# Canon executives say a lot more coming in 2019



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 8, 2019)

> In a recent interview with Imaging Resource, Canon executives said that a lot more is coming down the pipeline in 2019, they obviously didn’t get into specifics.
> *Imaging resources summarize:*
> My main takeaway from this discussion was that Canon will continue investing in photographic technology, saying that imaging is fundamental to everything that they do and that we should, therefore, expect to see significant developments in the photo arena over the next period of time. I have been concerned — as have others — by what it meant that the EOS-R and EOS-RP were built around the sensor from the EOS 5D Mark IV, a camera that’s now more than two-and-a-half years old. Without giving specifics, they did note that they had a lot in the pipeline for 2019, so it sounds like we can expect to see a lot more from Canon before the end of the year. ...



Continue reading...


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 8, 2019)

Canon's CEO is *Fuji* Mitarai? Hmmm...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Apr 8, 2019)

Naw. I need a full frame MILC with ibis and 4k60 asap. Hurry up Canon.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 8, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Naw. I need a full frame MILC with ibis and 4k60 asap. Hurry up Canon.



Sony will be releasing its fourth or fifth model with those specs before Canon gets its first to market


----------



## sdz (Apr 8, 2019)

Canon News recently claimed that Canon has sensor patents for and has introduced new sensor technology in its non-camera imaging platforms, and from this fact we can infer that these sensor improvements will eventually make their way to their camera platforms. A new. improved sensor will come, and it may bring Canon up to Sony's current sensor technology even if it might not elevate Canon to Sony's future sensor technology.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 8, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Sony will be releasing its fourth or fifth model with those specs before Canon gets its first to market



And people would still rather sit here and wait for Canon than buy the Sony and (allegedly) be happy.


----------



## marioslrzn (Apr 8, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> And people would still rather sit here and wait for Canon than buy the Sony and (allegedly) be happy.


Maybe those people enjoy taking photos with a photography camera, this 4k60 is ridiculous cause I bet 99% of people complaining don’t shoot 4k60fps because of the file size ....it’s like jpeg vs raw, people complaining about raw file size


----------



## bsbeamer (Apr 8, 2019)

I'm still using and loving my 5D4 along with a few 70D's in certain situations. Getting close to needing another full frame body. Really hard to convince myself another 5D4 is the answer. The R looks good, but have a hard time pulling the trigger. Really waiting for this rumored upgraded R model before I make the switch.


----------



## Mort (Apr 8, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> And people would still rather sit here and wait for Canon than buy the Sony and (allegedly) be happy.



That's about where I'm at. I was incredibly close to jumping ship to Sony, but a totaled car (and thus buying a new car) delayed the purchase. Then some videos from the Art of Photography, Thomas Heaton and Matti Haapoja about buying new gear wont make you happy caused me to reassess my needs. For 90% of what I shoot, my 6D is just fine. Plus I spent a bit to refresh it from CPS, so might as well get my money's worth out of the camera. 

I'm now at the point where I'd rather patiently wait for a Canon camera with IBIS than sell my lenses and buy all the Sony gear I'd need. I'm hoping patience is a virtue...


----------



## jayphotoworks (Apr 8, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> And people would still rather sit here and wait for Canon than buy the Sony and (allegedly) be happy.



Everybody's situation is different, but for me, the opportunity cost of waiting for Canon to flesh out its video/hybrid system was simply not worth it. Thus, I went over to Sony in late 2017 from Panasonic/Olympus in the MILC space. I didn't move over prior to that because Sony wasn't quite there with their mark ii bodies. That was a year and a half ago. Since then, Canon didn't disappoint (to my benefit) and it has relatively stayed true to its conservative roots (in the EOS R and RP). Given Canon's CEO predictions of a 50% drop of the camera market in the following 2 years and Canon's financial reports stating a transition into marketing and distribution vs R&D, I'm not sure they are interested in catching up for bragging rights. They are more interested in catering to the consumer/entry level market like Rebels, Instant print cameras, etc. which is their most volatile market group considering the fast paced development of multi-camera array smartphones and contribution to their overwhelming market share. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any more releases in the MILC space from Canon in 2019, so those looking for product in that space will have to wait for 2020. By then, I would have generated revenue with Sony product for more than 2.5 years assuming I don't upgrade one of my bodies to the A7Siii. It would be quite some time even after that for Canon to completely displace them in the MILC space forcing them to sell or abandon.... At that point, some of the feature parity between Canon and its competitors would more than likely be partially achieved, and moving to Canon would be more palatable to me for video/hybrid work and the depreciation on the Sony equipment on the used market acceptable.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 8, 2019)

Unless Canon explicitly promises (which is unlikely) a DR increase in the new camera, I'm not buying it until independent reviews come out. That means, best case I buy it next year a few weeks after the release. Yeah, a bit long way to wait through...


----------



## saveyourmoment (Apr 8, 2019)

Dear canon, i could not wait for you any longer. for my Business i had to jump to the fujifilm 50s, sold all my canon gear. i was so close to wait for the "prof eos r" but 2020? i can't, have to keep up in my business. i need imagequality and megapixels. I do not regret that decision. The gfx 50s is incredible.
i will keep an eye on you. perhaps someday i will find a way back. 
cu.


----------



## mpmark (Apr 8, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Naw. I need a full frame MILC with ibis and 4k60 asap. Hurry up Canon.


or else what? you'll melt?


----------



## mpmark (Apr 8, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Unless Canon explicitly promises (which is unlikely) a DR increase in the new camera, I'm not buying it until independent reviews come out. That means, best case I buy it next year a few weeks after the release. Yeah, a bit long way to wait through...


and whats wrong with the current 5d4 DR? I've worked with nikon and sony raw files and the 5d4 is not lagging at all.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Apr 8, 2019)

marioslrzn said:


> Maybe those people enjoy taking photos with a photography camera, this 4k60 is ridiculous cause I bet 99% of people complaining don’t shoot 4k60fps because of the file size ....it’s like jpeg vs raw, people complaining about raw file size


more and more people shoot for slow mo and 4k. we dont like having to go to 1080p to get 60fps then 4k for the rest of the video. as a pro, showing people high quality crisp images is beneficial to our business. I have a c200. the files arent that big. you get about 100 mintues with a $50 128gb SD card


----------



## RayValdez360 (Apr 8, 2019)

mpmark said:


> or else what? you'll melt?


just a guy that wants an easier, faster, more consistant work flow to make more money faster. i know that is strange for people here.


----------



## kingrobertii (Apr 8, 2019)

mpmark said:


> and whats wrong with the current 5d4 DR? I've worked with nikon and sony raw files and the 5d4 is not lagging at all.


 People just like to complain. I use a 5D IV and never have any issues with DR. If I do, its because of user error.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 8, 2019)

marioslrzn said:


> Maybe those people enjoy taking photos with a photography camera, this 4k60 is ridiculous cause I bet 99% of people complaining don’t shoot 4k60fps because of the file size ....it’s like jpeg vs raw, people complaining about raw file size



Add to that 95% of those complaining about 4K are clueless on how to do a decent video production. Shots of the grand kids crawling around is not something to waste 4K anything on. How many consumers do video with their camera anyway and then how many truly use it in the proper way. Even vloggers could do without 4K as it is viewed on cell phones 90% so there is no value to it. If you want quality 4K then get a quality video camera, learn how to actually make a decent video then you will see the Sony et al are a waste of money anyway.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 8, 2019)

Another one here using the 5DIV. Great DR, largely ISO-Invariant, love the images coming off that camera. 

I think it is a given that more is coming in 2019. Canon is in the business of making money. New releases sell better than older products. I suspect the R/RP is still selling well, but they'll want something in the 2H. 

My guess is more consumer driven cameras will be announced in July-Sept window and available in Sept-November. 80D replacement is most likely. Then some M series like a M5/M6 replacement, throw in a new Rebel and, of course, the RF lenses. 

While the above list might not sound too appealing to the average forum member, just remember, Canon tends to introduce new tech in their mid-level cameras. I am very curious to see what is in 80D replacement. This is a great spot to see new sensor tech, maybe the quadpixel AF? Maybe BSI?

I could believe a rumored 1DX III (or equivalent) or high end EOS-R could be announced, but those could be 2020 as well. The above is likely enough to drive sales.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 8, 2019)

marioslrzn said:


> Maybe those people enjoy taking photos with a photography camera, this 4k60 is ridiculous cause I bet 99% of people complaining don’t shoot 4k60fps because of the file size ....it’s like jpeg vs raw, people complaining about raw file size



Yes, heaven forbid a 40 dollar memory card only lasts 1.5 hours.


----------



## proutprout (Apr 8, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> Everybody's situation is different, but for me, the opportunity cost of waiting for Canon to flesh out its video/hybrid system was simply not worth it. Thus, I went over to Sony in late 2017 from Panasonic/Olympus in the MILC space. I didn't move over prior to that because Sony wasn't quite there with their mark ii bodies. That was a year and a half ago. Since then, Canon didn't disappoint (to my benefit) and it has relatively stayed true to its conservative roots (in the EOS R and RP). Given Canon's CEO predictions of a 50% drop of the camera market in the following 2 years and Canon's financial reports stating a transition into marketing and distribution vs R&D, I'm not sure they are interested in catching up for bragging rights. They are more interested in catering to the consumer/entry level market like Rebels, Instant print cameras, etc. which is their most volatile market group considering the fast paced development of multi-camera array smartphones and contribution to their overwhelming market share. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any more releases in the MILC space from Canon in 2019, so those looking for product in that space will have to wait for 2020. By then, I would have generated revenue with Sony product for more than 2.5 years assuming I don't upgrade one of my bodies to the A7Siii. It would be quite some time even after that for Canon to completely displace them in the MILC space forcing them to sell or abandon.... At that point, some of the feature parity between Canon and its competitors would more than likely be partially achieved, and moving to Canon would be more palatable to me for video/hybrid work and the depreciation on the Sony equipment on the used market acceptable.


Agreed ! If you want to make money, drop Canon, everyone else is !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Agreed ! If you want to make money, drop Canon, *everyone else is *!


Except, they’re not...according the to the available data. But if you want to continue to fabricate facts and make yourself appear foolish, by all means continue posting the same drivel!


----------



## Tom W (Apr 8, 2019)

I'm thinking that that 24-240 consumer super-zoom will be out in a couple of months, and will be sold as a kit with the RP, perhaps with a discount in December. Hopefully, it's light and sharp (as sharp as a 24-240 zoom can be anyway). Superzooms are somewhat of a compromise.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 8, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Add to that 95% of those complaining about 4K are clueless on how to do a decent video production. Shots of the grand kids crawling around is not something to waste 4K anything on. How many consumers do video with their camera anyway and then how many truly use it in the proper way. Even vloggers could do without 4K as it is viewed on cell phones 90% so there is no value to it. If you want quality 4K then get a quality video camera, learn how to actually make a decent video then you will see the Sony et al are a waste of money anyway.



4K TVs are everywhere in the USA; many computer and even the latest smartphone displays are greater than HD (revealing the resolution limitations of HD footage); and most video work is shot in 4K even when finishing in HD, to make use of the greater resolution to reframe and to enhance quality; also, many pros and prosumers need and want a hybrid camera that does stills and video; and, to top it off, many corporate productions are shot on Sony FS7s and the matching A7 series is used for a ton of gimbal work. All this goes without mentioning any future proofing benefits of shooting in 4K. 

So, really who's clueless here?


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> Yes, heaven forbid a 40 dollar memory card only lasts 1.5 hours.



Yes, back in the "good old days" I burned through $40 of film in 1.5 hours many times.......


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I'm thinking that that 24-240 consumer super-zoom will be out in a couple of months, and will be sold as a kit with the RP, perhaps with a discount in December. Hopefully, it's light and sharp (as sharp as a 24-240 zoom can be anyway). Superzooms are somewhat of a compromise.



I think that's going to be a very hot seller!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> 4K TVs are everywhere in the USA; many computer and even the latest smartphone displays are greater than HD (revealing the resolution limitations of HD footage); and most video work is shot in 4K even when finishing in HD, to make use of the greater resolution to reframe and to enhance quality; also, many pros and prosumers need and want a hybrid camera that does stills and video; and, to top it off, many corporate productions are shot on Sony FS7s and the matching A7 series is used for a ton of gimbal work. All this goes without mentioning any future proofing benefits of shooting in 4K.
> 
> So, really who's clueless here?


By accounts on this forum, Canon either lacks 4K or their implementation makes Canon ILCs useless for 4K capture. Yet Canon continues to sell more ILCs than any other manufacturer, all of whom, according to the accounts on this forum, have much better 4K offerings. 

So the answer to your question is either that the majority of ILC buyers are clueless, or those on this forum pounding on the importance of 4K are clueless. If you’re wondering which answer is correct, here’s a hint: it’s the one supported by data, not the one supported by your opinion.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 8, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> 4K TVs are everywhere in the USA; many computer and even the latest smartphone displays are greater than HD (revealing the resolution limitations of HD footage); and most video work is shot in 4K even when finishing in HD, to make use of the greater resolution to reframe and to enhance quality; also, many pros and prosumers need and want a hybrid camera that does stills and video; and, to top it off, many corporate productions are shot on Sony FS7s and the matching A7 series is used for a ton of gimbal work. All this goes without mentioning any future proofing benefits of shooting in 4K.
> 
> So, really who's clueless here?


I guess, you didn't get the point of Architect 1776.

His point is that producing decent video is much more than pressing a record button on a video camera. You also need to be director, cutter, and all the other specalist finishing a professional video. For these professionals 4k60p enabled cameras are surely the right thing. But they are producing decent videos in a team. People filming their family affairs or vloggers never do anything of thes professional work thats more than only recording the video. These people are glad if they manage to cut their footage in a more or less professional way and going to present it to their family once a year.
Sure also these amateurs want to have 4k because they also have a 4k TV. But then there are other choices for them than Canon if they can't afford a 5DMIV or 1DXII.

Are all these Hybrid DSLR/Video Cameras really be used in professional productions as main cameras? Is it really so important to have two things combined in one where none of both things is done 100% right. Something is missing in each offer regardless if Fuji, Panasonic, Sony or who else. Professionals are way better equipped with products build solely for one purpose. DSLR/DSLM for stills and Vdeo rigs for video.

Frank


----------



## unfocused (Apr 8, 2019)

As a long time participant in this forum, it is amusing to see the trajectory of "must have" features that people claim Canon lacks and that they feel are holding them back. Believe it or not, people used to complain that Canon's sensors had too many megapixels and couldn't compete with Nikon on noise. Then for several years there was the great dynamic range lens cap shot debate. It seems like the big things lately have been 4K, 60 fps and IBIS. The encouraging thing is that with each new season, the "failure" of Canon that gets people so riled up on this forum becomes more and more obscure features that have little interest to most photographers. 

And, through it all, Canon keeps outselling the competition. 

My only comment on the subject of this thread is that if Canon has a number of new products coming down the pipeline in 2019, they better hurry, because the year is already into its fourth month.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> And, through it all, Canon keeps outselling the competition.


Probably because they have a Direct Print button.


----------



## Berowne (Apr 8, 2019)

I am pretty impressed by the openness of the Canon-Management. I always thought, that japanese companies are secretive, but Canon seems to practise a different approach. This is nice.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 8, 2019)

Photorex said:


> I guess, you didn't get the point of Architect 1776.
> 
> His point is that producing decent video is much more than pressing a record button on a video camera. You also need to be director, cutter, and all the other specalist finishing a professional video. For these professionals 4k60p enabled cameras are surely the right thing. But they are producing decent videos in a team. People filming their family affairs or vloggers never do anything of thes professional work thats more than only recording the video. These people are glad if they manage to cut their footage in a more or less professional way and going to present it to their family once a year.
> Sure also these amateurs want to have 4k because they also have a 4k TV. But then there are other choices for them than Canon if they can't afford a 5DMIV or 1DXII.
> ...



Not everyone creating professional video is on a large production crew and creating long form video. One or two man band crews are far more common and are producing 15-120 second pieces. Internal production within corporate communication and marketing departments is where hybrids are king. Yeah, they'll still have a C200 or Sony flavor around or contract a free lancer with those cameras for some projects, but a lot of the grunt work is on hybrids.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> By accounts on this forum, Canon either lacks 4K or their implementation makes Canon ILCs useless for 4K capture. Yet Canon continues to sell more ILCs than any other manufacturer, all of whom, according to the accounts on this forum, have much better 4K offerings.
> 
> So the answer to your question is either that the majority of ILC buyers are clueless, or those on this forum pounding on the importance of 4K are clueless. If you’re wondering which answer is correct, here’s a hint: it’s the one supported by data, not the one supported by your opinion.



Sometimes it's difficult to see things from a video perspective when you're a photographer or vice-versa. It's also difficult on this forum for people to separate the sales issue and "might makes right" from the discussion of how/what/why video features are important and what makes a great stills/video hybrid camera. 

No matter who sells more cameras, if you do some research and try to see things from a MILC video features perspective, you'll see that my points cannot be disputed.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 8, 2019)

Just talking aesthetics, 4K is an abomination. I do not like my actors looking like they are playing dress-up in my living room. Instead of being transported to another world, the ultra high resolution of 4K dooms us to watching ordinary (although better looking than average) people play acting, stripped of all sense of mystery or drama. I know it is unrealistic to expect his, but I truly wish movie theaters would resist the 4K/8K craze. I would like to have at least one refuge for viewing films as an art.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Just talking aesthetics, 4K is an abomination. I do not like my actors looking like they are playing dress-up in my living room. Instead of being transported to another world, the ultra high resolution of 4K dooms us to watching ordinary (although better looking than average) people play acting, stripped of all sense of mystery or drama. I know it is unrealistic to expect his, but I truly wish movie theaters would resist the 4K/8K craze. I would like to have at least one refuge for viewing films as an art.


Ahhh yes, art.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 8, 2019)

Photorex said:


> I guess, you didn't get the point of Architect 1776.
> 
> His point is that producing decent video is much more than pressing a record button on a video camera. You also need to be director, cutter, and all the other specalist finishing a professional video. For these professionals 4k60p enabled cameras are surely the right thing. But they are producing decent videos in a team. People filming their family affairs or vloggers never do anything of thes professional work thats more than only recording the video. These people are glad if they manage to cut their footage in a more or less professional way and going to present it to their family once a year.
> Sure also these amateurs want to have 4k because they also have a 4k TV. But then there are other choices for them than Canon if they can't afford a 5DMIV or 1DXII.
> ...



No, I got his point, which was that 4K video is overrated and not important in stills/video hybrid cameras. I simply disagree. And it's also incorrect to imply that MILCs are not used for professional video work. The Sony A7 series is a very popular camera to see on independent and corporate film sets here in New York.

