# Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 25, 2014)

```
<p>DPReview has posted their interview with Masaya Maeda, the Managing Director and Chief Executive, Image Communication Products Operations at Canon. Mr Maeda touches on a lot of subjects, like the EOS 7D Mark II and why it took so long to hit the market. As well as higher megapixel sensors, mirrorless cameras and the fact that the Canon PowerShot G7 X doesn’t use a Canon sensor (It’s most likely from Sony).</p>
<p>Below is a snippet from the interview.</p>
<p><strong>Currently no Canon camera offers more than 22MP. Do your DSLR customers ask for higher resolution? </strong>

<em>Maeda: Yes. We know that many of our customers need more resolution and this is under consideration. In the very near future you can expect us to show something in terms of mirrorless and also a higher resolution sensor.</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7079726133/photokina-2014-canon-interview-mirrorless-in-the-very-near-future" target="_blank">Read the entire interview at DPReview</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 25, 2014)

They'll go incremental. They won't go to the 120MP APS-H approach (which would approach 190MP at full-frame size), they'll go 30-50MP.


----------



## Woody (Sep 25, 2014)

I am mostly excited about the EOS-M3. Hope it comes with DPAF, EVF (even if optional) and connection for wired remote. That's all I need. Throw in the 22 f/2 and that will be my compact camera set-up.


----------



## applecider (Sep 25, 2014)

They ll go incremental. 23mp 5div, 24mp Dx s...... This is canon we're talking about after all. And really do I want a 120mp body? Seriously I don't want to take any steps backward in high ISO IQ for the sake of MP's.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2014)

They also strongly implied that they don't care about low ISO DR and will wait until after sales tank, if ever, to bother. I think they just don't like the cost of a new fab and are doing everything to avoid it, not caring what anyone in forums says or how DxO scores look and gambling that only a few will leave and sales will keep going on as they have been for years to come even if they don't improve low ISO DR (and in other places, the word about 4k for 5D4 sounds pretty negatory as well) Oh well.

Guess it's time to look Sony/Nikon if you care about low ISO DR. It sounds like it might be a loooong time before Canon responds to Exmor. Quite a shame (again only if DR matters to you, for some it won't much)....

"*One thing we know from our own testing is that Canon DSLR sensors can’t quite compete with some modern sensors from Sony in terms of dynamic range. How important to you is developing sensor technology?*

We are very focused on getting the best image quality. I’m not sure what measurements you’re looking at but when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best.

My ideal camera is one that can take a picture in any environment from complete darkness to the brightest sunshine.

*So in your opinion your sensors are currently the best [DSLR sensors] on the market?*

Yes. In the EOS 7D Mark II for example the sensor we’ve used is improved compared to the previous generation, especially at high ISO and in shadows. There’s less noise."

The fact that he has to pretend that he's never heard of DxO or any forum talk or that maybe he somehow actually hasn't heard anything in the forums or from any review sites, paints a kind of bleak picture for DR. If they had something remotely close to being ready, you'd surely think he would have responded in a much different fashion. (The only possible hopeful way to read it is that he was just saving face for the current stuff and valuing that more than being afraid of giving the impression that they were not about to move sensors forward soon. ??? )

:'(

I think they may be surprised at 5D4 sales if they skip low ISO DR fixes and 4k and the only thing they give it over the 5D3 is more MP. And if they do that again for 5D5....

If you don't shoot much any low ISO high DR stuff and don't care about rescuing the odd bad shot, I'm sure the 5D4 will be great though for stills.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2014)

And for those who say Canon always knows best, they have teams of experience marketing engineers, none of these fools on the forums have a clue compared to them, etc. how about:



Many have been asking why Canon isn't making something like the recently released RX100 in the forums, after speaking with Mr. Maeda in early 2013 DPR noted that he responded:
"However, he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says." "We see no need or market desire for a Sony RX100 type camera."


And now almost two years later, after RX100s of all marks fly off the shelves and it being one the great sellers for Sony:
Canon is proud to announce the G7X with the RX100 sensor. The market clearly demands a small pocketable camera with a large, top quality sensor.
