit different.

The application of RGB Tone Curves is basically just a mathematical/algorithmic attenuation of each color channel. Canon's embedded JPEG converter or an advanced RAW editor probably involve more advanced algorithms than just plain-jane curves...there may be some basic levels adjustments, and when lens profiles are involved, there may be further color tone curves applied...but the general result is the same: correct color output, despite any slight color casts in each color channel of the RAW sensor data. To be honest, I am pretty amazed by the 5D III's color accuracy, color contrast, and vibrancy...from the images I have seen so far, its got stellar color quality.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 5, 2012)

^ it's a joy reading you, jrista

I'd just add that it's not an RGB curve, but a full demosaic algorithm that gets each R/G/B channel not only from the photosites that have that color, but from all photosites, R G and B, with coefficients that are usually positive for that color and negative for the others (to adjust from color crossover in the filters)


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 5, 2012)

jrista said:


> Chewngum said:
> 
> 
> > Jrista, you bore me.
> ...



I feel I am succinct, though my point was valid. You have tremendous scientific knowledge of what should go on in inside a camera. However, you neglect to comment on or compare real world results with mathematical possibilities. I can agree even without your posts that the 7d should produce more fine detail...but mine and many others' real world testing can show the camera does not produce in the field what it does on paper.


----------



## jrista (Jun 6, 2012)

Chewngum said:


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



Sure it does...your just comparing 1:1 results. The farther you push sensor resolution past lens resolution, the "softer" 1:1 crop will look. That doesn't change the fact that higher resolution sensors ARE capturing more detail. When pixels become significantly sub-detail sized, viewing things at 1:1 crop becomes incredibly useless. Scale your 7D photos DOWN to your 40D size, or scale a 40D photo UP to 7D size, and the superiority of the 7D *in the real world*, even WITH additional noise, will be clear. 

If by some fluke they are not, then the problem is not the camera...its the way the camera is used. Find ways to eliminate camera shake, make sure your using an "ideal" aperture (i.e. an aperture within that band between a little wider than f/3 to about f/6.2), or anything else that can improve your technique.

As for being succinct...sure, however telling me I bore you is simply an evasion, not a counter argument. ;P


----------



## jrista (Jun 6, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> ^ it's a joy reading you, jrista



Many thanks!  I enjoy sharing the theory and science of what makes our art possible. 

(BTW, based on your avatar, I think I've used a little DOF calculator you have up on the web...the site was titled Similar or something like that...)



NormanBates said:


> I'd just add that it's not an RGB curve, but a full demosaic algorithm that gets each R/G/B channel not only from the photosites that have that color, but from all photosites, R G and B, with coefficients that are usually positive for that color and negative for the others (to adjust from color crossover in the filters)



True...however I was trying to avoid having to dive into bayer demosaicing algorithms (as once I've mentioned something, people tend to ask for more and more detail about it! ). I know a few things about some demosaicing algorithms, but thats a real rabbit hole full of rats nests...there are a dozen ways to demosaic, each with their various pros and cons. I think a lot more photographers are more familiar with tone mapping and curve editing in Photoshop and similar tools than with the fundamentals of bayer demosaicing. 

Now, here is a mouthful for ya: Adaptive Homogeneity-Directed Demosaicing Algorithm. Now, say it ten times fast! (J/K!) Try typing that out a few times in an explanation of Lightroom's current form of demosaicing, which can be turned into the acronym AHDD, and then you just get jokes about demosaicing being ADHD when AhDDing numbers....yeah... ;P


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 6, 2012)

jrista said:


> Scale your 7D photos DOWN to your 40D size, or scale a 40D photo UP to 7D size, and the superiority of the 7D *in the real world*, even WITH additional noise, will be clear.
> 
> If by some fluke they are not, then the problem is not the camera...its the way the camera is used. Find ways to eliminate camera shake, make sure your using an "ideal" aperture (i.e. an aperture within that band between a little wider than f/3 to about f/6.2), or anything else that can improve your technique.



My other posts in this thread more than address these statements. You're arguing a truism...boredom isn't evading your comments, its saying they're unnecessary as we're arguing different things. I will state again, I would like to see a much better system of APS-C image production from Canon. I don't care what has to change(AA filter, sensor, processor/s etc etc) but the next APS-C sensor should produce RAW files which require far less work to be made optimal.


----------



## jrista (Jun 6, 2012)

Chewngum said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Scale your 7D photos DOWN to your 40D size, or scale a 40D photo UP to 7D size, and the superiority of the 7D *in the real world*, even WITH additional noise, will be clear.
> ...



You'll have to provide some quotes. I've read all of your other answers, and at most you seem to allude that the 40D and 50D are "better", without much explanation as to how or why. I don't see any sample photos you have taken with either the 40D or 50D and the 7D that can be compared apples to apples (larger scaled down or smaller scaled up to normalize size). If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to get a bit more serious in your arguments.



Chewngum said:


> You're arguing a truism...boredom isn't evading your comments, its saying they're unnecessary as we're arguing different things. I will state again, I would like to see a much better system of APS-C image production from Canon. I don't care what has to change(AA filter, sensor, processor/s etc etc) but the next APS-C sensor should produce RAW files which require far less work to be made optimal.



I dispute the notion that we are arguing different things. You "argued" that using a macro lens allowed you to "far outresolve the sensor". That is a falsehood, and your argument a fallacy...easily falsifiable. I believe your understanding of the points you are trying to argue is flawed and incomplete. For your own benefit, I am trying to encourage you to argue your points more thoroughly with more evidence to back up your otherwise anecdotal claims.