No one is disputing that it takes talent and skill to make a good video- that goes without saying.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 8, 2019)

Berowne said:


> I am pretty impressed by the openness of the Canon-Management. I always thought, that japanese companies are secretive, but Canon seems to practise a different approach. This is nice.



Maybe they have to: While I am amateur and really satisfied with M50 and EF-M 32 + all the good EF lenses I have ... EOS R and EOS RP aren't too interesting for me as a long term investment. I think this is valid for a lot of users who want to be open for next step in technical quality.

If i were in the urgent need for a FF mirrorless I would not see Canon as the first address when it comes to technical specifications - the openness of the Canon management makes it easier for me to wait for the big thing I am expecting from Canon.
For a long term investment I would like to have 2 stops more DR / less noise, IBIS, very good FF 4k 30fps, while not sacrificing ergonomics and color/texture reproduction quality.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 8, 2019)

kingrobertii said:


> People just like to complain. I use a 5D IV and never have any issues with DR. If I do, its because of user error.



There are situations where 5D IV/EOS R recovery isn't enough. Noisy shadow and require bracketing. Even Sony A7RIII users require luminosity mask. This is not amateurs but pro landscape photographer.

Canon 5D IV is a very capable camera doing most paid assignments from landscape to wedding. Same goes for all the lenses already existed. We only want better sensor, newer RF lenses, or eyeAF because most of us are gear heads. If I'm strictly about buying gears require for the job, those gears already existed and no need to spend extra money on newer camera with better ISO, DR, eyeAF, newer lenses chasing diminish return on our new purchase. None of clients will notice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Sometimes it's difficult to see things from a video perspective when you're a photographer or vice-versa. It's also difficult on this forum for people to separate the sales issue and "might makes right" from the discussion of how/what/why video features are important and what makes a great stills/video hybrid camera.
> 
> No matter who sells more cameras, if you do some research and try to see things from a MILC video features perspective, you'll see that my points cannot be disputed.


I’m not disputing the merit of your points regarding uses of 4K, merely stating that they are not relevant to the majority. I’m more than happy to debate the merits of the bokeh on my 600/4L IS II, but I recognize that the majority of the market doesn’t give a hoot about such a niche lens. 

The point you were arguing against was essentially that ‘4K doesn’t matter to most people’, and the sales data support that point quite effectively.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not disputing the merit of your points regarding uses of 4K, merely stating that they are not relevant to the majority. I’m more than happy to debate the merits of the bokeh on my 600/4L IS II, but I recognize that the majority of the market doesn’t give a hoot about such a niche lens.
> 
> The point you were arguing against was essentially that ‘4K doesn’t matter to most people’, and the sales data support that point quite effectively.



And even the people who claim that it matters to them... still hang out here complaining about their Canon gear instead of making the much-threatened jump to Sonikon or Fujympus. They'd still rather shoot Canon with all its supposed failings than the brands with the impressive spec sheets. Or they don't shoot Canon and still hang out here, which makes me wonder about their motivations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Or they don't shoot Canon and still hang out here, which makes me wonder about their motivations.


They just want us plebes to see the light. All 14.8 EV of it, underexposed by 5 stops and pushed in post, with the editing process documented in uncropped 4K60p video.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 8, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> There are situations where 5D IV/EOS R recovery isn't enough. Noisy shadow and require bracketing.



There is no situation where a 5D IV will require two (or more) blended frames but an A7r3 will only require one. The DR difference between them is simply too small.

It's surprisingly rare to encounter a scene that requires two frames on a 5Ds/5DsR but only one on a Sony A7r3 or Nikon D8x0, and there's a 2.3ev DR difference in that case.

There's far too much theorizing from tests and scores and not enough actual field experience and side-by-side testing when it comes to stuff like this.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> They just want us plebes to see the light. All 14.8 EV of it, underexposed by 5 stops and pushed in post, with the editing process documented in uncropped 4K60p video.



They must be testing DR with Nikon but shooting the video with Fuji then. Last I checked the A73 only did 4k30p.

When is Sony going to stop reusing old sensors and give us modern features like Fuji?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> There's far too much theorizing from tests and scores and not enough actual field experience and side-by-side testing when it comes to stuff like this.


I'm disappointed that there are still dinosaurs like you out there, people who think that real-world experience is relevant. Why can't you people just accept that fact that numerical test results are the only thing that matters. I mean really, it's not like the point of these devices is to take pictures or anything silly like that.


----------



## HarryFilm (Apr 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Just talking aesthetics, 4K is an abomination. I do not like my actors looking like they are playing dress-up in my living room. Instead of being transported to another world, the ultra high resolution of 4K dooms us to watching ordinary (although better looking than average) people play acting, stripped of all sense of mystery or drama. I know it is unrealistic to expect his, but I truly wish movie theaters would resist the 4K/8K craze. I would like to have at least one refuge for viewing films as an art.



The KEY thing is to present ALL your productions on a decent display (i.e. 4K Laser Projector or OLED at 60 fps), and during editing increase the contrast, use actual lens filters and judiciously use lens flares. I say that you can make ANY footage cinematic by using low and high angles, pans, tilts, AND BY KEEPING THE CAMERA AND SUBJECTS MOVING !!! Dolly shots, crane shots, extreme closeups, zoom in and zoom out ... USE your imagination but ensure the subject matter and/or camera is moving in a graceful and directed way UNLESS the subject matter itself requires that the camera be static.

24 fps, which is the typical Hollywood capture and display rate, is a TEMPORAL ARTIFACT (i.e. time-based) of 1920's era film electrical engineering BUT for some reason ALSO has an effect on the human brain that allows a temporary suspension of current belief which lets you the viewer immerse yourself into the movie.

This time-based "suspension of disbelief" issue is REMOVED when you move to a higher resolution (i.e. 4K) and a higher frame rate (60 fps) UNLESS you make modifications to the video imagery itself (i.e. do Hollywood-style colour grading and high contrast luminance balancing) and use higher quality displays (i.e. 60 fps 4K OLED) and display at the SAME refresh rate original shot (i.e. 60 fps display if shot at 60 fps). Some displays WILL enforce a 120 or 240 hz internal refresh which is designed for sports and action. You NEED to turn that type of refresh rate OFF and set it back to pure 60 fps.

To prevent that "Soap Opera Effect" where video can be too clear and crisp, you may need to actually ADD film grain and extra randomized noise to your video frames by using the filters found within many non-linear video editing programs and special effects plug-ins. You can shoot at a much higher frame rate (60 fps!) and resolution 4k or 8k BUT upon your FINAL edited master output render, YOU ADD extra film grain, randomized noise and bump up your contrast. These steps will make your video APPEAR to come from actual film and will HELP the viewer's brain adjust into a new type of "Suspension of Belief" so that they FEEL they are IN the movie and not just watching a picture displayed on a glass wall.
.


----------



## TheSpoiler72 (Apr 8, 2019)

Canon gave us, for those who need them, the C200 and the C300 M II. What more do people need? I don’t have clients that typically request 4K though I when I have, they have specifically requested the Sony cameras. In my experience, aside of the video quality, they seemed to slow down the shoots due to errors and/or issues with the camera or perhaps the shooter.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 8, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> There is no situation where a 5D IV will require two (or more) blended frames but an A7r3 will only require one. The DR difference between them is simply too small.
> 
> It's surprisingly rare to encounter a scene that requires two frames on a 5Ds/5DsR but only one on a Sony A7r3 or Nikon D8x0, and there's a 2.3ev DR difference in that case.
> 
> There's far too much theorizing from tests and scores and not enough actual field experience and side-by-side testing when it comes to stuff like this.



I was responding to another poster saying something "I use a 5D IV and never have any issues with DR. If I do, its because of user error."

I never said anything about A7RIII is better than 5D IV DR just simply even with the current sensor tech, we are still limited by the dynamic range. It isn't user error either. Recovering shadow or highlight results in noisy shadow. This is why people blend exposure.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 8, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ...24 fps, which is the typical Hollywood capture and display rate, is a TEMPORAL ARTIFACT (i.e. time-based) of 1920's era film electrical engineering BUT for some reason ALSO has an effect on the human brain that allows a temporary suspension of current belief which lets you the viewer immerse yourself into the movie...



Yes, I understand the technology. Unfortunately, I fear that the current fascination with high resolution will eventually lead to a public expectation that we all should experience films (and I am using "Film" in the generic sense, not in reference to the actual recording medium) in the highest available resolution. Already, too many films are being up-sampled into 4K so that people can feel better about spending money on 4K displays, even if the resulting product destroys the aura and illusion of the original. While I was not familiar with the term "Soap Opera Effect," that is an apt phrase for it as it perfectly illustrates the debasement of film that is occurring.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> By accounts on this forum, Canon either lacks 4K or their implementation makes Canon ILCs useless for 4K capture. Yet Canon continues to sell more ILCs than any other manufacturer, all of whom, according to the accounts on this forum, have much better 4K offerings.
> 
> So the answer to your question is either that the majority of ILC buyers are clueless, or those on this forum pounding on the importance of 4K are clueless. If you’re wondering which answer is correct, here’s a hint: it’s the one supported by data, not the one supported by your opinion.


There is a third possibility.... Perhaps most people just don't care....


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 8, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> There is a third possibility.... Perhaps most people just don't care....



Doesn't that make the people on this forum pounding on the importance of 4k clueless, and slot it right into neuro's second possibility? I have some hobbyist photography friends (in the sense of owning and using a DSLR), and not a one of them cares a whit about video specs or DR. Most barely grasp the exposure triangle. They do love the green box and scene modes.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Apr 8, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Sony will be releasing its fourth or fifth model with those specs before Canon gets its first to market



As with my last few bodies, I don't need IBIS or 60 frames. But at least my new Canon isn't a dust funnel when changing lenses. Hope Canon can preserve that new innovative feature.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Apr 8, 2019)

marioslrzn said:


> Maybe those people enjoy taking photos with a photography camera, this 4k60 is ridiculous cause I bet 99% of people complaining don’t shoot 4k60fps because of the file size ....it’s like jpeg vs raw, people complaining about raw file size



That's true. Most people have other more basic needs. And existing Canon gear does a pretty good job as is. For myself, I don't like the size of full frame cameras built for toddler size hands. But aside from that, it's evident why many people can enjoy sticking with Canon cameras and lenses if they simply enjoy general purpose photography.

For my needs, matching the same existing lenses, and the LP-e6 batteries was very streamlined and practical. My bodies, lenses, chargers, cards and spares are similar.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 8, 2019)

Specs doesn’t replace content, ever... if your video or photos suck now, it would suck just as bad in 4K60 or with 15 stop DR.

Such a whiny thread this.

I use to think if I only had a 14mm prime for example, I could make some really cool landscapes, but eventually realized that if I didn’t shoot cool landscapes with any lens I already owned, I would not with a 14mm either.

I started to get into controlling my own light and look more into improving the shots I already took. No 3 stops of DR, ibis or 4K60 would help One Single Bit.....


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 8, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> No, I got his point, which was that 4K video is overrated and not important in stills/video hybrid cameras.* I simply disagree. And it's also incorrect to imply that MILCs are not used for professional video work*. The Sony A7 series is a very popular camera to see on independent and corporate film sets here in New York.



May be you are looking at a different crowd and assume that they are "professionals".
What pro video productions have are:

Scripted storytelling: making every take matched with the former shots and subsequent video editing in mind
Streamlined video editing: workflow, editing software, color matching, time code, A/V mixers, storage, etc.
Proactive management: personnel, experience, etc.
and finally
4. High quality and high reliability equipment: camera, light and modifiers, filters, camera support gear, gimbals for steady shots, pro audio equipment, etc.

Camera is only one tiny piece of the puzzle and honestly, in professional video work, no one gives a s##t about what camera brand to use and whether it is full-frame, 4K or 60p as long as it matches the workflow and gets the job done on time, budget and with the desired quality. If any wanna-be video pro thinks that 4K 60p is the magic bullet for video production, he/she needs to grow up quite a lot. Just saying.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Apr 8, 2019)

...Meanwhile, still waiting for firmware 1.2.0 I hope it gets out before my first wedding of the year.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 9, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> May be you are looking at a different crowd and assume that they are "professionals".
> What pro video productions have are:
> 
> Scripted storytelling: making every take matched with the former shots and subsequent video editing in mind
> ...



Wow. I am taken aback by the ignorance displayed here. Video professionals run the gamut of those using a Sony A7SII on a gimbal for corporate work, to those using a C200 for documentary work, to those renting an Alexa 65 to shoot “Roma.” When I hire a crew in Las Vegas to film a tech conference, or a crew to shoot a short film, I’m always concerned with what camera we’re shooting it on, because each has a different look that will lend itself or not lend itself to the subject matter. And each, of course, affects budget. 

We’re not even going to get into the fact that I personally like to do hybrid stills/video shooting but some other points to keep in mind:

—Anyone who gets paid for video work is professional (but they all have varying degrees of skill). 
—Scripted storytelling does not mean making every shot match. You’re referring to continuity, but I don’t think you know it. 
—Anyone with any knowledge or skill from the director on down to the camera department thinks about what format to film on, as it dictates the look and feel. Every camera is capable of a different look and has different strengths. 

I could go on, but you get the picture. 

Thanks again for a post filled with true filmmaking ignorance.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not disputing the merit of your points regarding uses of 4K, merely stating that they are not relevant to the majority. I’m more than happy to debate the merits of the bokeh on my 600/4L IS II, but I recognize that the majority of the market doesn’t give a hoot about such a niche lens.
> 
> The point you were arguing against was essentially that ‘4K doesn’t matter to most people’, and the sales data support that point quite effectively.



No, the point I was arguing was that 4K matters to most _*video*_ people using MILC numbers. I don’t give a #%& about sales figures— I’m thinking about the best possible product. But I do believe that no matter how many cameras Canon’s sold in the past 4 years, they would have sold *more* if they had more competitive 4K video features.

For a possible indicator from a sales perspective, try taking a chunk out of Sony’s FF MILC sales in the past few years and adding it to Canon’s share. They would have made even *more* money. Again, I don’t care, because I’m not a Canon shareholder; I’m just thinking about the best possible product for my money as a low-budget professional tool and for hybrid shooting.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> But I do believe that no matter how many cameras Canon’s sold in the past 4 years, they would have sold *more* if they had more competitive 4K video features.


If Canon is delaying G7X III release because they want to make it shoot 4K DPAF properly, they are *losing* my money right now, because I don't care if it shoots 4K DPAF (or even 4K at all, thank you very much).


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> If Canon is delaying G7X III release because they want to make it shoot 4K DPAF properly, they are *losing* my money right now, because I don't care if it shoots 4K DPAF (or even 4K at all, thank you very much).



Don't worry, Canon would never do this because, as I think we've seen, they really don't care about delivering competitive 4K video on stills cameras  

Also, you're not the demographic I'm talking about.


----------



## jeanluc (Apr 9, 2019)

kraats said:


> Haha, you made me laugh ....


This should also make you laugh then....I’ve also worked with D8xx files, and for high DR landscapes, the difference between the 5d4 and those is inconsequential.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Wow. I am taken aback by the ignorance displayed here.
> ....
> Thanks again for a post filled with true filmmaking ignorance.


Someone should read the post and then react. I'm saying again:
"no one gives a s##t about what camera brand to use and whether it is full-frame, 4K or 60p *as long as it matches the workflow and gets the job done on time, budget and with the desired quality*."
And as I said earlier. 
"If any wanna-be video pro thinks that 4K 60p is the magic bullet for video production, he/she needs to grow up quite a lot." 
I must add learning how to have a logical discussion to the learning list.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 9, 2019)

mpmark said:


> and whats wrong with the current 5d4 DR? I've worked with nikon and sony raw files and the 5d4 is not lagging at all.


Did I say there was something wrong with the 5DIV?? That's exactly the point that it's still the best. All Canon mirrorless cameras released after 5DIV have DR worse than 5DIV. RP uses an old sensor, R uses the same sensor but has a slight decrease in DR. I won't be surprised if they dust 5DSr sensor, tweak it a bit and release a mirrorless high-res R version.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 9, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Canon's CEO is *Fuji* Mitarai? Hmmm...


Still. I joined Canon's Australian R&D group in 2011 and he was then 74, and they categorically said they'd be installing younger blood progressively and now he's an 82-year-old fossil still running them. You can see why Canon are no longer the trail blazers.


----------



## jvillain (Apr 9, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Just talking aesthetics, 4K is an abomination. I do not like my actors looking like they are playing dress-up in my living room. Instead of being transported to another world, the ultra high resolution of 4K dooms us to watching ordinary (although better looking than average) people play acting, stripped of all sense of mystery or drama. I know it is unrealistic to expect his, but I truly wish movie theaters would resist the 4K/8K craze. I would like to have at least one refuge for viewing films as an art.



You must love the Grind House movies are the pinnacle of film making then.


----------



## marioslrzn (Apr 9, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> Everybody's situation is different, but for me, the opportunity cost of waiting for Canon to flesh out its video/hybrid system was simply not worth it. Thus, I went over to Sony in late 2017 from Panasonic/Olympus in the MILC space. I didn't move over prior to that because Sony wasn't quite there with their mark ii bodies. That was a year and a half ago. Since then, Canon didn't disappoint (to my benefit) and it has relatively stayed true to its conservative roots (in the EOS R and RP). Given Canon's CEO predictions of a 50% drop of the camera market in the following 2 years and Canon's financial reports stating a transition into marketing and distribution vs R&D, I'm not sure they are interested in catching up for bragging rights. They are more interested in catering to the consumer/entry level market like Rebels, Instant print cameras, etc. which is their most volatile market group considering the fast paced development of multi-camera array smartphones and contribution to their overwhelming market share. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any more releases in the MILC space from Canon in 2019, so those looking for product in that space will have to wait for 2020. By then, I would have generated revenue with Sony product for more than 2.5 years assuming I don't upgrade one of my bodies to the A7Siii. It would be quite some time even after that for Canon to completely displace them in the MILC space forcing them to sell or abandon.... At that point, some of the feature parity between Canon and its competitors would more than likely be partially achieved, and moving to Canon would be more palatable to me for video/hybrid work and the depreciation on the Sony equipment on the used market acceptable.