;D


On the plus, if they get totally burned, it does show they try to correct quickly. So maybe if the 5D4 with old sensor burns them they'll be back quickly with a 5D5 even if they have to go to Sony for help.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> They'll go incremental. They won't go to the 120MP APS-H approach (which would approach 190MP at full-frame size), they'll go 30-50MP.



I wouldn't really call 40-50MP incremental. Even 36MP wouldn't be bad if it had top video and a lot of fps.

190MP is quite a lot and the fps would be terrible and the video likely too


----------



## Woody (Sep 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> On the plus, if they get totally burned, it does show they try to correct quickly. So maybe if the 5D4 with old sensor burns them they'll be back quickly with a 5D5 even if they have to go to Sony for help.



I doubt the 7D2 is going to sell well, especially when compared to its predecessor. If the Amazon best seller chart is any indication, the 7D2 sales is going to be a flop. That happened to the G1X and G1X MkII (especially when compared to the RX100 Mk 1/2/3).

Hopefully, this is their wake-up call.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2014)

Woody said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > On the plus, if they get totally burned, it does show they try to correct quickly. So maybe if the 5D4 with old sensor burns them they'll be back quickly with a 5D5 even if they have to go to Sony for help.
> ...



We'll see. I'm still thinking that the 7D2 might sell well since it's more driven by AF/fps/reach than low ISO DR (or 4k). But maybe you are correct. Maybe even for 7 series, people want a new sensor a ton and maybe there are not enough speed/af/reach specialists around and many want that plus a truly top in ever way all around improvement. I still think it will do OK though. I'm far more suspect about a 5D4 with a 2007 sensor though, especially if it also lacks 4k.
(if the 7D2 had 4k and exmor-like sensor, I bet it'd have sold insane amounts, but I still think it could really do pretty well, I didn't look at Amazon, but maybe you are correct and it's not)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> They'll go incremental. They won't go to the 120MP APS-H approach (which would approach 190MP at full-frame size), they'll go 30-50MP.



Brilliant Deduction


----------



## docsmith (Sep 25, 2014)

We are told canon will show us a new mirrorless and high MP sensor camera in the "very near future" and people can take this as a negative?!?!?  : 

I like options. This excites me. I am currently happy with my gear, but new options are always welcome.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 25, 2014)

Wow, they literally do not have a schedule for future releases. At least not with the 7D.

Not an entirely terrible idea, releasing things prematurely can kill a lot of products, and it ensures the high level of polish we all expect from Canon.
It can also lead to entirely failed projects continuing on for years though. That's not the case here, but now I have to wonder how long it will take to get the 7DmkIII out?

I'm sure the 7D2 will sell well, it is undoubtedly king of the crop world.
Five years from now it will probably be a different story though. The competition isn't going away, and the competition is getting better at a rapid pace. Can Canon's design people anticipate what will be competitive five years from now?


Also: Yay! More Megapixels! That's all I really wanted to hear from them regarding future bodies.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 25, 2014)

applecider said:


> They ll go incremental. 23mp 5div, 24mp Dx s...... This is canon we're talking about after all. And really do I want a 120mp body? Seriously I don't want to take any steps backward in high ISO IQ for the sake of MP's.



there was a time when it was the norm for Canon to have 50-100% more megapickles than the competition.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 25, 2014)

Not that anyone asked, but what I would consider the ideal sensor resolution, would be 15360x11520 (177MP).

That's 16k resolution, with the AR brought back to 4:3. Add on die 4:1 & 16:1 binning, and you've got 8k and 4k for video, or super clean 44MP or 11MP RAWs.


----------



## waving_odd (Sep 25, 2014)

docsmith said:


> We are told canon will show us a new mirrorless and *high* MP sensor camera in the "very near future" and people can take this as a negative?!?!?  :
> 
> I like options. This excites me. I am currently happy with my gear, but new options are always welcome.



Maeda only said, "In the very near future you can expect us to show something in terms of mirrorless and also a _*higher*_ resolution sensor." Anything higher than their current max 22MP is still higher... I hope they won't be as conservative on this "_something_"...

Also it sounds like this Canon Looking into a New Mount makes more sense now...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 25, 2014)

Take whatever he says with a lump of salt.