You have mentioned a variety of things in your previous posts that, to me (and I believe a number of other participants in this thread), seem to indicate a problem with camera usage, rather than the camera itself. Your arguments are also often vauge or incomplete, which leaves them open to attack and falsification without further shoring up, however the arguments you make to shore up prior ones have the same flaw. A small narrative of selected quotes, to demonstrate:

* * "the current 18MP sensor is terrible. Not event my best resolving lens produces sharp photos on my 7d, whether it is the AA filter or the sensor itself, Sony, pentax and Nikon have been killing Canon in this regard for years."*

* - Anecdotal.
- Vague.
- Evasive.*

*Counters:*
Exactly what about Canon's 18mp sensors are terrible? I don't necessarily _disagree_ that there are _some_ things about it that are less than great, but I do disagree the sensor in general is just flat out terrible. More explanation about what and why is required here to make it a valid argument. As it is, it is antagonistic but a little evasive.

*What* is your _best_ lens? This statement about your lenses is very vague. If your best lenses are consumer grade or off-brand, outside of a very few cases, then this statement is anecdotal at best. Have you micro focus adjusted all of your lenses? If you have, HOW did you micro-adjust them? There are good tools and BAD tools to use to tune your lenses and camera bodies to idealistically match. More information is really necessary to make your argument sound.



* * "My sharpness testing was done using macro lenses, far outresolving the sensor, MF, tripod mounted etc... I have tweaked every single setting of the camera to my specifications."*

* - Falshood.
- Anecdotal.
- Vague.*

*Counters:*
Plain and simple, use of a macro lens does nothing intrinsic to increase spatial resolution. Use of a macro lens can allow you to *magnify* something to a significant degree, and with specialized tools, you can go well beyond 1:1 magnification. From a physics standpoint, at high magnification the effects of diffraction also tend to increase, as with greater extension (required to achieve 1:1 or greater magnification), you increase the focal length, and therefor reduce the aperture. Given that, its more likely that a macro lens at its maximum magnification will have LESS spatial resolution than at an ideal aperture and greater focus distance. Fallacy and simple falshood. 

What about manual focus makes your results better than if you used any form and configuration of autofocus? Very anecdotal argument.

Regarding your settings...what have you changed, why did you change it, and how? Vauge, very vauge. 



* * "I think its funny that you 100% assume user error, God forbid a person doesn't have the same standards as you and actually isn't happy with what you're happy with. I sold my 7d because i gave it enough time but i can repeatedly get better results with much cheaper options."*

* - EVASIVE!
- Naive.*

*Counters:*

As a group, in general (however obviously with some exceptions), I believe photographers tend to be a rather perfectionist bunch. My experience online in general, and with some of my photographer friends in real life, is that photographers generally want perfect results, regardless of what gear they use. The more technically oriented tend to blame the gear...however the more naturally artistic often tend to either blame circumstances or, in fewer cases, blame their own skill! (Personally, I love it when I meet an introspective photographer who is constantly challenging THEMSELVES to improve THEIR OWN TECHNIQUE! They tend to be the most phenomenal photographers of all, with talent that floors most other photographers, and they still seem to continue gaining more skill and more knowledge...how ironic is that! ;P)

Your notion that someone else, especially on THIS forum, is not as interested in eeking out every last ounce of technological capability from their gear as you are is extremely naive, and the whole statement in general is rather evasive....avoiding the requirement that others have placed on you to back up your claims with more facts and less talk.



* * "If you ever try a reasonable copy of the sigma 150 macro you will know what i am talking about when it comes to sharpness. The 7d did not render as much detail as the 50D despite having the same crop factor and more MPs."*

* - Anecdotal.
- Fallacy.*

*Counters:*

Even a reasonable copy of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro is generally inferior to either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro or the Canon 180mm f/3.5mm L Macro. Both Canon lenses, one of which runs for about $500 or so and the other for about $1400 or so, are far superior to the Sigma 150. For what it is, its not necessarily unsharp, given it's priced at about a 20% discount to the Canon 180, but it is definitely NOT as sharp as either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 nor the 180mm f/3.5. Comparisons can be seen at the links below...no contest, both Canon lenses are sharper, and this reviewer is known for being particularly meticulous about his lens samples...he returns them until he gets as ideal a copy as possible before writing a review (try f/4 to eliminate optical aberrations and ensure a normalized comparison): 

150/180: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=378&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=109&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1
150/100: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=378&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=107&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Sigma is able to produce cheaper lenses because they use cheaper materials, cheaper fabrication techniques, and cheaper processes. One area in particular where Sigma falls well behind Canon would be lens coatings. Sigma uses a basic form of multicoating, nothing special, but definitely more limiting to overall transmission (potentially by as much as 30% in worst conditions) than Canon's SWC (SubWavelength Coating), which is a nanotech particle based coating that pretty much ensures at least 99.95% transmission even when flare and ghosting do occur (I can attest to the astounding superiority of SWC myself as a couple of my lenses have it, and even with the sun right in the corner of a frame, ghosting across the rest of the frame is barely noticeable, if noticeable at all.) 

Sigma's skill at reducing optical aberrations is certainly not as great as Canon's, or for that matter Nikon's, Zeiss', etc. The difference in resolution in the above two examples has less to do with improper micro focus adjustment or a bad sample, and more to do with the fact that Sigma's lens manufacturing industry is simply not as large and advanced as their brand-name competitors'./


Claiming the 7D did not render as much detail as the 50D is just flat out false. The 7D has a 10% resolution benefit (nearly 20% pixel count benefit) over the 50D. No matter how *sharp* the 50D results may appear, none of the deficiencies of the 7D are likely to cause it to take a solid 10% hit to IQ in general, let alone a 10% hit to its ability to resolve detail specifically. The 50D, with larger pixels, will generally appear sharper _*for what it records*_, but what it records will have _LESS_ detail than the 7D in all cases that do not involve user error. You might be able to account for a 3% margin-of-error loss in IQ due to electronic noise in the 7D's sensor at low ISO settings, but claiming a 10% drop in IQ solely due to "the sensor" (which is an extremely vague statement in and of itself) is almost laughable and demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of what spatial resolution is, or for that matter how and why the 7D is able to continue producing high quality images with competitive noise characteristics DESPITE offering 20% more pixels than the 50D.