I didn’t know 4k30fps and crop 1.3, 100mpbs, 420 and 8 bit were cutting edge, seriously people have gotten dumber and dumber. Look at those Sony Specs and tell me those are above what camera? The EOS R is a 30Mp camera and if you factor the crop that’s the same crop vs a 24mp sensor 1.3 crop at 4k30. Also 422 10bit if you’re a professional with 480mbps. Both cameras have limitation, they are just doing it in different ways. If sony did 422 10bit 480mbps, yes that would be a very awesome camera. I have the EOS R with the RF50f1.2 and the RF24-105 and if the sony was so great then I would of bought it but I’ll take the EOS-R any day because SPECs don’t mean crap if you don’t enjoy the camera. I used it more than my 1DX ii cause it’s such great handling camera, the touch LCD there’s nothing in the market like it, feels like an iPhone. Touch and drag focus, touch menus, swipe and pinch photos, has eye focus now and face detect. If you like sony great, if you enjoy then that’s all that matters stop spewing pointless specs that i bet you don’t even use


----------



## marioslrzn (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> 4K TVs are everywhere in the USA; many computer and even the latest smartphone displays are greater than HD (revealing the resolution limitations of HD footage); and most video work is shot in 4K even when finishing in HD, to make use of the greater resolution to reframe and to enhance quality; also, many pros and prosumers need and want a hybrid camera that does stills and video; and, to top it off, many corporate productions are shot on Sony FS7s and the matching A7 series is used for a ton of gimbal work. All this goes without mentioning any future proofing benefits of shooting in 4K.
> 
> So, really who's clueless here?


You’re foolish if you think people are going to be shooting 4k, that’s a lot of harddrive space. 1080p coming from a EOS R on a 4k look awesome. My LG oled upscale really well and a lot of movies are shot in 4k but remove the sharpness anyway. I have almost 600 4k movies on my ITunes and only a few take advantage of the 4k resolutions and those are digital movies like the avengers and Deadpool . And these are professional grade movies , so lets not even bring up a consumer grade hybrid camera at that. If sony works for you and by all means go buy sony and stop the whining


----------



## marioslrzn (Apr 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> They just want us plebes to see the light. All 14.8 EV of it, underexposed by 5 stops and pushed in post, with the editing process documented in uncropped 4K60p video.


But no Sony full frame camera does 4k60 not even their flagship camera, they can’t even shoot over 100mpbs cause they will overheat, and 4k30fps has a 1.3x crop, so all this sony being great at video is just propaganda, paid by sony to spew crap on YouTube


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Did I say there was something wrong with the 5DIV?? That's exactly the point that it's still the best. All Canon mirrorless cameras released after 5DIV have DR worse than 5DIV.



The difference between the 5D4 and R (0.1ev) is inconsequential. They have the same DR for all practical purposes outside a lab test.

DR has been "stuck" for everyone. The D800 set the bar in 2012. Very few cameras have matched or (barely) exceeded it. It would appear that DPAF is the reason why the 5D4 and R are roughly 1ev behind on this metric, as you can process a DP RAW file to match the DR of the D850. That said, 1ev (regular RAW file) is a tick or two on a NR slider. It's nothing like the D800 vs. the 5D3 where the D800 shadows would reveal details that simply weren't in the 5D3 file.

I suppose you could complain about the DR of the RP, but first you would have to find a FF camera at the same price point.

This is one of those areas where people act like "Canon is behind" with "sensors that are years old" without realizing that the industry as a whole has not moved forward in 7 years on the metric in question.

On a similar point: it seems like the video discussion is progressing as if Sony had 4k60p and Canon had no 4k. Last I checked Sony offered FF 4k30p (better high ISO) at 100 Mbps while Canon offered cropped 4k30p at 400 Mbps (far better for grading). That's not a clear win for Sony, and more than one review by a professional cinematographer points this out.

As I pointed out in another thread the stand out video MILC right now is not a Sony but a Fuji, the X-T3 with 4k60p at 200 Mbps, 4k30p at 400 Mbps, and that gorgeous Eterna profile which means you might not even need to grade the footage. And still the R makes sense if you have Canon glass and/or want to match the footage from a Canon cinema camera.



> I won't be surprised if they dust 5DSr sensor, tweak it a bit and release a mirrorless high-res R version.



That sensor still ties for highest image quality in 35mm format 4 years after its release. With the right glass it can quite frankly give MF a run for its money. Mine has done nothing but impress me in all respects at all print sizes.

If Canon were to reuse that sensor they would still have one of the best high resolution systems on the planet. If they go with the rumored 75mp sensor it will put them that much further ahead.


----------



## slclick (Apr 9, 2019)

Boy, you video guys sure get worked up.


----------



## addola (Apr 9, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Sony will be releasing its fourth or fifth model with those specs before Canon gets its first to market



Sony doesn't have a single camera outside their cinema lineup that shoots 4K/60p yet. Not even the A9. Sony will have to make their first one before they make their 4th of 5th. Canon 1DX II does 4K/60p & was released in 2016.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The difference between the 5D4 and R (0.1ev) is inconsequential. They have the same DR for all practical purposes outside a lab test.



The point is, the R sensor isn't any better at all.



dtaylor said:


> DR has been "stuck" for everyone. The D800 set the bar in 2012. Very few cameras have matched or (barely) exceeded it. It would appear that DPAF is the reason why the 5D4 and R are roughly 1ev behind on this metric, as you can process a DP RAW file to match the DR of the D850. That said, 1ev (regular RAW file) is a tick or two on a NR slider. It's nothing like the D800 vs. the 5D3 where the D800 shadows would reveal details that simply weren't in the 5D3 file.
> 
> I suppose you could complain about the DR of the RP, but first you would have to find a FF camera at the same price point.



I wouldn't care to complain about the RP, it's just not the camera I'd be buying so I have no complaints at all.



dtaylor said:


> This is one of those areas where people act like "Canon is behind" with "sensors that are years old" without realizing that the industry as a whole has not moved forward in 7 years on the metric in question.



As a customer, I just don't care to be honest. That is it's all interesting theoretical and historical stuff, and I like reading it, but as a customer looking for a new more advanced camera, I just don't care. What I do care about is a next-get mirrorless weather-sealed camera with a flip screen and a better sensor as a 5DIV successor. Preferably Canon because I have a number of expensive L lenses. The sensor is a major factor to me. If Canon doesn't deliver - I'm just not upgrading from 5DIV, that's all. Will eventually switch to Sony or whatever, depending on my budget and available products on the market.



dtaylor said:


> On a similar point: it seems like the video discussion is progressing as if Sony had 4k60p and Canon had no 4k. Last I checked Sony offered FF 4k30p (better high ISO) at 100 Mbps while Canon offered cropped 4k30p at 400 Mbps (far better for grading). That's not a clear win for Sony, and more than one review by a professional cinematographer points this out.



I'm a very casual video user, don't care much about video. Some people find it extremely important and crucial, I don't.




dtaylor said:


> That sensor still ties for highest image quality in 35mm format 4 years after its release. With the right glass it can quite frankly give MF a run for its money. Mine has done nothing but impress me in all respects at all print sizes.
> 
> If Canon were to reuse that sensor they would still have one of the best high resolution systems on the planet. If they go with the rumored 75mp sensor it will put them that much further ahead.



If the 5DIV successor has the same DR as 5DIV and 60+mp, and no AA filter, I'll probably buy it. If they promise it'll have a *better *DR, I'm happy to preorder it right now.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 9, 2019)

Panasonic DC-S1 Sensor Measurements at PhotonsToPhotos
I ordered the Panasonic S1 to go with my Canon 5D IV. $2250 with free battery and battery grip and clean ISO with no banding issue






ISO 6400 performance. Canon will probably have to do alot for me to upgrade - 5.76 million dot EVF, dual card slot, IBIS, 4K60 at min. I doubt it will be cheaper than $2250.


----------



## Policar (Apr 9, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Just talking aesthetics, 4K is an abomination. I do not like my actors looking like they are playing dress-up in my living room. Instead of being transported to another world, the ultra high resolution of 4K dooms us to watching ordinary (although better looking than average) people play acting, stripped of all sense of mystery or drama. I know it is unrealistic to expect his, but I truly wish movie theaters would resist the 4K/8K craze. I would like to have at least one refuge for viewing films as an art.



Have you read Rudolf Arnheim? Depending on your perspective on his writing, there's some perfect synchronicity or some real irony in your post. Or maybe both.

I think it's a matter of taste. My favorite cinematography is from the 90s mostly–Richardson and Kaminski, primarily. And their images are generally very soft and dreamlike. But for VR acquisition, for instance, I think 8k could very well be necessary in some instances.

I don't know if it's true, but I remember reading Deakins prefers the 3.2K Alexa Mini's image to the 6k Alexa 65's. So do I. But that's just a matter of taste, same as preferring 4k video is a matter of taste. And, I guess, if you know what you want there's no use arguing with others who know they want something else.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The point is, the R sensor isn't any better at all.



Neither is anyone else's sensor. Not since 2012.



> If the 5DIV successor has the same DR as 5DIV and 60+mp, and no AA filter, I'll probably buy it. If they promise it'll have a *better *DR, I'm happy to preorder it right now.



Better DR (than 5D4) probably won't happen unless they integrate dual pixel exposure/processing into every shot. I kinda doubt that will happen first on their high MP body.


----------



## Pape (Apr 9, 2019)

I am happy about RPs DR tooked this with hdr mode looks ok to me 


but yeah i am just hobbyist ,can wait wind to stop.


----------



## epiieq1 (Apr 9, 2019)

Having read through the interview it left me feeling unsure about what to do next. I didn't get warm fuzzies from Canon's response. The last couple of companies I worked for, I'd be the one to give a rough assessment of what I thought of a new upper management person's speech, and I had a great hit rate for accurately judging. This sounds like they're trying to placate current customers to keep them interested as "it's coming" seems to be the response, missing the "when" and "what level will it actually be at" aspects.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Neither is anyone else's sensor. Not since 2012.



I don't know. Sony, 4ex, shows a gradual improvement. Not a big gain, but still...


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting





dtaylor said:


> Better DR (than 5D4) probably won't happen unless they integrate dual pixel exposure/processing into every shot. I kinda doubt that will happen first on their high MP body.



There's still a room for Canon to catch up with Sony. I'd be very happy to have even +0.5 stop gain in DR.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Don't worry, Canon would never do this because, as I think we've seen, they really don't care about delivering competitive 4K video on stills cameras
> 
> Also, you're not the demographic I'm talking about.


You are saying that Canon could sell _more_ cameras if they were targeting a specific "demographic". I am saying that if it involves extra effort in development and/or production, Canon might actually end up selling _less_ cameras.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> Panasonic DC-S1 Sensor Measurements at PhotonsToPhotos



Here is the Canon 7D sensor measurement at PhotonsToPhotos vs. the S1. Not 7D mark II, but the original. Worse dynamic range than a 6D2 or RP.




That's a difference of 3.5 stops. Based on that you would assume a massive difference in shadow recovery, would you not?

I've posted this before, but so that it can be easily compared to the Panasonic sample you posted:




The shadow recovery in the Panasonic sample is deeper, but not by visual leaps and bounds as people who study graphs and scores might imagine. (And I held the sky  )

Point is once you get to the roughly "1ev" range between the 5D4 and a S1 or D850, you're looking at small differences in noise quality while pixel peeping. You're not actually looking at differences in what can be recognizably recovered and used.

The problem with both PhotonsToPhotos and DxO is that nobody includes a clear legend which puts these differences into a meaningful context.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Sony will be releasing its fourth or fifth model with those specs before Canon gets its first to market


What would make me happy is a shipment date for the prematurely announced new 6 RF lenses, and a super professional body based on the R technology.

Stefano


----------



## proutprout (Apr 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except, they’re not...according the to the available data. But if you want to continue to fabricate facts and make yourself appear foolish, by all means continue posting the same drivel!


Crap i thought that’s what forums where here for ! Anyway : everyone i know is dropping Canon ! Here we go truth is saved


----------



## proutprout (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> 4K TVs are everywhere in the USA; many computer and even the latest smartphone displays are greater than HD (revealing the resolution limitations of HD footage); and most video work is shot in 4K even when finishing in HD, to make use of the greater resolution to reframe and to enhance quality; also, many pros and prosumers need and want a hybrid camera that does stills and video; and, to top it off, many corporate productions are shot on Sony FS7s and the matching A7 series is used for a ton of gimbal work. All this goes without mentioning any future proofing benefits of shooting in 4K.
> 
> So, really who's clueless here?



Exactly, it’s like : you dont need a faster processor on your computer... wake up 4k is mandatory !


----------



## proutprout (Apr 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So the answer to your question is either that the majority of ILC buyers are clueless, or those on this forum pounding on the importance of 4K are clueless. If you’re wondering which answer is correct, here’s a hint: it’s the one supported by data, not the one supported by your opinion.


Look : « everyone buying lala »... in a market that’s down 30% since last year ! Put the facts in perspective : Canon’s cameras are Uninspiring ! So no one buys them. You can rant about the fact they are leaders on the market yes, but on a dying market. 

Phones’s cameras are very inspiring compared to dslr/mirrosless today. We need great cameras, with amazing performances, the same way phones grew this last decade. Canon should make a phone for Christ sake ! They are stucked in the 80´s with retro-dead tech. Come on wake up !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Crap i thought that’s what forums where here for ! Anyway : everyone i know is dropping Canon ! Here we go truth is saved


It’s amusing when people think anecdotes and data are synonymous. But also sad.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> When is Sony going to stop reusing old sensors and give us modern features like Fuji?



The funny part about this is Sony makes all of Fuji's sensors including their MF GFX line. I guess they aren't that old after all lol!


----------



## proutprout (Apr 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s amusing when people think anecdotes and data are synonymous. But also sad.


Dont be sad, it’s a forum ! If you want the truth go do a PHD. You’ll have 5 years to ponder on truth and exactitude ! Than you can go on forums and just have fun while other people think you’re all about truth...


----------



## Kit. (Apr 9, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> The funny part about this is Sony makes all of Fuji's sensors including their MF GFX line. I guess they aren't that old after all lol!


Does Sony use their MF sensors anywhere in their own cameras?


----------



## dba101 (Apr 9, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Crap i thought that’s what forums where here for ! Anyway : everyone i know is dropping Canon ! Here we go truth is saved


Thing is when you leave your teenage years behind there's a big wide world out there. You will see.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 9, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Still. I joined Canon's Australian R&D group in 2011 and he was then 74, and they categorically said they'd be installing younger blood progressively and now he's an 82-year-old fossil still running them. You can see why Canon are no longer the trail blazers.


So, if you're 82 you are a fossil?
What about getting polite?????


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Here is the Canon 7D sensor measurement at PhotonsToPhotos vs. the S1. Not 7D mark II, but the original. Worse dynamic range than a 6D2 or RP.
> 
> View attachment 183832
> 
> ...



So what you are saying is that a FF camera that came out in 2019 is better than a crop camera that came out in 2009?


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> The funny part about this is Sony makes all of Fuji's sensors including their MF GFX line. I guess they aren't that old after all lol!



Hey now! You're pointing out facts! That's like pointing out that Canon's latest cameras have 4k video to the people complaining about needing 4k video. It messes up the narrative!


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> So what you are saying is that a FF camera that came out in 2019 is better than a crop camera that came out in 2009?



I'm saying that a whopping 3.5 stops of difference in these DR tests means relatively little, and 1 stop means nothing.

Complaining about the DR in the 5D4 or R is like complaining that the A73 only has 24mp while the 6D2 and RP have 26mp. _(When is Sony going to stop recycling sensors and give us 27 or even 28mp??? If they don't fix this soon I'm switching to Canon!)_

The incessant complaining on this board about relatively minor spec sheet differences gets on some of our nerves, as does the exaggeration of those differences. Different spec but as I pointed out earlier reading this thread one might walk away thinking that Canon doesn't have 4k on any camera yet while Sony A7 bodies some how magically gained 4k60p.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Here is the Canon 7D sensor measurement at PhotonsToPhotos vs. the S1. Not 7D mark II, but the original. Worse dynamic range than a 6D2 or RP.
> 
> View attachment 183832
> 
> ...



The read noise for Panasonic S1 is alot lower. This could mean less noise in the shadow recovery. I don't know but it requires more testing.

In your sample, *there is clarity, vibrance and saturation adjustments*. In the sample provided, the photographer made no adjustment to those area : https://www.l-rumors.com/page/2/

How would this translate in real life? I don't know...I print large canvas 24 x 36 pretty often and pretty adept with post processing so I'll see if there is a huge differences in my workflow.

It's a nice bonus to have a competitive sensor that rival Nikon and Sony. Panasonic S1 definite is a great bang for your buck vs Canon EOS R that's similar price without IBIS, dual card slot, 2 year old sensor, focus bracketing, joystick, 5.76 million dot EVF, 4K60, high resolution mode, backlit buttons with alot of things that make Canon a good camera (ergonomic, weather seal, menu, fully touch screen LCD, logical button layout).

I'm not saying all this because I'm a Panasonic fanboy but just as someone who is brand agnostic looking for a great value. I have no problem buying into Canon again if they provide competitive offering with their EOS R Pro line at a competitive value.

We are really chasing a diminish return on newer camera body and lenses. I bought the Panasonic S1 for $2250 NEW with free battery and grip ($435). If I sell my 5D IV, I can probably get around $2000 for it. It's hard justifying buying EOS R for $2300 retail price even though I make money off photography and can afford more. I think Canon really need to rethink their value proposition. They are competing against themselves to protect their DSLR/cinema line vs what the competitors are offering.





http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> You are saying that Canon could sell _more_ cameras if they were targeting a specific "demographic". I am saying that if it involves extra effort in development and/or production, Canon might actually end up selling _less_ cameras.



If Canon includes more competitive video features on their cameras, they will end up _*encompassing another*_ demographic, selling more cameras. But they must have the will to do the R&D to make it happen and include the features in the first place. In the long run, if they invest in the development, these features will sell more cameras, not less. And I don't think their development process could get slower than it already is.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 9, 2019)

Can you say "fast track?" Canon must be hearing an earful about lack of pro MILC bodies...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Dont be sad, it’s a forum ! If you want the truth go do a PHD. You’ll have 5 years to ponder on truth and exactitude ! Than you can go on forums and just have fun while other people think you’re all about truth...


I’m sad for people who can’t grasp basic facts, refuse to admit their mistakes, and believe their opinon trumps reality. No plans to do another PhD, the one I have is sufficient.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> The read noise for Panasonic S1 is alot lower. This could mean less noise in the shadow recovery.



I'm absolutely certain it does mean that. But how that translates to practical, in field differences is the point that is lost when people complain about scores.



> In your sample, *there is clarity, vibrance and saturation adjustments*.



None of which affect the actual shadow recovery.



> It's a nice bonus to have a competitive sensor that rival Nikon and Sony. Panasonic S1 definite is a great bang for your buck vs Canon EOS R that's similar price without IBIS, dual card slot, 2 year old sensor,



And we're right back to the "old, uncompetitive sensor" narrative 

I agree the new S bodies are interesting and well spec'd. But sensor vs. sensor I would pick the R's 30mp over the S1's 24mp (for stills) because that difference might actually be visible in a few cases (large prints and/or extreme cropping). The DxO scores in your screenshot aren't going to be visible any where outside of 200% pixel peeping. Canon's 30mp sensor is competitive.