"We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy."- right. If that was true, using the Exmor in their dSLRs would have reduced R&D expenses and helped boost sales (with other long term trade-offs, of course).

"when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best." Even if you consider the difference between Sony and Canon sensors very small, that is BS.

"We considered adding this feature to the EOS 7D II but the body material presented challenges. But we have a solution with the optional Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E7A." Yeah, the challenge was losing a source of money. Plus, the external wireless transmitters are much better than the internal one in 6D I hear, so probably more appropriate for professionals.

"I will ask our engineers! But basically we reviewed the entire design and architecture of the camera, and we improved every part of the autofocus system. This all takes time."
Sure, the question has just occurred to him. This is exactly the kind of hollow but substantial sounding phrases that mean nothing. The first part (reviewing) results to no action being taken or mentioned. The second part (AF) is a work in process. It could be the reason for the delay, or so could be a million things, such as early adopter rush for the 70D.

Anyway, these interviews are rarely informative. When they want to say something, they make announcements. They don't wait for interviews to impart information. It doesn't require an interview to gather Canon will make efforts in high megapixel and mirrorless markets some time or the other, unless they completely want to cede the market. The rate limiting step must be R&D and/or making the product commercially viable.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Not that anyone asked, but what I would consider the ideal sensor resolution, would be 15360x11520 (177MP).
> ...



And probably spend all night transferring to your hard drives.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 25, 2014)

FF mirrorless about same size as a7 series with *pop-up EVF*(like rx100 III), battery life 500 to 700shots with pancake lenses - I smell trouble. Even better, about x100s body style......I'm drooling


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, from that question and the response to it...I can only conclude that Canon is delusional about their sensor's dynamic range. They have been beat, handily, at both low and high ISO now.


I wouldn't bet on that. If they interviewed 5,000 7D owners / prospective owners you can believe they have a good idea of how important IQ is to customers. This was not testimony under oath, nor a confidential therapy session -- it was a marketing interview. If Canon has any weaknesses, and particularly if they're working on solutions to those weaknesses, Maeda san would not tip his hand. His job is to talk up the cameras, while using generalities to assure customers and shareholders that great new stuff is on the way.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I'm hoping that the "our sensors are the best" is just a case of chest beating where they don't want to be seen by outsiders to admitting that they equipment is second best. Inside, I'm pretty sure that the engineers would know the real deal but whether management listens to them or prioritises that kind of work is another thing.



Yup.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Because that's exactly what it was...a bold faced lie.



How's that different from all other marketing? ;D


----------



## David Hull (Sep 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They also strongly implied that they don't care about low ISO DR and will wait until after sales tank, if ever, to bother. I think they just don't like the cost of a new fab and are doing everything to avoid it, not caring what anyone in forums says or how DxO scores look and gambling that only a few will leave and sales will keep going on as they have been for years to come even if they don't improve low ISO DR (and in other places, the word about 4k for 5D4 sounds pretty negatory as well) Oh well.
> 
> Guess it's time to look Sony/Nikon if you care about low ISO DR. It sounds like it might be a loooong time before Canon responds to Exmor. Quite a shame (again only if DR matters to you, for some it won't much)....
> 
> ...



_They also strongly implied that they don't care about low ISO DR and will wait until after sales tank, if ever, to bother. I think they just don't like the cost of a new fab and are doing everything to avoid it, not caring what anyone in forums says or how DxO scores look and gambling that only a few will leave and sales will keep going on as they have been for years to come even if they don't improve low ISO DR (and in other places, the word about 4k for 5D4 sounds pretty negatory as well) Oh well.
_

Could you post a link to the article you are referring to? I read the one on DPR and it really didn't say anything like this at all.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


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



The interview was as informative as it could be without giving away proprietary info. Most of the comments under the interview are pretty silly. It's ridiculously easy to be a critic. It's not nearly so easy to run a company or build real cameras or camera systems. Obviously Canon is working on new and better stuff to please their customers, which is in line with the fact that they already have a lot of pleased customers. Recent camera and lens releases have been pretty much answers to many photographers' wishes — photographers like myself who aren't posting _any_ comments on DP Review. Of course, Canon won't please everyone — no company can — but they know their market very well. 