As a very simple test, just hunt around a site like 500px.com for photos taken with the 7D. You'll be hard pressed to find any that look like crap, and when they do, I would be willing to bet good money EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is due to a lack of skill, a lack of artistic vision or capability, or any other of a number of USER related issues, and not a single hardware factor. You'll also find that photos taken with the 7D are just as good or better than similar photos taken by the same photographer with older gear that might have much larger pixels...such as a 50D, or a 350D, etc.


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 6, 2012)

Jrista, I have neither the time or interest in replying to your essay beyond this comment.


----------



## jrista (Jun 6, 2012)

Chewngum said:


> Jrista, I have neither the time or interest in replying to your essay beyond this comment.



Great! Now we can get back on topic!



*Continuous AF in LiveView & Video Recording*

Anyone curious if this is still just CD-AF, or possibly some kind of FPPD-AF?? Focal-plane phase detection is a critical thing for high performance mirrorless AF. I'm rather curious if Canon will demonstrate a solid willingness to compete with the likes of Fuji and Nikon in the arena of high speed, highly capable, multi-point AF in their first mirrorless entrant...or whether they will cripple it with some kind of vastly inferior CD-AF. 

How Canon play's their mirrorless card(s) will be, IMO, a clear indication of their willingness or capability to compete in the new arena of digital camera equipment. FPPD-AF would indicate they ARE willing to compete, at least to keep up with the competition. A mirrorless entrant with FPPD and a high DR 14-bit sensor would indicate they are truly serious about competing and innovating into new markets, and serving their customers quality gear. Some form of Contrast-based AF would indicate they have lost the ability or interest in solidly competing and innovating into new markets against fierce competition. A mirrorless entrant with CD-AF and the same kind of "Canonized" sensor with high low-ISO read noise and poor DR would be seriously worrying...

Maybe the 650D's continuous live AF will be an indication of things to come? A hint at Canon's competitive prowess?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2012)

jrista said:


> Anyone curious if this is still just CD-AF, or possibly some kind of FPPD-AF?? Focal-plane phase detection is a critical thing for high performance mirrorless AF. I'm rather curious if Canon will demonstrate a solid willingness to compete with the likes of Fuji and Nikon in the arena of high speed, highly capable, multi-point AF in their first mirrorless entrant...or whether they will cripple it with some kind of vastly inferior CD-AF.
> 
> How Canon play's their mirrorless card(s) will be, IMO, a clear indication of their willingness or capability to compete in the new arena of digital camera equipment. FPPD-AF would indicate they ARE willing to compete, at least to keep up with the competition. A mirrorless entrant with FPPD and a high DR 14-bit sensor would indicate they are truly serious about competing and innovating into new markets, and serving their customers quality gear. Some form of Contrast-based AF would indicate they have lost the ability or interest in solidly competing and innovating into new markets against fierce competition. A mirrorless entrant with CD-AF and the same kind of "Canonized" sensor with high low-ISO read noise and poor DR would be seriously worrying...
> 
> Maybe the 650D's continuous live AF will be an indication of things to come? A hint at Canon's competitive prowess?



rest assured, it will be only plain-vanilla CD-AF in the 650D and most likely still slower than CD-AF in recent mFT mirrorless cameras. 

Canon's "technical prowess" means, they are finally offering "continuous/Servo-AF" in video mode, probably also face-detection for tracking moving head-shots across the frame ... if and when conditions [lighting, contrast, speed, direction, predictability of movement] are so good and simple, that anyone could keep it manually in focus as well. And even that feature coms years after Canon's competitors have implemented it.

I myself have been waiting for hybrid, 2-stage AF systems for a long time. FPPD for "fast and rough" stage one focussing, followed by ultrafast CD-AF for stage 2 ... "precision focusing". Closest to that concept is the Nikon 1, which currently is the only camera on the market with FPPD. Presumably Nikon is sitting on a bunch of pretty valuable patents by now. But up to now, even Nikon has not managed to implement FPPD on APS-C or FF sensors. 

Overall, Canon is getting increasingly punished for not being a true innovator. During the last 4 years they have increasingly become a pure marketing (-differentiation!) company. Technically all of their cameras are at least 1 step behind state of the art in virtually every aspect - from sensor to FPPD to hybrid viewfinders ... only their in-cam jpg engine(s) do very well compared to competitive products. 

I also seriously doubt, the 650D will have a really kick-ass new Canon sensor with significantly higher DR [= with better dark noise specs]. I expect only a tiny, incremental update on the current 18 MP APS-C sensor (as used in 7D, 550D, 60D, 600D). 

What's worse, by now I am fairly convinced that Canon is UNABLE - as opposed to just UNWILLING - to come up with new CMOS imaging sensors that are fully competitive with Nikon's (/Sony) latest sensors. The Canon G1X was the latest disappointing proof to that. Definitely NOT terrible but rather "pretty good" ... meaning: about 1 step below current "gold standard" on the market.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 6, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Overall, Canon is getting increasingly punished for not being a true innovator. During the last 4 years they have increasingly become a pure marketing (-differentiation!) company.



Maybe looking back from 5 years in the future, this current situation will just look like a temporary lapse, we'll see. The thing worrying me with a quick look at my budget is that if they are a step behind the bleeding edge, this should at least reflect in their camera body prices. But since they still have some excellent lenses, they seem to get away with optimizing marketing for their bodies until now.