> If I sell my 5D IV, I can probably get around $2000 for it. It's hard justifying buying EOS R for $2300 retail price even though I make money off photography and can afford more.



I admittedly would not sell a 5D4 for an R if I was facing that decision.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> If Canon includes more competitive video features on their cameras, they will end up _*encompassing another*_ demographic, selling more cameras. But they must have the will to do the R&D to make it happen and include the features in the first place. In the long run, if they invest in the development, these features will sell more cameras, not less. And I don't think their development process could get slower than it already is.


The fact that, for the most part, the features you are referring to are already available on Canon cameras (albeit in some cases only the 1-series or Cinema line) indicates the research has been done, as far as the technical aspects, and those are features they _could_ include across the lineups. But Canon also does another type of research —market research...and that provides data on which features they _should_ include. The fact that they haven’t included the features you want in the models you want them in suggests their research led to conclusions that differ from yours. I suspect their market research on how to drive sales is more reliable than your personal opinion on what Canon should do (certainly their ongoing ILC market dominance suggests they’re doing things right despite mounds of contrary ‘expert advice’ on these forums), but either way it’s irrelevant because the decisions are theirs.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect their market research in how to drive sales is more reliable than your personal opinion on what Canon should do, but either way it’s irrelevant because the decisions are theirs.



What? You think the globe's #1 ILC manufacturer has more reliable market research than people complaining on a forum???

That's just crazy talk!


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> 4K TVs are everywhere in the USA; many computer and even the latest smartphone displays are greater than HD (revealing the resolution limitations of HD footage); and most video work is shot in 4K even when finishing in HD, to make use of the greater resolution to reframe and to enhance quality; also, many pros and prosumers need and want a hybrid camera that does stills and video; and, to top it off, many corporate productions are shot on Sony FS7s and the matching A7 series is used for a ton of gimbal work. All this goes without mentioning any future proofing benefits of shooting in 4K.
> 
> So, really who's clueless here?



99% of consumers are clueless.
To get good 4K requires skill beyond just having the camera.
A home movie of your vacation to the Poconos etc. would bore me to death even in 16K.
There is so much more than the number and you don't seem to understand that concept. A 4K TV with a professionally done 4K program is likely very nice, but your home movie is far from that quality no matter how good your TV is it can't fix poor imagery, you just might get possibly sharper looking crap.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 9, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> they will end up _*encompassing another*_ demographic, selling more cameras.


_Non sequitur._

"Encompasing another demographic" does not mean "selling more cameras". It may as well mean "selling less cameras".



transpo1 said:


> But they must have the will to do the R&D to make it happen and include the features in the first place. In the long run, if they invest in the development, these features will sell more cameras, not less.


The "features" would sell more to a marginal demographic. The time and money spent on extra R&D would sell _*less*_ to the *core* demographic. Are the gains in the former are worth the losses in the latter? It depends, but considering that the market is competitive but still segmented and Canon is still its leader, I won't be surprised to know that they aren't.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I'm saying that a whopping 3.5 stops of difference in these DR tests means relatively little, and 1 stop means nothing.
> 
> Complaining about the DR in the 5D4 or R is like complaining that the A73 only has 24mp while the 6D2 and RP have 26mp. _(When is Sony going to stop recycling sensors and give us 27 or even 28mp??? If they don't fix this soon I'm switching to Canon!)_
> 
> The incessant complaining on this board about relatively minor spec sheet differences gets on some of our nerves, as does the exaggeration of those differences. Different spec but as I pointed out earlier reading this thread one might walk away thinking that Canon doesn't have 4k on any camera yet while Sony A7 bodies some how magically gained 4k60p.



I should have put in a smiley face....

I agree with you, but I'll go one step further..... most people can't tell the difference between most pictures taken on any DSLR in the last 10 years, and there are a lot of P/S cameras and even phones that you could include in the list.

Personally, I think that the lens you choose has more impact on your photography than the camera you choose.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I'm absolutely certain it does mean that. But how that translates to practical, in field differences is the point that is lost when people complain about scores.



I don't know how well it translate in real life. Like I said, I have to use it on a field on a paid gig, post process and print huge canvas to see if there is a difference, but it's nice to have the advantage there if you need it.




dtaylor said:


> And we're right back to the "old, uncompetitive sensor" narrative
> 
> I agree the new S bodies are interesting and well spec'd. But sensor vs. sensor I would pick the R's 30mp over the S1's 24mp (for stills) because that difference might actually be visible in a few cases (large prints and/or extreme cropping). The DxO scores in your screenshot aren't going to be visible any where outside of 200% pixel peeping. Canon's 30mp sensor is competitive.



It isn't just sensor, but competitive features as well.
EOS R has no IBIS, no dual card slot, no 5.76 million dot EVF, 4K60, no high resolution mode, focus bracketing, backlit buttons while charging $2300 vs $2500 with free battery and grip, no AA filter.

The better sensor is a nice bonus but that never stop me from making great works with my old Canon 6D. I just like getting value for my dollar spent.

You might be right there is no difference in quality if your intended audience is for web. I print large print often so it matters to me. I also make album as well. 

We are really chasing marginal benefit with diminish return with camera body and lenses. Why spend more when I don't need to even if I can afford it. As a long time Canon user who primarily shoot stills and never make a switch to Sony even though the price and specs are promising, I realize Canon next EOS R Pro will likely be more expensive while providing less like the EOS R did. 

Whether I shoot Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, it doesn't matter. All it matter is the results and how much enjoyment I get from the camera. There is more to photography than just the body or lenses from x camera company. I'm loyal to no one. I buy whatever that give me feature rich camera that's affordable so I can fund my other hobbies and travel more.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 9, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> The read noise for Panasonic S1 is alot lower. This could mean less noise in the shadow recovery. I don't know but it requires more testing.
> ....
> It's a nice bonus to have a competitive sensor that rival Nikon and Sony. Panasonic S1 definite is a great bang for your buck vs Canon EOS R that's similar price without IBIS, dual card slot, 2 year old sensor, focus bracketing, joystick, 5.76 million dot EVF, 4K60, high resolution mode, backlit buttons with alot of things that make Canon a good camera (ergonomic, weather seal, menu, fully touch screen LCD, logical button layout).
> 
> I'm not saying all this because I'm a Panasonic fanboy but just as someone who is brand agnostic looking for a great value. I have no problem buying into Canon again if they provide competitive offering with their EOS R Pro line at a competitive value.


Not all that glitters is gold or is it? Have you taken any pictures with the S1 camera yet? How good are they? How is the AF? What is keeper rate? How responsive is the camera (e.g. start-up, LCD, EVF, joystick, and card read or write? How good are the SOOC jpegs? etc.
Convincing anyone to listen and buy this camera based on hearsay is like barking up the wrong tree. 
Could you please post some sample images taken with your S1 (when/if you have it).


----------



## unfocused (Apr 9, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Still. I joined Canon's Australian R&D group in 2011 and he was then 74, and they categorically said they'd be installing younger blood progressively and now he's an 82-year-old fossil still running them. You can see why Canon are no longer the trail blazers.





Del Paso said:


> So, if you're 82 you are fossil?



Like:
Robert Frank – 94
Lee Friedlander -- 85
Joel Meyerowitz -- 81
Robert Adams -- 82
Jerry Uelsman -- 85
Duane Michels -- 87
Elliott Erwitt -- 90.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> You might be right there is no difference in quality if your intended audience is for web. I print large print often so it matters to me. I also make album as well.



You're going to struggle to see DxO's claimed DR and high ISO differences regardless of print size. Resolution though...

You said you often print 24x36. The S1 leaves you at 167 ppi if you don't crop at all for any reason, not even horizon adjustment. The 5D4 or R would leave you at 187 ppi.

I print large as well and my preference is to not drop below 180 ppi. I moved to the 50mp 5Ds because that leaves you with 241 ppi at 36", and well over 200 ppi even if you crop. It can also deliver 181 ppi at 48". Obviously this can vary with subject, but in print resolution tests I've found 180 ppi to be acceptable ("good") and 240 ppi to be noticeably better ("very good" to "excellent").

Now, I'm not trying to pick on your choice (the S1 is a nice camera) or on 24mp. Nor claim hard limits for print resolution because that's going to vary on subject, audience, and viewing distance.

But this gets to the heart of what irritates me about DxO scores and claims of "my sensor is better than that old Canon sensor." You would have a very hard time showing the DxO claimed DR or high ISO differences in any print of any scene. But the resolution difference is baked into every frame. So why should anyone judge which sensor is better based on DxO? Who, btw, derives their scores from "normalized" 8mp versions of original files.



> I realize Canon next EOS R Pro will likely be more expensive while providing less like the EOS R did.



You mean the rumored 75mp body?

I also take issue with the statement that the R "provides less" as if it were a simple matter of fact. That's going to depend entirely on the buyer and their preferences. The R has native support for RF and EF glass, better AF, and a few other features up its sleeve. Anyone out there who feels the S1 feature set better matches what they want should buy the S1. But no single camera is the best camera for every person and every need.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 9, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Not all that glitters is gold or is it? Have you taken any pictures with the S1 camera yet? How good are they? How is the AF? What is keeper rate? How responsive is the camera (e.g. start-up, LCD, EVF, joystick, and card read or write? How good are the SOOC jpegs? etc.
> Convincing anyone to listen and buy this camera based on hearsay is like barking up the wrong tree.
> Could you please post some sample images taken with your S1 (when/if you have it).



You can find reviews on YouTube and online articles. I don't post my photos since it's mostly clients work and personal landscape photo. I do not want to get doxxed since I have a professional career outside of photography. I do photography only as a side gig.

The camera is very responsive. It reminds me of Canon camera in many ways - fully touch screen LCD, intuitive menu, ergonomic is superb, EVF is best I've used including EOS R/A7III/A9/A7RIII. The SOOC jpeg look good. I always shoot raw so I do not rely on the JPG. Even with Canon 5D IV/EOS R, I never hand over any SOOC to clients or publish SOOC works.

I really like the backlit buttons and plenty of buttons options. The front switch for electronic shutter is a nice option. The rear dial that quickly switch from AF-C, AF-C, Manual is very nice to have to allow quick change. The dial to change mode setting is also very nice. The entire menu can be fully customized and save to SD card. That's really nice to have as backup. Beside it's being as big as 5D IV and weight and the odd power button placement, the ergonomic is very nice.

I'm currently only UHS-I and it kept up with 9 fps. I do not rely on 7 fps with my 5D IV or EOS R so 9 fps is plenty for me. I will buy CFExpress card when it's available this summer. 

The keeper rate is alot higher than my 5D IV. It track the eye much better than the EOS R I had a couple months ago. It still doesn't beat Sony A7III but it's good enough for me.

I'm not convincing anyone to buy this. I don't get commission, have affiliate link, YouTube views etc. If you buy it great, if you don't, that's fine. 

After the battery and battery grip, I see it more like a $2000 camera purchase for me that's fully specs. I still have yet to try it on paid works and try the Sigma MC-21 adapter. Once I determine it's suitable for my works, my Canon 5D IV will be up for sale since I see FF mirror less as the future.

This isn't going to be my last camera purchase. If Canon, Sony, Panasonic has a competitive camera that has good blend of camera usability and features, I'll get one. I really hope Canon offer competitive features and price in their EOS R Pro line (5.76 million dot EVF, IBIS, new sensor, dual card slot, better eyeAF) that's similar price to the competitions.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> You're going to struggle to see DxO's claimed DR and high ISO differences regardless of print size. Resolution though...
> 
> You said you often print 24x36. The S1 leaves you at 167 ppi if you don't crop at all for any reason, not even horizon adjustment. The 5D4 or R would leave you at 187 ppi.
> 
> ...



75 mpx is definitely over kill for event work. I will most likely shoot mRAW if I buy it. 

I print huge with Canon 6D and also with my 5D IV. I can't tell the differences. I also seen plenty of photographer using Sony A7III/A9 24 mpx sensor to print huge as well. I can't tell the difference either. If you search over the net, plenty of people use 24 mpx to print 24 x 36. I know photographers using 1DXII 20 mpx and it isn't a problem either.

If it's ever a concern, Panasonic S1 has an option for 96 mpx high resolution mode or buy 47 mpx S1R. It isn't a concern for me.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> I print huge with Canon 6D and also with my 5D IV. I can't tell the differences. I also seen plenty of photographer using Sony A7III/A9 24 mpx sensor to print huge as well. I can't tell the difference either. If you search over the net, plenty of people use 24 mpx to print 24 x 36. I know photographers using 1DXII 20 mpx and it isn't a problem either.



It's going to vary based on subject matter, but I can open an album and point to the differences. Yet I don't know if I could stage a test that would show the differences represented by the DxO scores you posted.



> It isn't a concern for me.



That's fair. But understand DxO scores are not a concern for others.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 9, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> It's going to vary based on subject matter, but I can open an album and point to the differences. Yet I don't know if I could stage a test that would show the differences represented by the DxO scores you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fair. But understand DxO scores are not a concern for others.



I didn't buy S1 just because of a better sensor ISO or dynamic range or DXO score. It's nice to have. I have no idea how it will affect my workflow. I doubt it will replace my bracketing for landscape shot. It's likely allow me to shoot 6400 with ease and more latitude when it come to shadow recovery.

Why did I bring it up the comparison? It's nice to buy a new camera with competitive sensor whether I take full advantage of it or not. There is nothing wrong 5D IV sensor, but if I'm going upgrade, I might get a new sensor, IBIS, EVF, dual card slot, better 4K, focus bracketing, high resolution mode, joystick than so so offering from Canon. Otherwise, I might as well keep what I have.

The biggest difference for me switching to mirrorless has been no micro adjustment with lenses. When I hit focus, it's very sharp. That combined with no AA filter of S1, it's very sharp. The superb 5.76 million dot EVF allow me to see what you see is what you get - no more chimping for me. The face tracking and eyeAF is going to make it easy for me to concentrate on other things. None of those will show up on print. IBIS will allow me to hand held 1-2 seconds that's possible with non-IS lenses I have. It's not going to show up on print, but allow me for new shooting opportunity.

In many ways, this is the camera I wish Canon would make except with DPAF and perfect adapter for EF lenses for $2500. If they make it, I'll buy one.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 9, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> ...but if I'm going upgrade, I might get a new sensor...



We're going to have to agree to disagree because you keep insisting that X is a fact when it's clearly debatable, and then also re-listing the S1's feature set straight from a Panasonic ad. I don't take issue with someone buying the S1. I've said it's a nice, well spec'd camera. My issue is entirely with the "old sensor" and DxO memes.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree because you keep insisting that X is a fact when it's clearly debatable, and then also re-listing the S1's feature set straight from a Panasonic ad. I don't take issue with someone buying the S1. I've said it's a nice, well spec'd camera. My issue is entirely with the "old sensor" and DxO memes.



I have no problem agreeing to disagree. You don't even acknowledge 5D IV is an old sensor compared to Z6, A7III or S1. Canon 5D IV was released in* August 2016*. It still perform well and capable of making great images, but the sensor is 2.5 year old.

Whether you agree with DXO score or Phototophoton chart or not, how can we have an honest discussion if you don't even acknowledge Canon 5D IV is an old sensor compare to the competitions.

I own Canon gears and resisted switching to Sony for years, but at least Canon weakness has always been in the sensor, 4K and eyeAF while Sony has always been color and ergonomic. Just because I own Canon gears doesn't mean I will defend its weakness.

Let's end here. I find it a waste of time since we can't logically think when we have so much emotional investment in an animate object.

It's only a camera. In the next few years, something else will be better. I have no problem calling S1 having an old sensor then.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 10, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> You don't even acknowledge 5D IV is an old sensor compared to Z6, A7III or S1. Canon 5D IV was released in* August 2016*.



"Old sensor" is rhetoric intended to imply inferiority on the assumption that newer always equals better. Of course age doesn't actually prove inferior performance or technology. I think I've made the case on the former. 

As to the latter, we would have to have knowledge of the actual circuitry underlying the sensors to evaluate how they relate in terms of state of the art engineering and fabrication.



> Whether you agree with DXO score or Phototophoton chart or not,



It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of understanding how their tests work, and therefore how large a difference there has to be between two scores before there's any human observable difference in the real world.



> Just because I own Canon gears doesn't mean I will defend its weakness.



No would I. But I'm happy to debate claimed weaknesses which do not exist.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> "Old sensor" is rhetoric intended to imply inferiority on the assumption that newer always equals better. Of course age doesn't actually prove inferior performance or technology. I think I've made the case on the former.



Just jumping back to the discussion...
Newer sensor doesn't always mean better sensor, but it's my reasonable expectation as a consumer. I expect to see some improvement in the new camera models as someone who pays money.

You're trying to prove the difference in DR between the best Canon and best Sony is insignificant, but I'm often scratching the limits of my 5DIV in landscape photography and I don't want to downgrade in terms of DR in any way.

So the argument on insignificance just doesn't hold for me, based on my experience.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 10, 2019)

marioslrzn said:


> But no Sony full frame camera does 4k60 not even their flagship camera


In fact, their flagship camera is full frame and shoots 4k 60p. With the new firmware it will shoot 4k 120p and 6k 60p.

You might be confused about which camera is their video flagship. Hint: the alpha cameras you probably have in mind are stills focused.


----------



## tmc784 (Apr 10, 2019)

kingrobertii said:


> People just like to complain. I use a 5D IV and never have any issues with DR. If I do, its because of user error.


 Agree ! Good photos are taken by good technic.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Kit. said:


> _Non sequitur._
> 
> "Encompasing another demographic" does not mean "selling more cameras". It may as well mean "selling less cameras".
> 
> ...



Sad to say, but you keep being wrong here. Appealing to a wider customer base will win more money and marketshare in the end and they will eventually have to do this R&D anyway to keep from being left behind in overall video spec. (In fact, they’re probably doing it already.) Why make P&S cameras? Why sell Rebels? Oh, right, why make a mirrorless camera to begin with? To appeal to a wider customer base. You’ll notice that it took some time before Canon noticed they were leaving money on the table by not having FF MILC cameras. But they invested in the R&D to make it happen and...wait for it...encompass another demographic while offering existing customers value at the same time.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact that, for the most part, the features you are referring to are already available on Canon cameras (albeit in some cases only the 1-series or Cinema line) indicates the research has been done, as far as the technical aspects, and those are features they _could_ include across the lineups. But Canon also does another type of research —market research...and that provides data on which features they _should_ include. The fact that they haven’t included the features you want in the models you want them in suggests their research led to conclusions that differ from yours. I suspect their market research on how to drive sales is more reliable than your personal opinion on what Canon should do (certainly their ongoing ILC market dominance suggests they’re doing things right despite mounds of contrary ‘expert advice’ on these forums), but either way it’s irrelevant because the decisions are theirs.