I don't need to be expecting amazing things from Canon anytime soon because I *already have* amazing things from Canon — truly amazing for what I need it to do. It proves itself time after time. Maybe the people at Canon who live and breath this stuff and sweat every detail know a little more than the critics who are eager to dump on every camera company executive who gives an interview.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sure, I don't disagree with that. However, to outright state that their camera sensors are the best on the market is taking it too far. There are many other words and phrases that could be used to describe Canon sensors and still give Canon customers the sense that Canon is working to improve things. But to outright state that they don't know what measurements could possibly be indicating their sensors are lacking in the dynamic range department, or to outright state that their sensors are the best in the world...that's insane.
> 
> Especially when so many customers in the market KNOW it's a bold faced lie. Because that's exactly what it was...a bold faced lie.



This article is motivating me to rent a D810 for this weekend, :-\.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> But to outright state that they don't know what measurements could possibly be indicating their sensors are lacking in the dynamic range department, or to outright state that their sensors are the best in the world...that's insane.



Their sensors aren't objectively lacking anything _unless_ you have particular needs such as the forum member who needs to boost shadows by 4 or 5 or more stops. For most photographers in most situations, Canon sensors are superb.

I could write pages demonstrating what is "lacking" in the Nikon or Sony systems, but that would be silly because it would just show that Nikon or Sony aren't meeting my particular photographic needs. My comments would be pretty useless to all of the Nikon and Sony photographers whose needs are being met by those systems.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2014)

David Hull said:


> Could you post a link to the article you are referring to? I read the one on DPR and it really didn't say anything like this at all.



I'm not the only one who got that reading between the lines. Hopefully I (we) are wrong. I'd LOVE to be utterly, ridiculously, completely, embarrassingly proven wrong. We'll see.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 25, 2014)

Let's see what happens in October in New York. Sony is supposedly set to announce a whole new line in January with new sensors. Maybe Canon will be employing them too. They already did it in the new G7X. So now the door is wide open for others. I can hold my breath another 30 days or 3 months. The intrigue has me. I'm not in a big rush for new bodies, so maybe I'm alone here. Love the debate


----------



## IsaacImage (Sep 25, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, I don't disagree with that. However, to outright state that their camera sensors are the best on the market is taking it too far. There are many other words and phrases that could be used to describe Canon sensors and still give Canon customers the sense that Canon is working to improve things. But to outright state that they don't know what measurements could possibly be indicating their sensors are lacking in the dynamic range department, or to outright state that their sensors are the best in the world...that's insane.
> ...



Becareful you will not be disappointed 
but live you still sucks 
but ISO 64 will blow you away


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see what happens in October in New York. Sony is supposedly set to announce a whole new line in January with new sensors. Maybe Canon will be employing them too. They already did it in the new G7X. So now the door is wide open for others. I can hold my breath another 30 days or 3 months. The intrigue has me. I'm not in a big rush for new bodies, so maybe I'm alone here. Love the debate
> ...



Did not realize that! Thanks for the insight


----------



## Aglet (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sure, I don't disagree with that. However, to outright state that their camera sensors are the best on the market is taking it too far. There are many other words and phrases that could be used to describe Canon sensors and still give Canon customers the sense that Canon is working to improve things. But to outright state that they don't know what measurements could possibly be indicating their sensors are lacking in the dynamic range department, or to outright state that their sensors are the best in the world...that's insane.
> 
> Especially when so many customers in the market KNOW it's a bold faced lie. Because that's exactly what it was...a bold faced lie.



HAHA! reminds me of another camera maker saying something like, "What are you talking about? There's no dust or oil spot issue with our camera."

This is like politics, they have to tell the not-truth enough so that (many) people will (continue to) believe it.
it would NOT be good for stock price for Canon to admit their sensors are in any way behind in any performance metric. 
It's all about the money, first. product and customers are secondary, even if they do have great service.
That said, I'm looking fwd to trying the 7d2, even if it's not quite as good, IQ-wise, as my micro-four-thirds. As long as the FPN is gone, i can use it.