AvTvM said:


> What's worse, by now I am fairly convinced that Canon is UNABLE - as opposed to just UNWILLING - to come up with new CMOS imaging sensors that are fully competitive with Nikon's (/Sony) latest sensors.



I guess we'll know about unable vs. unwilling that when they update the aps-c sensor with the 70d, because in this market segment unwilling is no longer an option for them.

And we'll see if they decide to cut back on their marketing and really release the 70d as a 7d-like body with an updated sensor at a reasonable price, or if they come up with these little quirks again that make users wish for an upgrade.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 6, 2012)

jrista said:


> (BTW, based on your avatar, I think I've used a little DOF calculator you have up on the web...the site was titled Similar or something like that...)



Indeed, that's my site 
And it has a section where everybody can see lots of 100% crops from that 18mpix APS-C sensor, with dozens of different lenses (the sharpest ones probably being the Rollei Planar HFT 50mm f/1.7 and the Leitz Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4):
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html

(there are a couple of macro lenses there; one is quite sharp, but not as sharp as that tiny Rollei; the other is pretty mediocre)


----------



## koolman (Jun 6, 2012)

jrista said:


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



jrista:

I enjoy your posts and you obviously have a wealth of tech understanding. 
As far as the 7d softness debate. I too, borrowed a 7d for a few days, and compared it with my t2i. The out of camera images appeared softer / fuzzier. This mystified me... as the 7d is supposed to be far superior. Could you explain again in terms for laymen,  why this is - and how I can make the 7d's jpgs appear sharp ?


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 6, 2012)

I've heard that some Canon bodies apply far less in-camera sharpening than other models even on maximum sharpness settings (with "pro" models producing less sharp images than "consumer" models). The idea being that less sharpening applied results in more detail being retained and the photographer can later achieve their optimal mix later via software. If true, could that also be the case here? Or is this just another old wives tale to disguise sloppy technique and/or poor camera and lens performance?


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 6, 2012)

I'd bet most of those "I went from XXXD to 7D and images were soft" stories just boil down to "I didn't use the AF microadjustment feature in the 7D" ("most", not "all")
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts


----------



## dedado (Jun 6, 2012)

I believe the blurry pic from the chinese site actually is a 550D


----------



## aznable (Jun 6, 2012)

koolman said:


> I enjoy your posts and you obviously have a wealth of tech understanding.
> As far as the 7d softness debate. I too, borrowed a 7d for a few days, and compared it with my t2i. The out of camera images appeared softer / fuzzier. This mystified me... as the 7d is supposed to be far superior. Could you explain again in terms for laymen,  why this is - and how I can make the 7d's jpgs appear sharp ?



they have more or less the same sensor, the same processor so the resolution would be similar.
the 7d is supposed to be far superior for costuction/fps/AF and so on but not for the resolution of the sensor (maybe the sensor of 550D is a little better than 7d one)

maybe the lens you used has better focusing on 550d than 7d; i had a problem like that with my old sigma 70-200 hsm ii, that focused almost perfectly with 450d and FF a lot on 50D (i had to change the mfa to +16)


----------



## jrista (Jun 6, 2012)

koolman said:


> jrista:
> 
> I enjoy your posts and you obviously have a wealth of tech understanding.
> As far as the 7d softness debate. I too, borrowed a 7d for a few days, and compared it with my t2i. The out of camera images appeared softer / fuzzier. This mystified me... as the 7d is supposed to be far superior. Could you explain again in terms for laymen,  why this is - and how I can make the 7d's jpgs appear sharp ?



The 7D ships with older processing algorithms than the T2i, and its default sharpness setting is either 1 or 0. Crank it up to 3, and that should fix the problem. Also, Canon lenses do usually need to be micro focus adjusted for each body. When it comes to rebels, its often luck of the draw...and you might have received a body and lens that were relatively closely matched. The same lens may not be as ideally matched to the 7D, however it does offer micro focus adjustment, so I would do some tuning.


----------



## jrista (Jun 6, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone curious if this is still just CD-AF, or possibly some kind of FPPD-AF?? Focal-plane phase detection is a critical thing for high performance mirrorless AF. I'm rather curious if Canon will demonstrate a solid willingness to compete with the likes of Fuji and Nikon in the arena of high speed, highly capable, multi-point AF in their first mirrorless entrant...or whether they will cripple it with some kind of vastly inferior CD-AF.
> ...



You've generally voiced my concerns. Over the last four years, its been clearly demonstrated that significant gains in sensor IQ *can and indeed have* been made. Read noise does not need to be extremely high (like the 33+ electrons in the 5D III, one of the highest I've ever seen!), dynamic range can be pushed to the limits, pattern noise can be pretty much eliminated. Even if Canon had to pay some royalties for use of a patent or two, or needed to buy up a few companies with patents to get competitive again, they really need to. They are obviously incapable of innovating in the current market, and its really their customers who are going to start suffering as time moves on. I'm just waiting for SoNikon to move to full 16-bit CMOS sensor design, which, since their ADC's are on-die, would mean they could quadruple their dynamic range AGAIN, putting them around four stops better than Canon. That...well, it would be kind of a game ender, and people with large investments in Canon gear might indeed be stuck with them (who would buy used Canon gear when the vast bulk of the competition...anyone who uses a Sony Exmor sensor in their DSLRs, MILCs, etc. have vastly superior IQ, focal-plane phase-detection AF, etc. etc.).