I don’t know— they’re “infallible market research” that you’ve been extolling the virtues of for years lagged way behind the MILC curve and now they’re playing catch up. So no, I don’t trust it. I work for a very large company, so I know how they can have the “best glasses” but not see the forest from the trees. Corporations are big ships that take a long time to turn...and sometimes don’t see the iceberg until late in the game. Yes, I’m being dramatic— Canon, does not have any profitability issues to worry about— but you get the idea.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> 99% of consumers are clueless.
> To get good 4K requires skill beyond just having the camera.
> A home movie of your vacation to the Poconos etc. would bore me to death even in 16K.
> There is so much more than the number and you don't seem to understand that concept. A 4K TV with a professionally done 4K program is likely very nice, but your home movie is far from that quality no matter how good your TV is it can't fix poor imagery, you just might get possibly sharper looking crap.



I’m afraid you don’t understand the concept because from your posts there is very little you understand about filmmaking in general. But i’ll Try to spell it out for you one more time. Most professionals are forced to shoot in 4K by their clients. It’s a requirement. Those looking to do professional work should no longer look to HD if they are looking at shooting something. Netflix requires 4K for all new programming. 

Making sense yet?


----------



## Kit. (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Sad to say, but you keep being wrong here. Appealing to a wider customer base will win more money and marketshare in the end and they will eventually have to do this R&D anyway to keep from being left behind in overall video spec. (In fact, they’re probably doing it already.)


Sad to say, but you keep being wrong here - _and not listening_.

No, they don't need to do the R&D of fitting a software feature _into the particular hardware limitations_ "anyway" if this software feature is marginal for the target market of that hardware and there is _less limited hardware_ that they produce for _the target market of this software feature_.

And if they do this R&D, they increase the cost of the product and the chances of the release schedule slippage, both of which _decrease_ the number of sales on their target market.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Still. I joined Canon's Australian R&D group in 2011 and he was then 74, and they categorically said they'd be installing younger blood progressively and now he's an 82-year-old fossil still running them. You can see why Canon are no longer the trail blazers.



Nothing like a bit of casual ageism eh?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I don’t know— they’re “infallible market research” that you’ve been extolling the virtues of for years lagged way behind the MILC curve and now they’re playing catch up. So no, I don’t trust it. I work for a very large company, so I know how they can have the “best glasses” but not see the forest from the trees. Corporations are big ships that take a long time to turn...and sometimes don’t see the iceberg until late in the game. Yes, I’m being dramatic— Canon, does not have any profitability issues to worry about— but you get the idea.


I’m not claiming they’re infallible...just that their understand of the ILC market is superior to yours. In this case far superior, as your post makes it quite clear that you don’t ‘get the idea’. But I’ll try to spell it out for you one more time.

If Canon ‘lagged behind the curve’, they’d have lost ILC market share. They didn’t. They chose to stay out of a small market segment until it matured enough to matter to them. ILC comprises DSLR and MILC segments, and since those segments are counted together, favoring advancement in one over the other is not logical for the market leader (conversely, a minor player in the market may choose to focus on only on the segment where the market leader is not heavily engaged, i.e. Sony).

For the past decade, Canon has had just under 50% of the ILC market. When Canon entered the MILC segment with the EOS M line, that segment only represented less than 20% of the ILC market (and the majority of MILCs at the time we’re m4/3). Currently, the MILC segment is close to 40% of the ILC market, and the EOS M series is the best-selling MILC line globally. Meanwhile, Canon has recently launched two successful full frame MILCs (FF ILCs are only a small sub-segment), and they continue to maintain an ILC market share of about 50%. Nothing lost, not behind. 

Making sense yet?


----------



## scyrene (Apr 10, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Dont be sad, it’s a forum ! If you want the truth go do a PHD. You’ll have 5 years to ponder on truth and exactitude ! Than you can go on forums and just have fun while other people think you’re all about truth...



You can certainly spout any nonsense you like here, but you'll get called out for it. Just because it's a forum doesn't mean facts don't matter. The main outcome will be people think you're an idiot, although a lot of people don't seem to care about that.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not claiming they’re infallible...just that their understand of the ILC market is superior to yours. In this case far superior, as your post makes it quite clear that you don’t ‘get the idea’. But I’ll try to spell it out for you one more time.
> 
> If Canon ‘lagged behind the curve’, they’d have lost ILC market share. They didn’t. They chose to stay out of a small market segment until it matured enough to matter to them. ILC comprises DSLR and MILC segments, and since those segments are counted together, favoring advancement in one over the other is not logical for the market leader (conversely, a minor player in the market may choose to focus on only on the segment where the market leader is not heavily engaged, i.e. Sony).
> 
> ...



Your stats seem to make sense on the surface, but I'm curious: why don't they have more RF lenses shipping? Why don't they have a high-res and/or pro FF MILC body shipping? They're rushing out a bunch of lenses late this year and their next FF MILC body will likely be next year. Nice try, but judging by the way a conservative corporation like Canon works- no, it just doesn't add up. They're rushing now and everyone knows it, and left money on the MILC table a bit too long. Nice to think they were purposely letting the market mature because of their "infallible market research" but that's not the case here. These items were fast-tracked for a reason.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I’m afraid you don’t understand the concept because from your posts there is very little you understand about filmmaking in general. But i’ll Try to spell it out for you one more time. Most professionals are forced to shoot in 4K by their clients. It’s a requirement. Those looking to do professional work should no longer look to HD if they are looking at shooting something. Netflix requires 4K for all new programming.
> 
> Making sense yet?



That is why Canon makes real video cameras for QUALITY films not just backyard wanna be users.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Sad to say, but you keep being wrong here - _and not listening_.
> 
> No, they don't need to do the R&D of fitting a software feature _into the particular hardware limitations_ "anyway" if this software feature is marginal for the target market of that hardware and there is _less limited hardware_ that they produce for _the target market of this software feature_.
> 
> And if they do this R&D, they increase the cost of the product and the chances of the release schedule slippage, both of which _decrease_ the number of sales on their target market.



I've been listening the whole time but I simply disagree with your assessment of sales potential. If they invested in the R&D and released a MILC FF stills camera with killer FF video features, I believe they would sell more cameras than they ever dreamed, more than making up for the wait with their target audience. Perhaps this is why they have yet to deliver a pro FF MILC camera. Either way, they have to do this R&D sooner or later.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Your stats seem to make sense on the surface, but I'm curious: why don't they have more RF lenses shipping? Why don't they have a high-res and/or pro FF MILC body shipping? They're rushing out a bunch of lenses late this year and their next FF MILC body will likely be next year. Nice try, but judging by the way a conservative corporation like Canon works- no, it just doesn't add up. They're rushing now and everyone knows it, and left money on the MILC table a bit too long. Nice to think they were purposely letting the market mature because of their "infallible market research" but that's not the case here. These items were fast-tracked for a reason.


Canon led the FF ILC market last year (at least in Japan, which is the only geography for which we have data, but it's also the most popular region for mirrorless), i.e. there were more FF DSLRs sold than FF MILCs. From your I-know-better-than-Canon point of view, why do they need to rush things out?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I've been listening the whole time but I simply disagree with your assessment of sales potential. If they invested in the R&D and released a MILC FF stills camera with killer FF video features, I believe they would sell more cameras than they ever dreamed, more than making up for the wait with their target audience. Perhaps this is why they have yet to deliver a pro FF MILC camera. Either way, they have to do this R&D sooner or later.


The market for a 'killer FF video feature MILC' and the market for a 'pro FF MILC' are minuscule in comparison to the market for a 'relatively cheap FF MILC'. Thus, we have the EOS RP...demonstrating once again that Canon knows the market better than you.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 10, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You're trying to prove the difference in DR between the best Canon and best Sony is insignificant, but I'm often scratching the limits of my 5DIV in landscape photography



And you would do so with a Sony A73 or Nikon D850 as well. No currently shipping camera has the DR necessary to cover the most extreme scenes which can be found.



> So the argument on insignificance just doesn't hold for me, based on my experience.



What experience? Show me the pair of images you shot on a Canon 5D4 and Sony where the Sony had more recoverable detail vs. a small difference in noise in the recovered detail while pixel peeping.

You don't understand the tests at those sites if you think 1ev difference in scoring means anything other than slight noise differences in recovered detail. Look again at the S1 and 7D examples and that's a 3.5ev difference in scoring.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I don’t know— they’re “infallible market research” that you’ve been extolling the virtues of for years lagged way behind the MILC curve and now they’re playing catch up.



DSLRs continue to out sell MILCs every where but Japan, and the Canon EOS M series has repeatedly out sold the Alpha series. Canon's total ILC marketshare has barely budged with almost all of Sony's gains coming at Nikon's expense.

What was wrong with their market research again?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> DSLRs continue to out sell MILCs every where but Japan, and the Canon EOS M series has repeatedly out sold the Alpha series. Canon's total ILC marketshare has barely budged with almost all of Sony's gains coming at Nikon's expense.
> 
> What was wrong with their market research again?


You know how bullets just bounce right off Superman’s chest? Apparently some people’s opinions are impervious to facts in just the same way.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You know how bullets just bounce right off Superman’s chest? Apparently some people’s opinions are impervious to facts in just the same way.



I thought the S stood for _Hope_, now I find out it actually stands for _Sony_


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Your stats seem to make sense on the surface, but I'm curious: why don't they have more RF lenses shipping? Why don't they have a high-res and/or pro FF MILC body shipping?



because there's no real rush or panic to get them out the door immediately and next Q1 has a ton of shows that Canon wants to showcase at, not to mention it's Photokina first of the annual shows year, a Canon Expo year AND an Olympic year. what's going on after CP+ this year? a whole lot of nothing.

I think it's time you face the cold hard truth. what you, a forum warrior thinks the market should do or produce and what Canon feels the market needs and what will sell, are two different things. Admit the fact that you agree to disagree with Canon's feel of the market, and move on. Find something else to keep you interested and engaged. Obviously, Canon isn't and hasn't for YEARS kept you interested an engaged outside of complaining about video features, and you are still here. Meanwhile there's plenty of other cameras out there and companies that seem to be a better fit. yet you are still here.

it's really strange.

Professionally, if i had a tool that didn't do the job i needed to do, i would sell it and get the tool that did. no questions asked. I wouldn't wait and endlessly complain about it for 2 or 3 years.

cameras are nothing but tools not a religious experience.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 10, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Just jumping back to the discussion...
> Newer sensor doesn't always mean better sensor, but it's my reasonable expectation as a consumer. I expect to see some improvement in the new camera models as someone who pays money.



A newer car with a newer, better engine doesn't get you to your destination any faster, assuming your old one met a certain minimum.

Any why no complaints about Sony's DR not improving over the past years?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I’m afraid you don’t understand the concept because from your posts there is very little you understand about filmmaking in general. But i’ll Try to spell it out for you one more time. Most professionals are forced to shoot in 4K by their clients. It’s a requirement. Those looking to do professional work should no longer look to HD if they are looking at shooting something. Netflix requires 4K for all new programming.
> 
> Making sense yet?



You're shooting a Netflix program? Cool! What's the name going to be? I'll be sure to watch it when it comes out.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 10, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> A newer car with a newer, better engine doesn't get you to your destination any faster, assuming your old one met a certain minimum.



This analogy isn't relevant. Better DR simply means more keepers. 



QuisUtDeus said:


> Any why no complaints about Sony's DR not improving over the past years?


Because it's been improving.


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 10, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> This analogy isn't relevant. Better DR simply means more keepers.



If the difference is >2ev and if you shoot wide DR scenes and if you shoot RAW and if you know how to recover the shadows in post...you'll get a few shots that would require HDR techniques on the lower DR sensor.

If you're talking about a 1ev difference you'll see a noise difference while pixel peeping.



> Because it's been improving.



So finally to the level Nikon was at in 2012. Silly Sony and their old sensor designs, when will they offer us something new?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> So finally to the level Nikon was at in 2012. Silly Sony and their old sensor designs, when will they offer us something new?



And that shows effectively no improvement to the mk2 (which saw no screaming about old tech and expectations of improvement) and an optimistic half-stop with the mk3, which is exactly the kind of improvement Canon gets skewered for.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 10, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I’m afraid you don’t understand the concept because from your posts there is very little you understand about filmmaking in general. But i’ll Try to spell it out for you one more time. Most professionals are forced to shoot in 4K by their clients. It’s a requirement. Those looking to do professional work should no longer look to HD if they are looking at shooting something. *Netflix requires 4K for all new programming*.
> 
> Making sense yet?


Half the truth is often a whole lie, isn't it?
Half-truth you said was: "*Netflix requires 4K for all new programming*".
The other half that you forgot to mention is: "*Minimum data-rate of Bitrate of 240 Mbps at 23.98 fps*" (REF)
What is the max bitrate of Sony MILC cameras (that you said earlier your pro crew use for film making): *100mbps* in 4K.
And interestingly, on the same reference, I don't see any MILC of any brand listed as approved camera by Netflix for content creation and delivery!
So who are the pros who use MILC for film making anyway? and what they do with their contents created? Watch it in basement with their grandma?
Now who doesn’t understand about film making in general?
Edit: Same goes with your market analysis statements!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> And you would do so with a Sony A73 or Nikon D850 as well. No currently shipping camera has the DR necessary to cover the most extreme scenes which can be found.



It doesn't have to cover most extreme scenes. Again better DR simply means more scenes to cover in one shot.



dtaylor said:


> What experience? Show me the pair of images you shot on a Canon 5D4 and Sony where the Sony had more recoverable detail vs. a small difference in noise in the recovered detail while pixel peeping.



I'm not shooting with Sony, and even if I were, would you require me to shoot hundreds of images a year with both Canon and Sony side by side?



dtaylor said:


> You don't understand the tests at those sites if you think 1ev difference in scoring means anything other than slight noise differences in recovered detail. Look again at the S1 and 7D examples and that's a 3.5ev difference in scoring.



All those cameras, even the old ones, are 14 bit, but it doesn't mean they all have 14-stop DR. Lower DR simply means more noise all over the image, not just shadows. Of course the noise affects the shadows the most, but in older cameras you can see it in the light shadows and even mid-tones while the cameras with better DR push the noticeable noise to the deeper shadows. 3.5ev is actually a lot, try pushing exposure by 3.5ev and the shadows will turn into a mess in old cameras.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 10, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> If the difference is >2ev and if you shoot wide DR scenes and if you shoot RAW and if you know how to recover the shadows in post...you'll get a few shots that would require HDR techniques on the lower DR sensor.



2ev is a lot, I often use 2 stop grad ND filter and it makes a huge difference. If a next-gen sensor had 2-stop DR improvement, it'd be fantastic, I wouldn't need to use the ND grad or would significantly reduce its use.



dtaylor said:


> If you're talking about a 1ev difference you'll see a noise difference while pixel peeping.



1ev is plenty, it's often a difference between an 'ok sky' and a 'blown out sky'. Yes I'd like to minimise the use of HDR techniques, stacking etc.



dtaylor said:


> So finally to the level Nikon was at in 2012. Silly Sony and their old sensor designs, when will they offer us something new?



I simply showed the statement that Sony hasn't improved the DR in years is false. Now you're trying to play it down and call the spirit of Nikon. What does Nikon have to do with the statement about DR improvements in Sony cameras?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 10, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 2ev is a lot, I often use 2 stop grad ND filter and it makes a huge difference. If a next-gen sensor had 2-stop DR improvement, it'd be fantastic, I wouldn't need to use the ND grad or would significantly reduce its use.



Are you going to complain if (when) Sony's next-gen sensor doesn't have a 2-stop DR improvement? Or will that be understandable.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 10, 2019)

I love how people say things like “Canon was forced to rush the camera to market”!

For starters, it takes about 5 years from the start of a project to get a camera to the store. About the only part of the project that can be rushed is software development, and doing that means buggy software. If anything, Canon is known for the stability of their products and there is no way that they are going to risk their reputation (probably their best marketing friend), to speed up the design cycle.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Are you going to complain if (when) Sony's next-gen sensor doesn't have a 2-stop DR improvement? Or will that be understandable.


I don't care as I don't use Sony cameras. And for them it'd be hard to have a 2-stop improvement. They'd need to go from 14 bit to say 16 bit for that. Canon still has a room for improvement within the 14 bit sensor architecture.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I don't care as I don't use Sony cameras. And for them it'd be hard to have a 2-stop improvement. They'd need to go from 14 bit to say 16 bit for that. Canon still has a room for improvement within the 14 bit sensor architecture.


Sony’s next gen sensors do use 16-bit ADCs.

Here’s a camera which uses one:





QHYCCD DEMO







www.qhyccd.com


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Sony’s next gen sensors do use 16-bit ADCs.
> 
> Here’s a camera which uses one:
> 
> ...



That's a niche camera, but if such sensor really appears in A7RIV (as it's rumored), it'd be very nice, that might make me switching to Sony. 16 bit ADC is going to give an unbeatable image quality and presumably a very good DR.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It doesn't have to cover most extreme scenes. Again better DR simply means more scenes to cover in one shot.



You say this but then you say...



> I'm not shooting with Sony, and even if I were, would you require me to shoot hundreds of images a year with both Canon and Sony side by side?



The advantage is so huge that you need to randomly shoot hundreds of images over the course of the year, side-by-side, hoping to find one that shows the advantage?

This just tells me that you do not understand how the DR scores at various sites translate into real world performance. You just like a higher score and you're going to tout it as a big advantage.



> Lower DR simply means more noise all over the image, not just shadows.



This is literally the opposite of what it means.



> 3.5ev is actually a lot, try pushing exposure by 3.5ev and the shadows will turn into a mess in old cameras.



Read page 4 of this thread and tell me again how much a difference of 3.5 _in the DR score of a testing site_ means.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's a niche camera, but if such sensor really appears in A7RIV (as it's rumored), it'd be very nice, that might make me switching to Sony. 16 bit ADC is going to give an unbeatable image quality and presumably a very good DR.


It is niche. So is the zwo using it. Cost might determine whether major market cameras use the RGB version.

I would not presume 16-bit ACD means anything about DR. They could very well be sampling the same range with better gradations.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 2ev is a lot, I often use 2 stop grad ND filter and it makes a huge difference.



A difference of 2 in a DxO or PtoP score is not literally the same as a ND grad filter. This is the problem with reporting the test results in stops. It implies information is there on one sensor but not on another...as if a ND filter were used...when in fact the score is set by tripping an arbitrary noise threshold.