Edit: well, IQ-wise I still prefer the bigger pixels from my 60D than from my MFT as the also larger long Canon lens I use with it outperforms the tiny miracle on my MFT. But the noise metrics on the MFT are obviously better.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 25, 2014)

An higher resolution would lead to an higher density also with smaller pixels. I am afraid that ISO performance suffers from this high MP count. This is what happens with APS-C vs. FF...

I really hope that this issue could be solved by new multilayer sensors. Let's wait and see...


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> However, I AM one of a group of people here who are regularly treated like idiots and fools writing useless words because we want more DR in a Canon camera. Why is it that DR specifically is singled out as something no one should be complaining about with regards to Canon cameras? Why are all the other things more acceptable things to complain about, like the lack of WiFi in the 7D II, or the lack in most of their models of an AF-linked meter for full 3D tracking like Nikon has, or any number of other things. It's perfectly fine and dandy to whine and complain about those things...but DR? Whew...watch yourself if to even mention DR...



Here is your answer. Let me be very clear. There is nothing wrong with wanting more DR in a camera. What I am taking issue with is people saying this:
"Canon sensors are lacking" (or worse)
— when what they _really_ mean is —
"Canon sensors don't meet my DR needs."

The reason I take issue is that Canon sensors aren't lacking *for me*. People who say they are lacking typically make it sound as if Canon sensors are lacking for *everyone* when that isn't true, and really does sound silly. With all of the excellent photography being done with Canon sensors, it's easy to show that sweeping condemnations of Canon's sensors are untrue.

This is where someone comes along and asks, "But don't you ever mess up an exposure and want to fix the photo?" Of course, everyone does. That's why I'm not against more DR. I'm in favor of it. But it's not particularly deficient in the current sensors. And I don't treat failure recovery as the one critical test of what is a good sensor. Failure recovery wasn't the topmost consideration when I chose a film in the film days, and it's not the topmost consideration today. 

And then someone asks, "But don't you ever encounter high contrast situations that the DR of the sensor just can't handle?" Of course, every photographer does. Every photographer since the beginning of photography has encountered that. But there is more than one way to deal with it. If the only solution available were pushing shadow sliders in software, then I too would be complaining about the need for more DR.

As the guy says in the interview, "we consider image quality as a whole". I like that approach. 

I am currently editing work partly shot with a current Nikon / Sony sensor and there is just _nothing_ about the sensor that stands out in relation to my Canon photos of the same event. Sure, if I had to fix massive underexposure then the Nikon / Sony would perform better. As I don't have to fix massive underexposure, my Canon sensors are performing well and not lacking at all — _for me_.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 25, 2014)

I feel too much is being read into this interview ... after just releasing a 7DII, what was Maeda supposed to say? That the sensor in the camera sucks or is worse off than the SoNykon cameras?

Of course this is marketing BS and there is no way Canon would be delusional to not know that there is a difference in the sensor performance. Canon usually comes up with what the majority of its customers want while ignoring the requirements of a niche group. 

Who know how many people are buying cameras basing their decisions on the DR of the sensor ... I'm sure the members of this forum do not know and I'm also sure that Canon knows!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> In the very near future you can expect us to show something in terms of mirrorless and also a higher resolution sensor.



With the latest build-up of high iq lenses and dual pixel af, of course this is bound to happen, everyone knows it, so this news is old news...

... but how soon is "the very near future"? And what will be the sensor iq? Canon could have scaled up the 18mp resolution from the crop sensors to ff more than 5 years ago, but they didn't for lens and iq reasons. So if they release a high mp ff sensor now, this either means...


Canon really has put their revolutionary patents to work to make their current sensors look like stone-age models
Canon has gotten desperate enough to scale up their current high-density sensors because the market demand is so large, but high-iso performance will be meh.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 25, 2014)

Apart from the 'untested' Samsung the highest pixels in apsc is 24mp so about 10% increase in pixels compared to the Canon offering. That's not enough to switch systems imo. The 7d2 image quality is untested as yet. The few off the cuff jpegs are really no indication of image quality of the 7d2. So no one can say right now that the sensor is rubbish. It may not be what we wanted but it may be very good ito of Canons definition of image quality. Sounds reasonable to me.

If the 7d2 is to be THE apsc sports camera with 'only' 20mp but very good high iso quality, I am happy with it. After all the 1dx is 'only' 18mp and I have yet to hear anyone complain about that. 