BTW, regarding FPPD...I believe it is Fuji who has the patents on that. They were the first to produce a sensor with that style of AF system. It may not even be Fuji...I believe the concept was originally introduced in a research paper several years ago, in which case who knows who owns the patents. Whoever they are, they are brilliant, and deserve to rake in the royalties as it becomes a de-facto standard way to handle autofocus off in the future.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 7, 2012)

gavntery said:


>



Anyone else notice that this is different to the Rebel T4i on the CR front page?
Notably, the absence of the 4 microphone-holes above the nameplate...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2012)

in camera sharpening only applies to jpg ooc, compare raw vs raw to get a real idea if the 7D is softer or not


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 8, 2012)

well, I have to give it to Canon: they really prove me wrong this time! :-[  

Now they are first up with a 2-stage Hybrid-AF system in a DSLR, with FPPD-AF for fast focusing and CD-AF for final precision in the 650D ... I am very positively surprised! Plus the first 2 lenses with matching AF-drive. Of course this also means the sensor is new, although they kept it at 18 MP - which I consider a great decision. Will be interesting to see, how much progress they made on read noise! 

Looks like they might be getting their act together ... and maybe we are going to get a decent or even great Canon mirrorless soon!


----------



## nentraC (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


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



i apreciate your sensor tech knowladge and would like to read your opinion if it is a new sensor or a recikled on from 600d? 
Can they add a sensor layer for the focusing sistem to a eksisting design or do thej need to design a ne on?

sorry for my bad English.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2012)

nentraC said:


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



Um...seems like purposely botched English to me (I don't recognize any form of actual language barrier in there...possibly just REALLY BAD typing skills)...but whatever. 

If your asking is the sensor the same old 18mp APS-C Canon has been spinning around the merry-go-round for about four years now, possibly. Increasing NATIVE ISO by a stop would probably require more than just an improved image processor. Moving from Digic 4 to Digic 5+ certainly improves processing horsepower, but for RAW images it wouldn't do squat from an ISO standpoint. The amplifier is in the CMOS die...per pixel. It would be kind of hard to change that without designing a new sensor.

Now, Canon does do some funky things when it comes to ISO settings...their highest ISO settings tend to be a hybrid of various forms of amplification...so I could be wrong, and the additional stop of ISO could be purely handled by the Digic 5+. If that is the case...I would expect ISO 12800 to be pretty shitty...

_However that would kind of be in-line with Canon's approach to "competition" these days: cheat, cut corners, weasel their way out of the tough job of *ACTUALLY INNOVATING*...._


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> well, I have to give it to Canon: they really prove me wrong this time! :-[
> 
> Now they are first up with a 2-stage Hybrid-AF system in a DSLR, with FPPD-AF for fast focusing and CD-AF for final precision in the 650D ... I am very positively surprised! Plus the first 2 lenses with matching AF-drive. Of course this also means the sensor is new, although they kept it at 18 MP - which I consider a great decision. Will be interesting to see, how much progress they made on read noise!
> 
> Looks like they might be getting their act together ... and maybe we are going to get a decent or even great Canon mirrorless soon!



Where did you read it is FPPD-AD??? From what I read, it still needed a mirror-flip for PD-AF...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> Where did you read it is FPPD-AD??? From what I read, it still needed a mirror-flip for PD-AF...



That's the 'hybrid' part of the (putatively) 'new' Hybrid CMOS sensor. In Live View and movie shooting, PDAF sensors on the CMOS image sensor provide 'coarse focus' that's refined by traditional CDAF, effectively speeding up the AF process.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > well, I have to give it to Canon: they really prove me wrong this time! :-[
> ...




well of course any sensor-plane AF-system can only be active, when light is shining on it. 

So, yes, it is FPPD and izt is ONLY available in video/liveview mode. In addition, quick-mode-AF in live.view remains functional ... flipping the miorror breifly and using the regular phase-AF sensors at the bottom of the mirror box. Those are still there for regular stills capture. 

So in essence, the 650D has 3 AF systems:
* regular phase AF for stills capture and for quick-mode AF in liveview
plus 
* in-sensor FPPD-AF - only available in video/liveview mode - for "phase 1": quick focusing
* contrast AF - only available in video/ liveview - for "phase 2":- precision focusing

Also, the FPPD-AF is only available in the very center of the sensor ... even more bunched together than the traditional phase-AF fields. It is NOT available outside the center of the frame. See writeup and good illustration on dpreview: 
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-650d-rebel-t4i/3/#Hybrid 

Despite all limitations I have to give kudos to Canon for being first to market with an implementation of FPPD-AF on an APS-C sensor / in a DSLR.  

It certainly looks as if at least someone in their geriatric management has realized they better get things moving a bit ... or else ... ;-)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 8, 2012)

The camera seems to me to be a bif advance for a consumer model. 

The vari-Angle display is very useful for overhead shots or other ones where the angle does not let you view the rear of the camera, I've had a touch screen on my sony camcorder for years, and it speeds up making the settings. Smudges happen in any event, its not a big deal.

Autofocus during video (I hope its better than my D800), pentaprism viewfinder, there seem to be more than the usual tiny upgrades.

That 40mm pancake lens might be a nice feature as well, at least to help avoid undue attention.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you read it is FPPD-AD??? From what I read, it still needed a mirror-flip for PD-AF...
> ...



Well, if that is the case...that the sensor has some FPPD-AF pixels in the center of the frame, then the sensor is definitely new. FPPD-AF requires half-masked pixels to work, and that would require a new design. Pretty sweet though! I'm glad Canon IS finally showing some interest in actually competing, and improving their increasingly outdated technology. The use of FPPD-AF, even if its "hybrid" like this, seems to be good news for the mirrorless front.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The vari-Angle display is very useful for overhead shots or other ones where the angle does not let you view the rear of the camera... pentaprism viewfinder, there seem to be more than the usual tiny upgrades.



The T3i/600D had a vari-angle LCD, so no improvement there...