> I simply showed the statement that Sony hasn't improved the DR in years is false. Now you're trying to play it down



Why not? Every Canon improvement is played down.



> and call the spirit of Nikon. What does Nikon have to do with the statement about DR improvements in Sony cameras?



If you had read the thread you would know that Nikon set the bar in 2012. So if a Canon sensor is "old" for not having the best DR then so are Sony's sensors.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 11, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> ...when in fact the score is set by tripping an arbitrary noise threshold.



That’s not entirely true. The measurement is bounded by an arbitrary noise threshold on the low end, but is unbounded at the high end.
The Nikon D810 seems to have improved well capacity.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The advantage is so huge that you need to randomly shoot hundreds of images over the course of the year, side-by-side, hoping to find one that shows the advantage?



I never said it was a _huge_ advantage. But you asked me to show you a pair of images taken with Canon and Sony - I don't have them.



dtaylor said:


> This just tells me that you do not understand how the DR scores at various sites translate into real world performance. You just like a higher score and you're going to tout it as a big advantage.



Nope, maybe you remember from another old thread, I'm comparing old Canon cameras to 5DIV, the ones I was actually shooting with. And what's shown as 1.5-2 stop difference in DR (say between 70D and 5DIV) translates into a very noticeable significant difference in IQ.



dtaylor said:


> Read page 4 of this thread and tell me again how much a difference of 3.5 _in the DR score of a testing site_ means.



As above, my practical experience with what's shown as 2 stop difference tells me it's a huge gain.


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting



I worked with older Canon cameras and with raw files from other models, but used 70D and 5DIV the most.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> As above, my practical experience with what's shown as 2 stop difference tells me it's a huge gain.



As I illustrated earlier it's not a huge gain at 3.5.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> As I illustrated earlier it's not a huge gain at 3.5.



As far as I remember, your illustration was a single shot from 7D. I have literally thousands images from 70D and 5DIV. Never shoot with them side by side, but you didn't show us a side-by-side comparison either, and at the same time I have lots of shots taken in similar conditions. The images from 5DIV are much cleaner across shadows, midtones and highlights, give much more freedom for editing etc.And again that's 2-stop difference according to http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS 70D. That's my experience but that's what matters *to me* when I think about spending money on the next camera.

I've seen RAWs from 200D, same sensor as 80D, they're also way better than 70D and can serve as a backup landscape camera, but still lag behind 5DIV and it's not just the numbers, it's the personal experience. 

Because I know how my experience translates to the numbers from photonstophotos, I can do an educated guess what I get if a new camera is 1 stop better than 5DIV.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> It is niche. So is the zwo using it. Cost might determine whether major market cameras use the RGB version.
> 
> I would not presume 16-bit ACD means anything about DR. They could very well be sampling the same range with better gradations.



The bitness of an ADC imposes an upper limit to DR, a 14-bit ADC cannot have more than 14 stops of DR etc.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> As far as I remember, your illustration was a single shot from 7D.



And? That's the level of shadow recovery you can expect. Nothing can make that _less_. If someone gets less that's not on the sensor.



> The images from 5DIV are much cleaner across shadows, midtones and highlights,



The 5D4 is a full frame camera. How clean a bright blue sky or a mid tone green dress appears is dominated by the format difference and the impact that has on Poisson noise. A 6D2 will also show a cleaner mid tone or highlight. 

How hard you can push the shadows is dominated by read noise. The DR tests are tests of read noise.



Quarkcharmed said:


> The bitness of an ADC imposes an upper limit to DR, a 14-bit ADC cannot have more than 14 stops of DR etc.



The ADC conversion is not perfectly linear.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> And? That's the level of shadow recovery you can expect. Nothing can make that _less_. If someone gets less that's not on the sensor.



Ok. Let's look at your sample (https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...y-a-lot-more-coming-in-2019.36985/post-771327) closer.
First of all, 5DIV is able to recover totally (visually) dark shadows, in your sample all shadows have detail before recovery. Second, why do you think you've recovered 3.5 stops? I've loaded your sample into PS and tried to match just the exposure of the shadows (see the attachment). I applied CameraRaw EV+2.55 to the left part:



As you can see, the shadows are roughly matched and it's just 2.55 stops.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Second, why do you think you've recovered 3.5 stops?



Where did I say that I recovered 3.5 stops?

I posted that image to make a point to the DRones on this board who miss no opportunity to say that the 5D4 and R sensors are _old tech_ that are _so far behind Sony_ on DR that _we're going to switch brands any day now._ I replied to a posting of a Panasonic S1 shadow recovery example by someone who kept talking about how great it was to have a "new competitive sensor" implying that the 5D4 sensor is old and uncompetitive.

A D850 / A73 / A7r3 / S1 score roughly 1ev higher than a 5D4 (give or take a fraction of a stop). The S1 scores 3.5ev higher than a 7D. With that kind of score and all the DR rhetoric that appears on this forum you would assume a vast visual difference in shadow recovery between a S1 and 7D. Yet the visual difference is _relatively small._ If that's what a 3.5 score difference equals in the real world, then a difference of 1 can't be seen outside of pixel peeping conditions.

If I had immediate access to a 5D4 at the moment I would fire off some shots tomorrow against a D800E to put an exclamation point on this. I can borrow the D800E any time I want but can't easily borrow a 5D4 for a few hours (at the moment).

Suffice it to say I've done these tests before between various camera pairs and have a very good idea of how those scores translate to real world prints and the sensors in the 5D4 and R are *not* behind. They are dual pixel architecture which costs them a point at DxO or PtoP but that doesn't translate to anything substantial in the real world. And if you really want to quibble about it, shoot DP RAWs and process them to add roughly 1ev on the highlight side putting those cameras on par with anything else out there, literally and to the numerical point score. Better even because most photographers would take 1-2 stops from the shadow side and put it on the highlight side if they could. It's the one lingering complaint from the film days since film by nature handles highlight roll off very well.

The "Canon sensor old" meme is old and boring.

BTW: the shadow push was roughly 2.5ev but there was also 0.5ev of highlight recovery. That was why I winked in the original post and said 'but I held the sky.'


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The bitness of an ADC imposes an upper limit to DR, a 14-bit ADC cannot have more than 14 stops of DR etc.


Let me rephrase:
I would not presume the use of a 16-bit ADC means the sensor has either higher well capacity or lower noise than some earlier sensor with a 14-bit ADC.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 11, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Half the truth is often a whole lie, isn't it?
> Half-truth you said was: "*Netflix requires 4K for all new programming*".
> The other half that you forgot to mention is: "*Minimum data-rate of Bitrate of 240 Mbps at 23.98 fps*" (REF)
> What is the max bitrate of Sony MILC cameras (that you said earlier your pro crew use for film making): *100mbps* in 4K.
> ...



Well, denigrating all those who don't have a show on Netflix as "in the basement with grandma" might not win you any friends in the professional community, so I think we can tell who does *not* hang out with professional crews. 

The full truth is that Netflix approved formats only consist of 4K formats: "Camera must have a true 4K UHD sensor (equal to or greater than 3840 photosites wide)." So that point is not able to be disputed. 

However, it is important to note that while no DSLR or MILC makes the approved cameras list, Netflix *does* allow up to 20% for unscripted or 10% of unscripted to be shot on unapproved cameras (B cams, crash cams, etc.), which would include such cameras (if they like your project enough). 

Full disclosure: This may also include non-4K cameras converted to 4K for delivery, *but* I'd wager that the Netflix executives, who have ultimate discretion, would be more likely to accept an non-approved camera if it *were* shooting 4K, and even more so if it were using the full width of the UHD (4K) sensor. Which is *not* something the EOS-R does because of its crop in 4K. And this is where material shot on a Sony, a Fuji, or a GH5 might have the advantage.

Also, here's a definition for you because some people obviously aren't intelligent enough to understand the concept: _"Professional: A person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime."_

There are all sorts of professional filmmakers. Some use Alexas. Some use a Sony A7SII to film a documentary. And some use a GH4 to shoot segments of Planet Earth II.

And, since my point was that quality 4K is relevant and necessary in today's world, congratulations on providing further research to prove that. Please take note, however, that although anyone can Google format specifications, it actually takes a filmmaker's perspective and a brain to analyze them. And I didn't see that anywhere in your post.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Where did I say that I recovered 3.5 stops?



Ok sorry I probably misunderstood you. You said that 3.5 stop difference between Canon 7D and Panasonic S1 isn't that big. I assumed you'd try and show a 3.5 stop recovery in 7D.
But again you shadow recovery sample above shows 2.5 stop recovery, and it's hard to check on the quality of the resulting image because it's too small. So it doesn't prove anything. You recovered 2.5 stops from shadows with dark but clearly visible details, and from this post https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...-more-coming-in-2019.36985/page-4#post-771313 we see a recovery from almost totally black shadows with no visible detail.

So I don't see, to be honest, how your example shows anything. The fact that you recovered 2.5 stops of shadowson an image from 7D doesn't tell us if the difference between 7D and S1 is insignificant. It doesn't even tell us if it's significant. It only shows you can recover 2.5 stops and it looks ok when downsized.



dtaylor said:


> I posted that image to make a point to the DRones on this board who miss no opportunity to say that the 5D4 and R sensors are _old tech_ that are _so far behind Sony_ on DR that _we're going to switch brands any day now._ I replied to a posting of a Panasonic S1 shadow recovery example by someone who kept talking about how great it was to have a "new competitive sensor" implying that the 5D4 sensor is old and uncompetitive.



Ok, but again you example that uses 7D doesn't tell us anything about 5DIV vs S1 comparison.



dtaylor said:


> And if you really want to quibble about it, shoot DP RAWs and process them to add roughly 1ev on the highlight side putting those cameras on par with anything else out there, literally and to the numerical point score.



I use DPRSplit, it helps a bit but happens to be unreliable - the merged files sometimes have a very strong green and unfixable cast in the brightest highlights - so sometimes it helps to recover highlights, but I can't rely on it and I'm afraid of overexposing by 1 stop deliberately. I've used it or tried to use it in probably 1/10 of my recent keeper images, btw that probably shows what I'd get if my camera had 1 stop more of DR. 10% easier processing and more keepers. That's actually a lot.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Let me rephrase:
> I would not presume the use of a 16-bit ADC means the sensor has either higher well capacity or lower noise than some earlier sensor with a 14-bit ADC.


That's absolutely right. However Sony rumours say the DR will be improved. Tbh I didn't even know about this sensor before reading this thread, now will be watching when/if Sony actually releases A7RIV.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 11, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> because there's no real rush or panic to get them out the door immediately and next Q1 has a ton of shows that Canon wants to showcase at, not to mention it's Photokina first of the annual shows year, a Canon Expo year AND an Olympic year. what's going on after CP+ this year? a whole lot of nothing.
> 
> I think it's time you face the cold hard truth. what you, a forum warrior thinks the market should do or produce and what Canon feels the market needs and what will sell, are two different things. Admit the fact that you agree to disagree with Canon's feel of the market, and move on. Find something else to keep you interested and engaged. Obviously, Canon isn't and hasn't for YEARS kept you interested an engaged outside of complaining about video features, and you are still here. Meanwhile there's plenty of other cameras out there and companies that seem to be a better fit. yet you are still here.
> 
> ...



And I use those other cameras 

But yet, you’re still here are this forum— why? I hardly think my engaging in discussion qualifies as a religious experience but defense of Canon for the opposite arguments seems to be one for many on this forum. 

I suppose you’ll just have to get on my side and push for those same features in order to get me to shut up  

Otherwise, it’s just going to keep on keeping on


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 11, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> You're shooting a Netflix program? Cool! What's the name going to be? I'll be sure to watch it when it comes out.



Nope, I’m not— simply demonstrating that 4K is relevant and important to professionals in today’s age. Be sure to share your work with us, would love to see it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's absolutely right. However Sony rumours say the DR will be improved. Tbh I didn't even know about this sensor before reading this thread, now will be watching when/if Sony actually releases A7RIV.


The only place I’ve seen it mentioned is here:

https://www.s ony alpha rumors.com/the-full-new-generation-sony-8k-sensor-and-codec-specs/

If those figures are correct, one expects about 15 stops DR from IMX551, at the sensor level. Once the signal is routed through the camera system and is written out as a file, it’s anyone’s guess how much is retained. I wouldn’t be surprised to see 13-14 in an SLR.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 11, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> And, since my point was that quality 4K is relevant and necessary in today's world, congratulations on providing further research to prove that. Please take note, however, that although anyone can Google format specifications, *it actually takes a filmmaker's perspective and a brain to analyze them*. And I didn't see that anywhere in your post.


Exactly my point. You even did not bother to Google and find the truth about your stance, and keep chewing the same cud. You may call it filmmaker perspective but many see it as pure feeble-mindedness.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 11, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Nope, I’m not— simply demonstrating that 4K is relevant and important to professionals in today’s age. Be sure to share your work with us, would love to see it.



Nope. I don't shoot video, and I'm not claiming any spec requirements based on third parties that don't apply to me. Nice try at deflection, though.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 11, 2019)

It's always amazing the rabbit holes that these threads go down. Start with a post about Canon executives saying they have a lot in the pipeline for the next year, and nine pages later we are debating Netflix minimum standards for original content. 

Okay, I'll play. Those Netflix standards sound a lot like most minimum requirements. They are written to pare down submissions. It's what any enterprise does when the supply is so much greater than the demand. If you have 10,000 would-be filmmakers every day wanting to submit their pride and joy, you set a bunch of standards that will weed out 9,990 of them, so your staff only has to deal with 10 a day. In the meantime, you've got a handful of other people actively looking for examples of exceptional talent. If they discover some future Orson Welles, Wes Anderson or Spike Lee who shot a real work of genius on an iPhone, they are gonna buy it no matter what their specs say. 



transpo1 said:


> ...simply demonstrating that 4K is relevant and important to professionals in today’s age...



No one is arguing this point. They are just arguing its relevancy to this forum and this thread.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 11, 2019)

unfocused said:


> No one is arguing this point. They are just arguing its relevancy to this forum and this thread.



...and its relevancy to any specific camera. Not every camera has to be usable for Netflix submissions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I suppose you’ll just have to get on my side and push for those same features in order to get me to shut up
> Otherwise, it’s just going to keep on keeping on


Not that there was any doubt, but trolls do usually out themselves at some point.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 11, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Ok sorry I probably misunderstood you. You said that 3.5 stop difference between Canon 7D and Panasonic S1 isn't that big. I assumed you'd try and show a 3.5 stop recovery in 7D.



Fair enough.



> But again you shadow recovery sample above shows 2.5 stop recovery, and it's hard to check on the quality of the resulting image because it's too small. So it doesn't prove anything.





*The DRones on this board have posted nothing of their own, and one sample by someone else.* And I'm not talking about just this thread, I'm talking about this entire topic!

I've seen this pattern of rhetoric, rationalization, and complete lack of any images over and over again on different forums for years now. DR is supposed to be this huge issue and the #1 thing we should judge IQ by now. Yet nobody who DRones about DR can actually show what it has meant to their photography. I can derail the debate and put the DRones on defense by posting a shadow push from a 10 year old crop 7D for crying out loud.

I'm convinced that most of the people who DRone about DR have never done HDR work and aren't even pushing the limits of JPEG.



> You recovered 2.5 stops from shadows with dark but clearly visible details, and from this post...we see a recovery from almost totally black shadows with no visible detail.



I'm sorry, *but it's hard to check on the quality of the resulting image because it's too small. So it doesn't prove anything.* 



> So I don't see, to be honest, how your example shows anything.



Of course you don't. I could make shadow pushed 36" prints from a 5D4 and a D850 and you would claim they didn't show anything. The narrative must stand. _Canon sensor old. Leaving for Sony if next camera doesn't deliver a DxO score!_



> I use DPRSplit, it helps a bit but happens to be unreliable - the merged files sometimes have a very strong green and unfixable cast in the brightest highlights -



That's a fair complaint. But I only brought the option up for people who feel an OCD need to be "equal" on some arbitrary score. Again, that 1 point score difference at a test site equals a tick or two on a NR slider in the real world.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The only place I’ve seen it mentioned is here:
> 
> https://www.s ony alpha rumors.com/the-full-new-generation-sony-8k-sensor-and-codec-specs/
> 
> If those figures are correct, one expects about 15 stops DR from IMX551, at the sensor level. Once the signal is routed through the camera system and is written out as a file, it’s anyone’s guess how much is retained. I wouldn’t be surprised to see 13-14 in an SLR.



To expand on this: modern sensor pixels are already incredibly efficient photon counters. So I wouldn't expect any large gains in DR from any manufacturer until someone starts to employ multi-exposure techniques in sensor. 

Canon would appear to be in a prime position to exploit this from two different angles if they wanted. One is to use the DPAF architecture to extend highlight range. The other would be to introduce their 70+ MP sensor with a mode whereby rows of pixels are exposed at different ISOs (Magic Lantern lets you do this on older Canon sensors). At 70mp you could extend your DR while still retaining all the detail of a true 35mp image. A lot of people might like that mode since 35mp covers most subject/print size combinations.

But...Canon doesn't tend to experiment with "tricks" like this, leaving it to Magic Lantern.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 11, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> [junk]
> Also, here's a definition for you because some people obviously aren't intelligent enough to understand the concept: _"Professional: A person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime."_
> [more junk]


You should read first what is intelligence and then write about it:
". . . the capacity to reorganize one’s behavior patterns so as to act more effectively and more appropriately in novel situations . . . the ability to learn . . . the extent to which a person is educable. . . the ability to carry on abstract thinking . . . the effective use of concepts and symbols in dealing with a problem to be solved . . . ” - W. Freeman
And based on your actions and reactions, thread of reasoning and use of concepts, for sure you suffer from the lack of all those aspects. Even growing up wouldn't be of much help.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 12, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> *The DRones on this board have posted nothing of their own, and one sample by someone else.* And I'm not talking about just this thread, I'm talking about this entire topic!



That's not exactly true, I recall people posting examples. This very conversation started off this example from Panasonic: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...-more-coming-in-2019.36985/page-4#post-771313 
There's also a number of comparisons you can google, just a random one I've just found: 



 - it's not only about DR but also about banding in 5DIV which btw becomes an issue for me in night/astrophotography.



dtaylor said:


> I've seen this pattern of rhetoric, rationalization, and complete lack of any images over and over again on different forums for years now.



I think you're under a confirmation bias, just ignoring information/reviews that don't fit your views.



dtaylor said:


> DR is supposed to be this huge issue and the #1 thing we should judge IQ by now. Yet nobody who DRones about DR can actually show what it has meant to their photography. I can derail the debate and put the DRones on defense by posting a shadow push from a 10 year old crop 7D for crying out loud.