I am not in the market for the 7d2 nor the 1dx nor the 5d3, for me the 6d has just been the most amazing commercial tool ito features and price/quality ratio. The lamented low 'dynamic' range everyone complains about has been a non event practically speaking in my experience. The 6d sensor has an amazing ability to capture highlights, which are more important to me than shadow detail....I am not really into HDR looking images...

I have been using high iso more often than I would like to admit, they are just so good. It has opened a whole new world for me ito more flash power, shooting in really dark environments handheld etc etc.

What I would like to have is a higher mp FF camera and MR Canon has promised that...I am willing to wait a bit longer for that. I am sure even if the rumored beast from Canon is going to cost 8/9 K the technology will eventually filter down to cheaper more consumer orientated models that are also more affordable. 

In the meantime the 6D is 90% there ito what I need right now in low iso image quality an 100% ito high iso image quality. 

I, for one, ( and reading here probably the ONLY one!), am prepared to take the man at his word and wait a bit longer....

And if all else fails in the short term there is always the possibility of an A7R MK2 with a EF lens adapter.....


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 25, 2014)

I have never read in my life so much bullshit from senior person. Few my comments:

1) Canon should fire all their engineers if they need 5 years to include 1Dx autofocus technology into other camera. According to Maeda, 7DII was redesigned but remained absolutely the same as previous model 

2) Canon's sensors are significantly behind Exmor sensor. If you are not capable producing competitive sensor, please buy it from Sony.

3) Significant focus on mirrorless - are you joking or are you stupid? Canon produced mirrorless camera which is maybe worst in the market. OF course theu sold many such cameras at a loss 

4) What I see now when look to Canon: arrogant company, which is led by very old japanese person who still thinks that he is living in 60s'  Canon is still able to support its leadership as it is not easy to change firm when you have many L lenses. For example, myself are not considering changing system into Sony or Nikon as I do not want to incur financial losses due to sale of lenses. But if we talk about new customers, it is doubtful that Canon is winning on this side.

5) It is very clear that Canon is a big ship and starts sinking slowly. This is due to not flexible management. Canon need to replace this old man and put American in CEO position, who would shake the whole corporation and kick engineers asses  

6) Also, I think it would be a good idea to take Steve Jobs strategy and produce smaller number of models, which are much better than competitors.

Mirrorless market is getting serious and many new customers might buy mirrorless cameras. Canon and Nikon are practically newcomers in this market and need to put more focus and not just provide BS answers to journalists


----------



## AUGS (Sep 25, 2014)

A very wise man once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Sadly, I think its time some people on these forums had a look at what they are doing with respect to their posts.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

Exactly the way I see it too. 



Efka76 said:


> I have never read in my life so much bullshit from senior person. Few my comments:
> 
> 1) Canon should fire all their engineers if they need 5 years to include 1Dx autofocus technology into other camera. According to Maeda, 7DII was redesigned but remained absolutely the same as previous model
> 
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> 1) Canon should fire all their engineers if they need 5 years to include 1Dx autofocus technology into other camera.



You're missing the whole point right there which invalidates any further considerations of yours. It's not like Canon _isn't able to_, it's that they _don't want to_ because why rock the boat if the current strategy still generates a lot of profit. The old-school dslr crowd likes to whine about the newest model missing this and that, but they keep buying and that's what matters to a profit-oriented company which has to concentrate on the next quarterly report to their shareholders.

If no one buys the 6d or 70d because they've got outdated af systems from half a decade ago, we'll see a 6d2 and 80d in no time. But as you know, this won't happen.


----------



## vscd (Sep 25, 2014)

<mimimi>
*Dear Canon.

I don't know how people created pictures in the last few years... how did they manage to take even one serious shot on a 5D with those 11.3 Stops of dynamic range? All my photography can start in maybe 4 years, when Canon will be able to at least ship sensors with 14 or better 16 stops. 

On the landscapes, everytime I go outside there is a huge gap between sky and the shadows... I can't really capture the beauty of my scene to the fullest. My HDR Button is broken and I can't use the AEB to compensate even a little bit. If I just could have a Nikon, then every picture would be awesome, I could post my food on Instagramm and there will be no banding in the shadow of my sandwich. Please Canon, PLEASE, give me more Range. My portfolio just depends on the last stop of DR. And give it to me @110 MPixel, because if I want to print it for my mum I will do it on A3.