Also, sorry...but it's a pentamirror just like all the other Rebels. There was a mistake in the initial translation of the specs from the Japanese version.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> Well, if that is the case...that the sensor has some FPPD-AF pixels in the center of the frame, then the sensor is definitely new. FPPD-AF requires half-masked pixels to work, and that would require a new design. Pretty sweet though! I'm glad Canon IS finally showing some interest in actually competing, and improving their increasingly outdated technology. The use of FPPD-AF, even if its "hybrid" like this, seems to be good news for the mirrorless front.



exactly!


----------



## x-vision (Jun 8, 2012)

nentraC said:


> i apreciate your sensor tech knowladge and would like to read your opinion if it is a new sensor or a recikled on from 600d?
> Can they add a sensor layer for the focusing sistem to a eksisting design or do thej need to design a ne on?
> 
> sorry for my bad English.



It's a tweaked/recycled version of Canon’s current 18mp sensor. 

The hybrid AF has no bearing on the sensor. 
For hybrid AF, certain pixels just need to be read out by the AF processor as well (in addition to the image processor).
But they don’t need to be special pixels or anything. 

As for the higher ISO setting:
This is achieved with tweaks to the read-out logic and also by the Digic 5 processor.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2012)

x-vision said:


> nentraC said:
> 
> 
> > i apreciate your sensor tech knowladge and would like to read your opinion if it is a new sensor or a recikled on from 600d?
> ...



Sorry, but that is completely false. For phase-shift detection to work, you have to be able to determine a phase differential. For Focal-plane pase-shift detection AF, you have to mask off part of certain pixels in a specific way to make that possible. That allows only light from one side of the lens or the other to be actually picked up by the PD-pixels in the sensor. Much the same way a split-prism focusing screen works. If they were normal pixels, there would be no way to actually know if phase shifted, since in a standard phase-detect AF sensor, there is a special lens purposely designed to split incoming light for the purpose of detecting if there is a differential between the phase of light coming through various parts of the lens.

An explanation of Fuji's specific implementation can be found here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/8/5/fujifilmpd


----------



## x-vision (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > But they don’t need to be special pixels or anything.
> ...



Aah. So, we have certain pixels on the sensor wearing 'sunglasses', figuratively speaking.
This of course makes them totally different from the other pixels. Got it.


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2012)

x-vision said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



Aye. And those pixels remain functional for standard imaging as well. Despite the masking, they do not actually remove pixels from the normal bayer image output...its just that since a few hundred thousand, maybe a million pixels are used for FPPD-AF, vs tens of millions for the total image, the IQ impact is non-existent.


----------



## moreorless (Jun 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The vari-Angle display is very useful for overhead shots or other ones where the angle does not let you view the rear of the camera... pentaprism viewfinder, there seem to be more than the usual tiny upgrades.
> ...



You've also got by far the biggest improvement we've ever seen in the Rebel lines AF though and also the largest single improvement in FPS we've seen, before now it had been creeping up in 0.5 steps at most.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 8, 2012)

moreorless said:


> You've also got by far the biggest improvement we've ever seen in the Rebel lines AF though and also the largest single improvement in FPS we've seen, before now it had been creeping up in 0.5 steps at most.



Sure faster fps is fine for bracketing, but with little buffer size forget action shots.

Concerning the af: This is certainly an improvement too, but I have the 60d and I have to say the af is complete crap for servo, and for still shots the af points are mostly spread too far apart so it's focus & recompose like in the good ol' days. And with large aperture you cannot recompose because the focus shifts - no, wait, we cannot really use these lenses anyway because Canon didn't include afma :-o

As a conclusion, I guess real world 650d users will be much happier about the touchscreen & video af to record their children running around than the improved af & fps.


----------



## x-vision (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> Aye. And those pixels remain functional for standard imaging as well. Despite the masking, they do not actually remove pixels from the normal bayer image output...its just that since a few hundred thousand, maybe a million pixels are used for FPPD-AF, vs tens of millions for the total image, the IQ impact is non-existent.



So, except for the 'sunglasses', these pixels are no different than the other pixels on the sensor.

But isn't this what I said in the first place - that the hybrid AF has no bearing on the sensor. .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> And those pixels remain functional for standard imaging as well. Despite the masking, they do not actually remove pixels from the normal bayer image output...its just that since a *few hundred thousand*, maybe a million pixels are used for FPPD-AF, vs tens of millions for the total image, the IQ impact is non-existent.



I wonder, though...you (and others) have cited the slightly lower total pixel count as evidence that the 650D sensor is 'new' - but, what if it's the same old sensor, only Canon isn't counting the pixels dedicated to PDAF?


----------



## jrista (Jun 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > And those pixels remain functional for standard imaging as well. Despite the masking, they do not actually remove pixels from the normal bayer image output...its just that since a *few hundred thousand*, maybe a million pixels are used for FPPD-AF, vs tens of millions for the total image, the IQ impact is non-existent.
> ...



Um, what slightly lower pixel count? As far as I understand, its still 18mp, 5184x3456, which is exactly the same as my 7D, a total image pixel count of 17.9. I believe the sensor pixel count is exactly the same as its always been, from the 7D through the 600D.

I think its a new sensor because the pixel masking necessary for phase-detect pixels has to be added underneath the microlensing, as the microlens is an important factor in making FPPD-AF work. That would require some degree of reengineering...even if it is relatively minor. There may also be additional activate/read wiring to read out only the phase-detect pixels for AF before activating the full sensor for an image readout.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> That would require some degree of reengineering...



So you're really saying they had to re-engineer the sensor, but obviously managed to keep the rest without any trace of improvement? Doh. But sounds like Canon to me, they'll keep the little sensor upgrade they can do to the 70d to make the jump from the 60d/7d seem bigger.