Again pushing shadows by 2.5 stops from 10-year-old 7D and posting a low-res comparison doesn't prove anything in terms of say 5DIV vs A7RIII comparison. If you've posted it before on other forums, I wouldn't be surprised if you've already heard that example was irrelevant.



dtaylor said:


> I'm convinced that most of the people who DRone about DR have never done HDR work and aren't even pushing the limits of JPEG.



That's another fallacy, to think your opponents are incompetent by definition.



dtaylor said:


> I'm sorry, *but it's hard to check on the quality of the resulting image because it's too small. So it doesn't prove anything.*



It proves the shadows were pushed by about 2.5 stops, that was the only goal. 



dtaylor said:


> Of course you don't. I could make shadow pushed 36" prints from a 5D4 and a D850 and you would claim they didn't show anything. The narrative must stand. _Canon sensor old. Leaving for Sony if next camera doesn't deliver a DxO score!_




I'm not sure who you're referring to exactly, last few messages you were exchanging arguments with me. I don't care about DXO score much. I do care about overall reviews though and most importantly about the tech specs on the prospective new camera. 

Would I choose Sony or Nikon with better sensors now had I been making a choice from the scratch not having any gear? - I don't know, probably yes.
Do I want to switch right now? - no, 5DIV isn't that bad and Sony/Nikon don't have that much of advantage. Also the switch would be very expensive.
Will I switch in the future? - I have no idea, but I'll try to stick with Canon simply because of the cost of switching. But if they don't deliver, I might think of switching to a next-gen Sony and initially using EF adaptors. But there's neither next-gen Canon nor next-gen Sony yet, so it's too early to even think about it.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 12, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The only place I’ve seen it mentioned is here:
> 
> https://www.s ony alpha rumors.com/the-full-new-generation-sony-8k-sensor-and-codec-specs/
> 
> If those figures are correct, one expects about 15 stops DR from IMX551, at the sensor level. Once the signal is routed through the camera system and is written out as a file, it’s anyone’s guess how much is retained. I wouldn’t be surprised to see 13-14 in an SLR.



Even a 14-stop DR will be amazing, it'd be on par with the most expensive medium-format ones. And if they put it into a future A7RIV body, it should be within a reasonable price range, not $10-20k+. On the other hand, DR is very important factor but not the only factor, so let's see the specs and reviews when it actually comes out.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 12, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's not exactly true, I recall people posting examples. This very conversation started off this example from Panasonic:



Which he didn't take. Hence the "...one sample by someone else..." part of my statement.



> - it's not only about DR but also about banding in 5DIV which btw becomes an issue for me in night/astrophotography.



It's not an issue for me with older sensor architectures, so that makes me wonder what your settings and processing steps are. Also: DR differences pretty much disappear at high ISOs. I wouldn't expect additional shadow latitude with any sensor at night/astro ISOs.



> There's also a number of comparisons you can google, just a random one I've just found:



And his video shows tiny differences in noise visible while pixel peeping. Something that would disappear with a bit of NR, even in a large print. 

*If only someone had described that exact difference here in this thread* 



> I think you're under a confirmation bias, just ignoring information/reviews that don't fit your views.



Ignore it? I positively love the review link you posted. Thanks for finding it for me.



> If you've posted it before on other forums, I wouldn't be surprised if you've already heard that example was irrelevant.



It's painfully relevant because if the difference is small there, it's certainly not going to be large vs. a 5D4.



> That's another fallacy, to think your opponents are incompetent by definition.



It's not a fallacy because it's not offered in defense of anything I've said. It was merely an observation.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 12, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Even a 14-stop DR will be amazing, it'd be on par with the most expensive medium-format ones.



Most people think in terms of the DxO scale where the D850 and third generation A7 bodies are around 14.6-14.8ev. I don't think MF has passed those numbers but I haven't looked up the latest sensors from Phase One.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Most people think in terms of the DxO scale where the D850 and third generation A7 bodies are around 14.6-14.8ev. I don't think MF has passed those numbers but I haven't looked up the latest sensors from Phase One.



Those >14ev figures are computed from a model which mathematically downsamples (i.e., increased DR via noise reduction). If the phase one IQ4 150MP was given that treatment, it would almost certainly outperform the 40ish MP cameras.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 12, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Which he didn't take. Hence the "...one sample by someone else..." part of my statement.






dtaylor said:


> It's not an issue for me with older sensor architectures, so that makes me wonder what your settings and processing steps are. Also: DR differences pretty much disappear at high ISOs. I wouldn't expect additional shadow latitude with any sensor at night/astro ISOs.



The banding is a known issue for 5DIV and they say for the R too. It shows as green stripes across the frame. It doesn't show in every camera. Some cameras are ok, mine isn't that lucky. I have it at ISO 100-800 at relatively long exposures (>1-2 sec). At ISO 100 it's only in deep shadows and not really disturbing, but ISO 800 suffers the most. And in my camera, banding disappears at ISO 1600!



dtaylor said:


> And his video shows tiny differences in noise visible while pixel peeping. Something that would disappear with a bit of NR, even in a large print.



NR is always a loss of detail. More noise means loss of detail. Also more noise means less freedom for processing. Also Sony has 42mp vs 30mp in Canon and it's still clearer, so overall the image from A7RIII is more usable. It's not a huge difference but enough to save a certain percentage of landscape shots.



dtaylor said:


> It's painfully relevant because if the difference is small there, it's certainly not going to be large vs. a 5D4.



Nope. Pictures from 7D tell us nothing about 5DIV vs A7RIII. Different sensor and different cameras. As I showed above, you only pushed shadows by 2.55 stops on 7D, and then you extrapolate it to 5DIV saying 'it certainly not going to be large vs a 5D4' - this certainty needs a proof and images from 7D don't prove anything.

Again in the video above there was the best Canon sensor, if we take another sensor from 6DII and RP, the difference is much more drastic (again another random comparison video with samples):





That's why I'm going to be precautious with the next Canon camera, shall it be 5DIV or 5DS cuccessor. Sony was steadily improving in DR, Nikon reached a certain peak and at least didn't degrade, but literally all Canon cameras after 5DIV were *worse *in terms of DR - that is in the given segment around 5DIV and 6DII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> ...literally all Canon cameras after 5DIV were *worse *in terms of DR - that is in the given segment around 5DIV and 6DII.


Literally all? The EOS R is worse in terms of DR? I doubt that. Oh, I know you’ll trot out DxO’s measurements, but if you’re going to claim 13.5 is *worse* than 13.6, you need to provide the error associated with those values (e.g., 13.5 ± 0.3) and the number of sensors tested. The latter is particularly important given your statement above about low ISO banding affecting only some cameras (my EOS R certainly doesn’t have banding with long exposures at low ISO). Of course, DxO doesn’t provide the error values associated with their measurements, which is bad science (despite the fact that their tagline was ‘image science’), and I’m fairly certain that they test only one camera of each model (if they tested several copies, as lensrentals does, I’m sure they would highlight that fact). Unless you have data other than those from DxO, you really cannot conclude that the EOS R is any different from the 5DIV in terms of DR (nor would one expect it to be, given that it is essentially the same sensor).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unless you have data other than those from DxO, you really cannot conclude that the EOS R is any different from the 5DIV in terms of DR (nor would one expect it to be, given that it is essentially the same sensor).



It's also consistent with these measurements: 




__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net





So the R is slightly worse than 5DIV and the 6DII is slightly worse than 6D. I agree it's not very significant. But it's worse.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> (nor would one expect it to be, given that it is essentially the same sensor).


I would expect it to be somewhat different, given that the sensor is packaged in different camera, and used differently (always reading). 

But otherwise, totally agree with the inadequacies in dxo’s pseudodatascience.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 13, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It doesn't have to cover most extreme scenes. Again better DR simply means more scenes to cover in one shot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Try exposing properly to begin with and you don't need to worry about how far you can push EV in post.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Try exposing properly to begin with and you don't need to worry about how far you can push EV in post.


Thank you very much! That was eye-opening. Will be exposing properly from now on.


----------



## Policar (Apr 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Literally all? The EOS R is worse in terms of DR? I doubt that. Oh, I know you’ll trot out DxO’s measurements, but if you’re going to claim 13.5 is *worse* than 13.6, you need to provide the error associated with those values (e.g., 13.5 ± 0.3) and the number of sensors tested. The latter is particularly important given your statement above about low ISO banding affecting only some cameras (my EOS R certainly doesn’t have banding with long exposures at low ISO). Of course, DxO doesn’t provide the error values associated with their measurements, which is bad science (despite the fact that their tagline was ‘image science’), and I’m fairly certain that they test only one camera of each model (if they tested several copies, as lensrentals does, I’m sure they would highlight that fact). Unless you have data other than those from DxO, you really cannot conclude that the EOS R is any different from the 5DIV in terms of DR (nor would one expect it to be, given that it is essentially the same sensor).



One thing I've never fully understood is this:

Canon's still sensors have demonstrably less DR than Sony's* but Sony's video cameras have less dynamic range than Canon's. The C300 Mk II has a bit more dynamic range than the FS7 and maybe a bit more than the EVA1. 

What's going on? 

*even if the 1DXII, 5D IV/EOS R, and SL2/80D/SL3/M50 seem to be closing the gap.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2019)

Policar said:


> One thing I've never fully understood is this:
> 
> Canon's still sensors have demonstrably less DR than Sony's* but Sony's video cameras have less dynamic range than Canon's. The C300 Mk II has a bit more dynamic range than the FS7 and maybe a bit more than the EVA1.
> 
> ...


It depends what the company decides to do with the DR they have, the 5D MkIV/1DX MkII et al split the additional stop of DR they have compared to most testing by going dual pixel, if you add that 1 stop back (which you can done if you process the dual RAW shots separately and blend them) then the Canon sensors comfortably outperform Sony stills sensors at over 95% of the iso range.

In other words Canons dual pixel stills sensors do actually have more DR than Sony sensors, they just choose to use the DR a different way.


----------



## Policar (Apr 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> It depends what the company decides to do with the DR they have, the 5D MkIV/1DX MkII et al split the additional stop of DR they have compared to most testing by going dual pixel, if you add that 1 stop back (which you can done if you process the dual RAW shots separately and blend them) then the Canon sensors comfortably outperform Sony stills sensors at over 95% of the iso range.
> 
> In other words Canons dual pixel stills sensors do actually have more DR than Sony sensors, they just choose to use the DR a different way.



My question has more to do with why Canon's video sensors appear to have reached technical parity with Sony's (though I'm sure many will debate this, my experience is the C300 Mk II has more DR than the FS7, though not by much) while their still sensors are lagging. I doubt their cinema cameras have enough horsepower to blend dual pixel exposures in the manner you mention, and you'd think they could apply the same technology to their stills cameras.


----------



## BillB (Apr 14, 2019)

Policar said:


> My question has more to do with why Canon's video sensors appear to have reached technical parity with Sony's (though I'm sure many will debate this, my experience is the C300 Mk II has more DR than the FS7, though not by much) while their still sensors are lagging. I doubt their cinema cameras have enough horsepower to blend dual pixel exposures in the manner you mention, and you'd think they could apply the same technology to their stills cameras.


It might have something to do with the software used in Sony still cameras.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2019)

Policar said:


> My question has more to do with why Canon's video sensors appear to have reached technical parity with Sony's (though I'm sure many will debate this, my experience is the C300 Mk II has more DR than the FS7, though not by much) while their still sensors are lagging. I doubt their cinema cameras have enough horsepower to blend dual pixel exposures in the manner you mention, and you'd think they could apply the same technology to their stills cameras.


And my answer was Canon actually lead in both. Their still cameras technically have more DR than Sony sensors (at all but a couple of iso's) if you measure the output of both frames from the dual pixel sensors not the single frame everybody actually gives figures on.

Canon stills sensors currently are on a level of technical parity with Sony sensors. If you want to you can take a single frame with a 5D MkIV and a SonyA7 III and get *more* DR from the Canon image at *every* Iso but 126, of course you have to futz about extracting both two RAW files from the Canon, which practically nobody does, but it is possible. If to is possible then the technology is on parity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> And my answer was Canon actually lead in both. Their still cameras technically have more DR than Sony sensors (at all but a couple of iso's) if you measure the output of both frames from the dual pixel sensors not the single frame everybody actually gives figures on.
> 
> Canon stills sensors currently are on a level of technical parity with Sony sensors. If you want to you can take a single frame with a 5D MkIV and a SonyA7 III and get *more* DR from the Canon image at *every* Iso but 126, of course you have to futz about extracting both two RAW files from the Canon, which practically nobody does, but it is possible. If to is possible then the technology is on parity.


His point was that the C300II also has DPAF, but still has better DR than Sony. So how does DPAF not reduce DR of a ‘video’ sensor, but does on a ‘stills’ sensor?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> His point was that the C300II also has DPAF, but still has better DR than Sony. So how does DPAF not reduce DR of a ‘video’ sensor, but does on a ‘stills’ sensor?


We don't know the reason, even if we knew what Canon actually did we'd still need to know what Sony did too, and I'm pretty sure if you are an insider for one you aren't for the other!

My point was saying Canon doesn't have technical parity on their sensors buys into the now completely discredited meme about DR, it simply isn't true (though it was 5 years ago). That we get different results from two separate divisions from two separate corporations, well, the only surprise is that anybody is surprised!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> We don't know the reason, even if we knew what Canon actually did we'd still need to know what Sony did too, and I'm pretty sure if you are an insider for one you aren't for the other!
> 
> My point was saying Canon doesn't have technical parity on their sensors buys into the now completely discredited meme about DR, it simply isn't true (though it was 5 years ago). That we get different results from two separate divisions from two separate corporations, well, the only surprise is that anybody is surprised!


Additionally, people have to stop conflating sensor dynamic range with the dynamic range retained in an output file. The former relates to the latter, but they aren’t the same. 

Perhaps canon more effectively cools its video cameras. Perhaps canon has better noise reduction in its video codecs.


----------



## Policar (Apr 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> His point was that the C300II also has DPAF, but still has better DR than Sony. So how does DPAF not reduce DR of a ‘video’ sensor, but does on a ‘stills’ sensor?



Not only that, DPAF seems to increase the dynamic range on the video sensor very very dramatically. Canon rated the C300 at 12 stops and the C300 Mk II at 15. The original C300 has a more aesthetically pleasing noise texture and less sensor banding, but otherwise that three stop increase seems about accurate to me in practice.

Like the FS7/F5/F55, the C300 Mk II's generous highlight detail comes from mapping the over/under differently from a stills camera, to favor highlights at the cost of more shadow noise. But while the Sony cinema cameras have an over (stops over 18% gray) of +6 in SLOG 2 at a base ISO of 2000, Canon's have an over of +6.3 in Canon Log 2 at a base ISO of 800, and in my experience, Canon's cinema line has a relatively clean image at 800 ISO, whereas I've found I need to overexpose the F5 variants by a stop to clean up the chroma noise.

Of course, that part is subjective, and the Canon sensors have issues with sensor banding (not noise banding, but horizontal banding induced by bright light sources) that Sony doesn't have. And I suspect the Venice more than closes the gap.



3kramd5 said:


> Additionally, people have to stop conflating sensor dynamic range with the dynamic range retained in an output file. The former relates to the latter, but they aren’t the same.
> 
> Perhaps canon more effectively cools its video cameras. Perhaps canon has better noise reduction in its video codecs.



My bad, I'm a technical novice with digital systems and much of my background is shooting film. I'll keep my mouth shut hereafter, I didn't mean to spread misinformation.

Canon does cool their cinema cameras better. They're big and have big fans.

I'm not sure noise reduction is a big factor; Canon recently offered an option to disable it on the C300 Mk II and I've also been working lately with C200 raw light, where it's disabled by default, and still seeing similar results where the dynamic range is just ridiculous. There might be some on-sensor noise reduction, though. Canon published a white paper, but since seems to have deleted it:









Canon C300 Mark II White Paper published (insights in Canon's Super 35mm sensor technology)


Canon published a technical white paper about the Canon C300 Mark II




www.canonwatch.com





Anyhow forget I wrote anything. Just confused and looking for clarity, but it appears I'm instead adding more confusion to the mix.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 14, 2019)

Policar said:


> My bad, I'm a technical novice with digital systems and much of my background is shooting film. I'll keep my mouth shut hereafter, I didn't mean to spread misinformation.



It’s not a ‘bad,’ mine was merely a suggestion; considering the camera into which a sensor is installed can help.

Websites like DXO famously publish “sensor tests,” but that’s not at all what they are. I’m sure the semiconductor fabs have dynamic range (as well as many other) requirements which they verify in acceptance testing at the sensor level. But DXO et al. do analysis of camera files. The effect of the camera is baked in.

As for the advertised DR of the C300mkII, note canon is evaluating it differently than most. See: https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-measured-15-stops-dynamic-range-c300-mark-ii/


----------



## Policar (Apr 14, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> It’s not a ‘bad,’ mine was merely a suggestion; considering the camera into which a sensor is installed can help.
> 
> Websites like DXO famously publish “sensor tests,” but that’s not at all what they are. I’m sure the semiconductor fabs have dynamic range (as well as many other) requirements which they verify in acceptance testing at the sensor level. But DXO et al. do analysis of camera files. The effect of the camera is baked in.
> 
> As for the advertised DR of the C300mkII, note canon is evaluating it differently than most. See: https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-measured-15-stops-dynamic-range-c300-mark-ii/



In my experience the 15 stop figure is pretty accurate and consistent with most other manufacturer's methodology, but point taken. There are certain cinema companies that (imo) highly overrate DR, and others that imo underrate it (Arri–who apparently internally rate the Mini at 15+ stops, anyway, but don't want to cause confusion over incremental sensor upgrades from the original). But Canon and Sony seem to be pretty accurate in my experience, or at least consistent with each other. If anything I think they both slightly overrate DR, but it depends on if you go by what you can measure or what looks good and by when grayscale clips or when yellow clips and how the clipping looks (usually first color to clip). I've used most of these cameras pretty extensively, many side-by-side.

Of course, DR is still MUCH simpler in the video world, since we're dealing with baked-in formats that account for the sensor and the processing. That might be where my mistake is.

CML, which is imo a much more reliable resource than Cinema5D (who seem to be using the Xyla chart wrong, but that's neither here nor there), find similarly:









Personal comments on the 2018 CML camera evaluations


I want to stress that these are purely personal impressions and that you should check out the raw files at https:/cinematography.net and also get your hands on a camera to see how it feels for yo…



cinematography.net





The C700 FF surpasses Sony's newer Venice and somehow ties the Alexa, despite its dual gain architecture. (The Alexa is still way better imo. The Alexa 65 would trounce the C700.)