----------



## x-vision (Jun 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> I think its a new sensor because the pixel masking necessary for phase-detect pixels has to be added underneath the microlensing, as the microlens is an important factor in making FPPD-AF work. That would require some degree of reengineering...even if it is relatively minor. There may also be additional activate/read wiring to read out only the phase-detect pixels for AF before activating the full sensor for an image readout.



Well, the sensor surely had to be tweaked to accommodate the hybrid AF and maybe other minor enhancements. 

You surely cannot just plug-in a 7D sensor in the 650D and expect it to have hybrid AF.

But the underlying sensor architecture and technology appear to be the same. 
Hence, the sensor will perform the same way (more or less) as the 600D/60D/7D sensors. 

Or, as I put it in another post: 
It's a brand new sensor ... with the same performance as the old one .


----------



## jrista (Jun 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That would require some degree of reengineering...
> ...



Well, I can't speak to "keep the rest without any trace of improvement". Like everyone else, I'll have to wait and see...I certainly hope its more than just some PD pixels and an extra stop of ISO. I don't know how to read Canon these days. Its been four years, about two generations, and they are just letting the competition RACE by them at near-blinding speed. They either seem to think they are undefeatable and that consumers will well and truly just buy their products regardless of how good they are; they literally can't innovate like they used to...too much process bloat and not enough patents, and they are now stuck with what they have; or they were simply caught off guard, and are working on new tech and its just not ready yet.

I am really hoping its the latter. When it comes to competition, Canon could be perpetually behind the curve if they DO have new tech in the works, but only try to compete with whats already been released. For Canon to truly compete in the future, they need to develop something that is competitive with whatever the future holds from Sony, Nikon, etc. and in multiple markets. They seem to have layered RGB CMOS patents...now if they can make a sensor with that design that has some 13+ stops of raw dynamic range, and reduce the noise floor to 2-3 electrons, and/or possibly bump the full pipeline, sensor to image processor, up to a full 16-bits...then they might be solidly competitive come next generation.

The pessimist in me says that Canon has not only dropped the ball, they deflated it, froze it, and shattered it as well...they don't really have any VIABLE patents they can actually act on, they passed up patents they could have bought in the past that might have given them a few opportunities now, and they are limited in or down right incapable of producing their own patents that are capable of rivaling what the competition has been offering for two generations of cameras now. Canon needs to catch up the the third-generation SoNikon product that will be released two-three years from now, and they don't have the technology to do it. 

So, pessimistic hope....?


----------



## RobS10 (Jun 9, 2012)

*A preview from Tech Radar*

Here is another preview of the T4i...
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-650d-1083870/review


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Um, what slightly lower pixel count? As far as I understand, its still 18mp, 5184x3456, which is exactly the same as my 7D, a total image pixel count of 17.9. I believe the sensor pixel count is exactly the same as its always been, from the 7D through the 600D.



Apologies for attributing that statement to you. Both sensors have the same count for _effective_ pixels (17.9 MP, or 'Approximately 18.0' as Canon states it). But the _total_ pixel count differs - approximately 18.5 MP for the T4i, approximately 18.7 MP for the predecessor.


----------



## jrista (Jun 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Um, what slightly lower pixel count? As far as I understand, its still 18mp, 5184x3456, which is exactly the same as my 7D, a total image pixel count of 17.9. I believe the sensor pixel count is exactly the same as its always been, from the 7D through the 600D.
> ...



Ah, gocha. Its entirely possible they are excluding the PD pixels. I guess that would mean there are about 200,000 of them.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> When it comes to competition, Canon could be perpetually behind the curve if they DO have new tech in the works, but only try to compete with whats already been released. For Canon to truly compete in the future, they need to develop something that is competitive with whatever the future holds from Sony, Nikon, etc. and in multiple markets. They seem to have layered RGB CMOS patents...now if they can make a sensor with that design that has some 13+ stops of raw dynamic range, and reduce the noise floor to 2-3 electrons, and/or possibly bump the full pipeline, sensor to image processor, up to a full 16-bits...then they might be solidly competitive come next generation.



I get the feeling Canon just doesn't care, and until Nikon can ramp up production to really steal away market share, their attitude might not change. According to DxO, the 7D sensor is only marginally improved over an ancient 20D.

20D
Color Depth: 21.9 bits
DR: 11 Evs
ISO: 721

7D:
Color Depth: 22 bits
DR: 11.7 Evs
ISO: 854

So, aside from resolution, Canon's current APS-C flagship has a sensor that's barely improved in the over a 7-8 year old 20D. During the lifespan of both bodies, Nikon has made leaps and bounds in sensor tech, yet Canon has increased its market share. If you're a Canon exec, why would you care to spend loads of R&D improving DR when lagging behind the competition in that metric hasn't impacted sales? I'm not saying that makes that kind of attitude OK, but merely pointing out that hoping and praying for substantially improved DR may be wishful thinking unless sales take a dump. 

Personally, I find the DR of Canon's sensors adequate for my uses, so I really don't care that Nikon is kicking Canon's ass in that department. If DR was that important to me, I'd be shooting Nikon, granted I could find the gear in stock somewhere


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 9, 2012)

The 1DS3 gives worse figures than the 7D.

DxO - figures pinch taken of salt with


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> 20D
> Color Depth: 21.9 bits
> DR: 11 Evs
> ISO: 721
> ...



70d & 7d2:
Color Depth: 22,1 bits
DR: 11.8 Evs
ISO: 855


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 9, 2012)

^ I really hope not... but that's the trend


----------



## moreorless (Jun 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > You've also got by far the biggest improvement we've ever seen in the Rebel lines AF though and also the largest single improvement in FPS we've seen, before now it had been creeping up in 0.5 steps at most.
> ...



I'd say the vast majority of burst frame use on a camera like this is only going to be looking to cover a second or so anyway. Anyone looking to do more serious action shooting is going to be buying a higher end model.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 9, 2012)

moreorless said:


> I'd say the vast majority of burst frame use on a camera like this is only going to be looking to cover a second or so anyway. Anyone looking to do more serious action shooting is going to be buying a higher end model.



Yes and no - while not serious, shooting your kids running around is action too, and people might be disappointed about the high fps 650d if their camera slows down to a crawl after a few shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say the vast majority of burst frame use on a camera like this is only going to be looking to cover a second or so anyway. Anyone looking to do more serious action shooting is going to be buying a higher end model.
> ...



It may not be that big an issue, generally speaking. I suspect the vast majority of Rebel users shoot JPG, and with the smaller images, the buffer is _much_ deeper.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 9, 2012)

@Jrista:
Any possible answer as to whether those partially masked off pixels used for PD-AF could be spread further out of the center of the frame? Could they not also be placed near the very border of the sensor? 

If yes ... why did Canon limit FPPD-AF to such a narrow area in the center? Processing power of the AF-CPU? Or Canon "marketing differentiation" ... so they can offer "new, improved 30% sensor coverage" in a 70D then 50% in a 7D II and eventually 90% in the 1D X Mk. II? And another 3 years later they unlock another 10% via a firmware update? :


----------



## jrista (Jun 10, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> @Jrista:
> Any possible answer as to whether those partially masked off pixels used for PD-AF could be spread further out of the center of the frame? Could they not also be placed near the very border of the sensor?
> 
> If yes ... why did Canon limit FPPD-AF to such a narrow area in the center? Processing power of the AF-CPU? Or Canon "marketing differentiation" ... so they can offer "new, improved 30% sensor coverage" in a 70D then 50% in a 7D II and eventually 90% in the 1D X Mk. II? And another 3 years later they unlock another 10% via a firmware update? :



I would assume PD pixels will have the same kind of spread limitations as a dedicated AF sensor. For one, the farther out to the edge of the frame you go, the less accurate you can _assume_ the incoming image is. You may have a superbly stellar lens that has very little in the way of corner softness, edge CA, or other types of aberration. As you near the edge of the frame, you experience vignetting as well, even on the best of lenses, by as little as a stop or as much as 3 1/2 to 4 stops. Phase detection requires a certain amount of light, and has to make a certain amount of assumptions about the characteristics of the light its using to judge focus. The peripheral regions of a lens' image circle are less viable for AF purposes, as your largely stuck with the lowest common denominator when making assumptions about IQ in those regions. 

Additionally, because those pixels are partially masked off, they are still working with less light, just like an AF sensor. The average AF "point" involves sensitive CMOS strips of pixels, arrayed in a very specific way, that receives light from a specially built lens that is part of the AF unit (usually under the mirror). That special lens splits light by as many AF points x2 for strips, x4 for cross, and x8 for double cross (the latter only exist on Canon's 61pt AF system). It may be that standard AF sensors have generally less light to work with than FPPD-AF systems, I can't be sure...it would depend on how much of the pixel has to be masked off, and whether there is anything else special about those particular pixels that may restrict light more. It may also be that PD pixels generally have more light to work with.

I would generally expect that AF point spread with FPPD-AF would be similar to dedicated AF sensors, with possibly less restriction if they are not as light-limited. Even if they are less light-limited, that would only mean you could have more f/8 sensitive AF points in a similar spread as a dedicated AF sensor, as you still have vignetting and aberrations to deal with in the periphery. The new 61pt AF system from Canon has a point spread that covers 53% of the frame. That seemed to be quite a feat, and they had to drop f/8 AF support to achieve that (which really confuses me, as you generally only do f/8 AF with the center point(s), which wouldn't be subject to the vignetting and aberrations near the periphery of the point spread area). FPPD-AF, if it is more light sensitive, might reach 60%. I wouldn't expect anything extreme though...fully-effective full-frame point spread might not be something we see right away. 



To speculate more, I don't see why it couldn't be possible to utilize lens profiles of chipped Canon lenses to dynamically tune the AF system. If you could tie in lens profiles into the AF system, it would know what amount of vignetting and what types of optical aberrations (and to what degree) it has to deal with. If you are using a top-shelf lens like the EF 600mm f/4 L II, your probably working with near-perfection and minimal vignetting. On the other hand, if you are working with a kit EF-S 18-55mm, you probably have a moderate amount of vignetting and some pretty major CA in the periphery. No reason the AF system couldn't dynamically reconfigure the available AF points and point spread by lens with such knowledge.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 10, 2012)

jrista said:


> No reason the AF system couldn't dynamically reconfigure the available AF points and point spread by lens with such knowledge.



Except the camera wouldn't know about all the lens.

Even DxO software cant cope with large whites (which is a major reason one might buy DxO) - so it would be a logistical nightmare trying to maintain the firmware as new lens come to market several years down the line.


----------



## jrista (Jun 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > No reason the AF system couldn't dynamically reconfigure the available AF points and point spread by lens with such knowledge.
> ...



That wouldn't be the case if the necessary information comes from the lens itself. If lenses are equipped with microchips that fully describe the optical characteristics, then the AF system wouldn't need firmware updates.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 10, 2012)

jrista said:


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



So a whole new system then? ....


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> So a whole new system then? ....



not necessarily. Canon EF and EF-S lenses are already chipped. They just need to write a couple of additional "optical characteristics" bits onto them. For existing lenses in the field it might be done attached to a camera via FW-Update.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 11, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > So a whole new system then? ....
> ...



Good idea!

Not sure it will fly though


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > 20D
> ...



Sounds about right. Don't forget the touch screen ;D


----------