Then again, I might just prefer CML because their results correlate more closely with my own experiences. This is all sort of subjective and I'll admit I'm out of my league and probably wrong about most of it. I believe they found the Red Dragon to have "just okay" DR, despite DXO Mark hyping it up. But they find the Gemini to be excellent.

Regardless, Sony's video sensors seem to perform similarly to me to their stills sensors, at least in terms of DR, whereas Canon's don't. Somehow, the generation with the addition of DPAF has vastly increased the dynamic range in their video cameras and perhaps slightly reduced it in their still cameras? Again, this is just my experience. Simultaneously they've made other sensor changes that seem to have improved both stills and video, but the leap forward overall has been greater with video. The 5D Mark IV still has more dynamic range than I need for stills, though; that's not the issue. I'd love a 5D Mark IV...

I'm just wondering if they have a trick up their sleeve in the video line and, if so, what it is, and if it will make it to their stills line next. Granted, I don't think it's necessary, everything is more than good enough now, it's just odd. I didn't realize this was such a weighted subject, but should have as it's clearly a complex one.

Oddly the original C300 has a much nicer, more organic grain pattern than the C300 Mk II, and lacks the sensor bloom/banding. :/ Further confirming just how complex and obscure this all is. To some people, that might matter more than the DR. I can see why some DPs would prefer the C500 to the C700, for instance, despite it being technically inferior. I'm just curious what's up. Canon did publish a white paper, but I can no longer find it.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 14, 2019)

Policar said:


> My bad, I'm a technical novice with digital systems and much of my background is shooting film. I'll keep my mouth shut hereafter, I didn't mean to spread misinformation.



Please keep talking. Intelligent discussion is how we all learn, and not just those talking. The people in the background learn too.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 14, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Try exposing properly to begin with and you don't need to worry about how far you can push EV in post.


You must live in a parallel low contrast universe. Lee filter sales must be low there and no bracketing on cameras.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 15, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> It depends what the company decides to do with the DR they have, the 5D MkIV/1DX MkII et al split the additional stop of DR they have compared to most testing by going dual pixel, if you add that 1 stop back (which you can done if you process the dual RAW shots separately and blend them)



I've already mentioned it in this thread - no, in general, you can't. If you mean the DPRSplit app, it does the splitting but it's unreliable. The second dng file it produces, the one that's 1 stop down, often has unfixable green cast in the brightest highlights, sometimes there's a pink cast in not so brightest highlights. Never rely on it when shooting. Sometimes you can recover some blown out highlights, but overall it's hugely unreliable. Maybe the app doesn't work properly and Canon would know how to do it better, but for some reason Canon doesn't do it.
So there's no additional 1stop in DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2019)

As I said, yes there is, technically, which means on a technical level the sensors have parity. That is the specific comment i was taking issue with, the wretched handwringing cry of “_Why Canon's video sensors appear to have reached technical parity with Sony's while their still sensors are lagging.” _My point was it isn't true, there is already technical parity.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 15, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Exactly my point. You even did not bother to Google and find the truth about your stance, and keep chewing the same cud. You may call it filmmaker perspective but many see it as pure feeble-mindedness.



You


bhf3737 said:


> You should read first what is intelligence and then write about it:
> ". . . the capacity to reorganize one’s behavior patterns so as to act more effectively and more appropriately in novel situations . . . the ability to learn . . . the extent to which a person is educable. . . the ability to carry on abstract thinking . . . the effective use of concepts and symbols in dealing with a problem to be solved . . . ” - W. Freeman
> And based on your actions and reactions, thread of reasoning and use of concepts, for sure you suffer from the lack of all those aspects. Even growing up wouldn't be of much help.



Based on my analysis of the same specs you had the extraordinary talent to Google and your prior nonsense spewed about filmmaking, I'd say you show little capacity for abstract thinking, and the effective use of concepts and symbols. You're more about

Not to mention, with your "gotcha" posts and personal attacks, you're revealing much more about your own childish state than anyone else's. People tend to cover up their own psychological deficiencies with transference, which is what your last post is all about. 

Good luck with that. 

And let me know when you want to carry on a more intelligent debate. More mature, thoughtful minds will be waiting.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not that there was any doubt, but trolls do usually out themselves at some point.



I'm confused, Neuro. Are you calling me a troll?

I just want to confirm this, because, as you know, I've been on this forum for years. So, please, confirm it for me.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 16, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> 75 mpx is definitely over kill for event work. I will most likely shoot mRAW if I buy it.
> 
> I print huge with Canon 6D and also with my 5D IV. I can't tell the differences. I also seen plenty of photographer using Sony A7III/A9 24 mpx sensor to print huge as well. I can't tell the difference either. If you search over the net, plenty of people use 24 mpx to print 24 x 36. I know photographers using 1DXII 20 mpx and it isn't a problem either.
> 
> If it's ever a concern, Panasonic S1 has an option for 96 mpx high resolution mode or buy 47 mpx S1R. It isn't a concern for me.



My first digital camera was a not-quite-4-megapixel Casio that had a Canon lens. I printed a 13" x 19" picture of a shot I took with it in 2002 of the Grand Pacific Glacier (I think it is called) in Alaska. It looks great, even at closer than normal viewing distance. The subject matter helps, I'm sure. Otherwise on my walls are prints I've made on that size paper from shots from my G7X II and before that the S120. 

My front room doubles as a guest room or a sitting room. The furniture has a kind of island motif. I decided that before I had guests in last summer I'd print some of the shots I had taken in Hawaii the previous December, to put on the walls in that room. I picked out four pictures that I had posted on line. I could find the original RAW files for three of them to use in preparing the print files. The fourth, it turned out, had been made with my iPhone 6S. (Rather than always syncing the G7X II to the phone for GPS, I'll occasionally just do a shot with the phone, and I can figure out where I was at the time that way.) It's a contrasty picture at a beach, so not the most difficult thing to shoot, but still, it is not obvious that it was made with a phone camera even at that size.

I prefer to have about 300 pixels per inch for inkjet printing, but 170 can give really decent results, as in your 24 x 36 example, more or less. Also, the bigger the print, the farther away you are likely to view it, so you don't need so much resolution. After all, nobody but The Beaver views billboards up close.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I'm confused, Neuro. Are you calling me a troll?
> 
> I just want to confirm this, because, as you know, I've been on this forum for years. So, please, confirm it for me.


A long forum tenure and being a troll are certainly not mutually exclusive. Remember Mikael?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Apr 16, 2019)

stevelee said:


> My first digital camera was a not-quite-4-megapixel Casio that had a Canon lens. I printed a 13" x 19" picture of a shot I took with it in 2002 of the Grand Pacific Glacier (I think it is called) in Alaska. It looks great, even at closer than normal viewing distance. The subject matter helps, I'm sure. Otherwise on my walls are prints I've made on that size paper from shots from my G7X II and before that the S120.
> 
> My front room doubles as a guest room or a sitting room. The furniture has a kind of island motif. I decided that before I had guests in last summer I'd print some of the shots I had taken in Hawaii the previous December, to put on the walls in that room. I picked out four pictures that I had posted on line. I could find the original RAW files for three of them to use in preparing the print files. The fourth, it turned out, had been made with my iPhone 6S. (Rather than always syncing the G7X II to the phone for GPS, I'll occasionally just do a shot with the phone, and I can figure out where I was at the time that way.) It's a contrasty picture at a beach, so not the most difficult thing to shoot, but still, it is not obvious that it was made with a phone camera even at that size.
> 
> I prefer to have about 300 pixels per inch for inkjet printing, but 170 can give really decent results, as in your 24 x 36 example, more or less. Also, the bigger the print, the farther away you are likely to view it, so you don't need so much resolution. After all, nobody but The Beaver views billboards up close.



I think we reach a certain point where it is a diminish return for most photographers. 24-30 mpx should fulfill most photographers need. Most photographers aren't going to print large if at all. I only print large for my wedding clients. I'm sure there are few photographers that will benefit from such higher resolution monster, but they represent a niche. If the quality is unsatisfactory, I would use software to resize it.

I also use my living room to showcase my landscape and family pictures, but I try to limit only the best to be feature on high quality professional metal or acrylic on smaller size. At a much smaller print, 300 pixel/inch is easily achieve even with heavy cropping. I hate to clutter the wall too much.

60 mpx would be a workflow nightmare for 60 mpx from culling, editing, to storage (locals and cloud storage).


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> And let me know when you want to carry on a more intelligent debate. More mature, thoughtful minds will be waiting.


Debate requires a debate worthy opponent to start with. I don't see anyone worthy there. Sorry. Go and play in your fantasy world.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 16, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> You must live in a parallel low contrast universe. Lee filter sales must be low there and no bracketing on cameras.



No, I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers actually had to pay attention to light instead of depending on DR and post-processing to rescue photos shot at poor angles with reference to the direction of the light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> No, I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers actually had to pay attention to light instead of depending on DR and post-processing to rescue photos shot at poor angles with reference to the direction of the light.


I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.



I agree with this... as times and trends change, we learn to adapt and benefit from them. Those who don't, tend to get left behind.. I used to have a $200 Canon angle finder.. until I learned how useful a tilt flippy screen was and I don't even have to get my knees dirty. Heck, I don't even feel amateurish shooting this way anymore..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> I used to have a $200 Canon angle finder.. until I learned how useful a tilt flippy screen was...


Thanks for the reminder. I still have one (although I bought it used for $50). Handy for macro shooting with my 1D X, although going forward I’ll be using my EOS R for that. Guess I should put the angle finder up for sale...


----------



## RGF (Apr 16, 2019)

Canon seems to be saying opposite things. First camera market is going to collapse and then they are investing in it.

wonder what they game plan is? confuse the competition?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

RGF said:


> Canon seems to be saying opposite things. First camera market is going to collapse and then they are investing in it.
> 
> wonder what they game plan is? confuse the competition?


All that’s confused is your interpretation. The camera market *is* collapsing, driven mainly by the precipitous drop in compact camera sales. A few year ago there were three times as many compact cameras sold as ILCs. Then twice as many. Last year there were more ILCs sold than compact cameras. ILC sales are also contracting, mainly due to market saturation. A strategy to focus more on higher margin items is reasonable to maintain profits in a contracting market.


----------



## Rocky (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for the reminder. I still have one (although I bought it used for $50). Handy for macro shooting with my 1D X, although going forward I’ll be using my EOS R for that. Guess I should put the angle finder up for sale...


My first real camera is an Exakta II b. Waist level/ ground level view finder is standard view finder


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.



It's like stickshift snobs (I say this as someone who enjoys driving a stickshift, but hasn't owned one in years) saying how automatics make it too easy. They never seem to want to go back to cable-clutches and unsynchromeshed gearboxes, nevermind crank starters that break your arm if you do it wrong. Just back far enough that they feel superior to those who came later.

If I had to manually focus I'd be taking snapshots with hyperfocal f/8s. Sometimes advancements are just advancements.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 16, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> It's like stickshift snobs (I say this as someone who enjoys driving a stickshift, but hasn't owned one in years) saying how automatics make it too easy. They never seem to want to go back to cable-clutches and unsynchromeshed gearboxes, nevermind crank starters that break your arm if you do it wrong. Just back far enough that they feel superior to those who came later.
> 
> If I had to manually focus I'd be taking snapshots with hyperfocal f/8s. Sometimes advancements are just advancements.


There are definitely times when you want manual focus, or to manually set shutter speed, F stop, ISO, or whatever. That’s why almost all cameras have an M mode and most lenses have an AF ON/OFF switch..... but yeah, I really like the ability to go AUTO when you want. No such thing on my old Nikon or OM-1. Certainly not on a 4X5


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

Rocky said:


> My first real camera is an Exakta II b. Waist level/ ground level view finder is standard view finder


Mine was an Argus 75 TLR, also with a waist-level VF.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2019)

Policar said:


> My question has more to do with why Canon's video sensors appear to have reached technical parity with Sony's (though I'm sure many will debate this, my experience is the C300 Mk II has more DR than the FS7, though not by much) while their still sensors are lagging. I doubt their cinema cameras have enough horsepower to blend dual pixel exposures in the manner you mention, and you'd think they could apply the same technology to their stills cameras.


Canon does some fancy things with their video sensors, but it's not really comparable to stills. they basically do HDR in the video stream to create a wider DR video capability.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I learned to shoot in a universe where photographers had to focus their lenses quickly and accurately instead of depending on the camera to autofocus for them and even track a moving subject. Today, I very much appreciate the benefits of a top notch autofocus system.



As do I. Modern AF systems when used properly tend to perform better than even the best shooters could during the MF period. Just go back and critically examine some of the iconic sports/action photos from the second half of the 20th century.

To my eye there's still no comparison between an image shot using good light and one shot in poor light and then doctored in post, even when doctored by the best PS wizards.

Yes, one can make those shots that were taken in less than ideal light better now than one could in the past.

Yes, sometimes the only choices are between a shot using less than ideal light or no shot at all.

But there is still no substitute for an image that is captured when the lighting is right. Such an image also leaves a lot more room for what can be done with it in processing.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 17, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Debate requires a debate worthy opponent to start with. I don't see anyone worthy there. Sorry. Go and play in your fantasy world.



Yeah, I agree with that sentiment, you're not worth it- too much childish ignorance and not enough personality.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It's always amazing the rabbit holes that these threads go down. Start with a post about Canon executives saying they have a lot in the pipeline for the next year, and nine pages later we are debating Netflix minimum standards for original content.
> 
> Okay, I'll play. Those Netflix standards sound a lot like most minimum requirements. They are written to pare down submissions. It's what any enterprise does when the supply is so much greater than the demand. If you have 10,000 would-be filmmakers every day wanting to submit their pride and joy, you set a bunch of standards that will weed out 9,990 of them, so your staff only has to deal with 10 a day. In the meantime, you've got a handful of other people actively looking for examples of exceptional talent. If they discover some future Orson Welles, Wes Anderson or Spike Lee who shot a real work of genius on an iPhone, they are gonna buy it no matter what their specs say.
> 
> No one is arguing this point. They are just arguing its relevancy to this forum and this thread.



Actually, some people are still arguing the relevancy of 4K...which is how all that started.

Totally agree with you on the gist of your post- doesn't matter if the next Wes Anderson shoots something on dog crap, if it's amazing, the industry will overlook that point. But when you're in film business, you want to comply with the format requirements as much as possible, because they will look for ways to disqualify you...


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 17, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> It's like stickshift snobs (I say this as someone who enjoys driving a stickshift, but hasn't owned one in years) saying how automatics make it too easy. They never seem to want to go back to cable-clutches and unsynchromeshed gearboxes, nevermind crank starters that break your arm if you do it wrong. Just back far enough that they feel superior to those who came later.
> 
> If I had to manually focus I'd be taking snapshots with hyperfocal f/8s. Sometimes advancements are just advancements.



Sometimes what is true for apples may not be true for oranges.

With transmissions, it all depends upon the application. Heavy commercial trucks with diesel engines and 9 to 18 speed non-synchronized transmissions can be shifted by a microprocessor (which also controls the throttle input to the engine during a shift) and servos. They will do better than the average or novice driver. But some of the most experienced drivers can still get better fuel mileage than the computer can, because not only do they know the torque, horsepower, and fuel efficiency curves of the engine, but they can also see things ahead, such an approaching hill or downgrade, or traffic signals a quarter mile away, that the computer can't factor into the equation. (They can also shift faster than the microprocessors are programmed to do). As systems become increasingly sophisticated, there will probably come a day when GPS and other data is incorporated into the shifting routine that will allow for approaching grades or traffic signals to be included in shift point decisions, but they are nowhere near there yet, even with the "autonomous" vehicles.

Or take anti-lock brakes. They can outperform the average driver using non-ABS brakes in stopping in less that ideal (or for some drivers, even in ideal) conditions. But the best race car drivers in the world can still outperform anti-lock brakes because they can anticipate the changing conditions of the road surface ahead before the tires begin to slip or stop slipping. Some can even modulate the brake application faster than generic ABS systems do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Actually, some people are still arguing the relevancy of 4K...which is how all that started.


Haven’t really seen arguments that 4K isn’t relevant. But relevance isn’t the same as importance, when it comes to aggregate buying decisions for ILCs.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Haven’t really seen arguments that 4K isn’t relevant. But relevance isn’t the same as importance, when it comes to aggregate buying decisions for ILCs.



You’re not looking hard enough, then.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> You’re not looking hard enough, then.


Perhaps. Or perhaps you’re seeing things that aren’t there.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Sometimes what is true for apples may not be true for oranges.



You're still not arguing for crank-starters, so literally all I hear in your post is "Yes Q, you're right." So, thank you.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps. Or perhaps you’re seeing things that aren’t there.



The former.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 18, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> You're still not arguing for crank-starters, so literally all I hear in your post is "Yes Q, you're right." So, thank you.



Does using another large wrecker to pull start a 36-ton capacity heavy tow truck count? Been there and done that.

You can "hear" whatever you want, but that does not mean it is what I said.

I still maintain that there is a qualitative difference between some advancements - like AF, that allow one to take a higher percentage of well focused images - and other advancements - like using DR and post-processing to get _close_ but not all the way there compared to shooting in better light to start with.

Oh, and I love to go through an 18-speed non-synchronized box while towing a 90,000 pound heavy hauler with a 35,000 pound hook. And yes, it does make me feel superior to all of those ants smart cars with automatic transmissions buzzing around.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> it does make me feel superior



I noticed.


----------



## mpmark (Apr 25, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> just a guy that wants an easier, faster, more consistant work flow to make more money faster. i know that is strange for people here.



well, you'll be waiting forever because as you buy one item, the next one is always expected to be easier better, and faster. It never ends my friend.


----------



## mpmark (Apr 25, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Did I say there was something wrong with the 5DIV?? That's exactly the point that it's still the best. All Canon mirrorless cameras released after 5DIV have DR worse than 5DIV. RP uses an old sensor, R uses the same sensor but has a slight decrease in DR. I won't be surprised if they dust 5DSr sensor, tweak it a bit and release a mirrorless high-res R version.



Yes you did, by stating you're waiting specifically for the next model and its DR performance, you can buy the 5D4 today you know. So yeah, clearly for you something is wrong with the 5D4 DR.

And what are you waiting for? is your photography going to be that much better with the next camera, I'm sorry you have to wait to take great photos.


----------



## Mbell75 (May 1, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Naw. I need a full frame MILC with ibis and 4k60 asap. Hurry up Canon.



Keep dreaming. Maybe 2021 if you're lucky. Sony should have at least one well before the end of the year....


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 1, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> Keep dreaming. Maybe 2021 if you're lucky. Sony should have at least one well before the end of the year....


they saying the a7siii isnt coming soon. but panasonic been had it for awhile now


----------