I have nothing shown to mankind yet, and this is your fault!! And by the way, your primes have aberations. I don't like aberations. I once hat aberations in china, they tasted good. But I can't buy them here.*
</mimimi>


----------



## MintChocs (Sep 25, 2014)

Who are these higher resolution customers, one might ask? I can only think of two groups, landscape and studio. By the time Canon bring their product to the table, there will not be much room left on it! Unless they improve the dynamic range on a product aimed for landscape pros all those extra megapixels will be as useful as a chocolate teapot.  For studio photographers I see the costs dropping for MF though not to the same extent as it is a small market but maybe enough to attract more people who would otherwise have bought this Canon higher megapixel. The only reason I can think of for Canon not improving their sensors is the profit margin. Building a new fabrication plant would impact on their profits and share price something they don't want to do until they absolutely have too, they may never build one and instead in the future just buy in sensors as they foresee that there is no future profit to be made in a declining market.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 25, 2014)

I don't get the hate on the 5DMKIII yes it doesn't have as much DR as the D800 but we've known that for 3 years. Personally I've not had many situations where DR has been an issue. As a photographer you work the situation and by doing so solve the problem. 

Relying on a cameras DR to recover is useful but what have photographers been doing for the last 100 years, there are ways and means, some of the best images in the world have been taken with Canon cameras. Yes the sensor is long in the tooth but it works and it works for a huge amount of photographers and I continue to love shooting with the 5DMKIII and I'm always impressed with how far I can push the files so I don't know why people have such issue. If your struggling so much bracket… 

I have also tried the A7 and A7R, its impressive the DR and a nice little camera, but I find the camera a pain to use and the glass inferior and using an adapter a pain because the AF is so slow. The whole ecosystem is too juvenile and needs to grow.

I agree with the disappointment of the 7D. The original 7D was a fantastic camera, truly fantastic camera with a crap sensor and it seems true in the MKII. That sensor was crap when it came out 6 years ago and they are going to use it in a camera for another 5 possible years, for that reason I wouldn't buy one. I had my 7D 2 weeks and hated the noise at low ISO so much so bought the 5DMKIII and never looked back.

I really wanted to buy a smaller Canon camera to take traveling with me and the SL1 is a nice camera but I know how disappointed I was with the 7D sensor and Wouldn't want the images of a lifetime to be taken with it so I'm lugging my 5DMKIII instead because the A7 just doesn't fit the bill for me and swapping to it with the mediocre glass is a £3000 change which is insane.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2014)

MintChocs said:


> I can only think of two groups, landscape and studio.



Two big groups, the latter with a lot of $$$ - so worth having something in store for them.

You can also include macro because having more resolution makes it easier to get 1:1 mag w/o lighting and problems, aperture falloff and the object flying away. And include everybody who wants to cut multiple aspect ratios from one image, changing landscale<->portrait cuts away (nearly) too much resolution with the current ~20mp.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 25, 2014)

applecider said:


> And really do I want a 120mp body? Seriously I don't want to take any steps backward in high ISO IQ for the sake of MP's.



That works for you, great. I personally would have a use for more MP's and better DR at ISO 100. 
So who's right?


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 25, 2014)

@Canon going MF and the past:

Maybe one day we have a toolkit: this body, this back.
Rolleiflex had this changeable magazinsystem for 35mm- was a lovely camera.

Yes I know, sometimes i am dreaming with open eyes......


----------



## dufflover (Sep 25, 2014)

It's a Canon rep, ofcourse they won't say anything officially negative or bad about their own company. 
Corporate common sense (unfortunately) so all just marketing spiel.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


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



+1


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 25, 2014)

roby17269 said:


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



jrista, I agree fullheartedly with you.

My take on this subject, sits outside the technical knowledge that many of you possess. Yet it comes from a Canon loyalist who can no longer ignore the CATCH-A-WAKE-UP SMACK! That is being dished out by so many.

I read a review, the sensor is met with a lukewarm reception. Same thing with video reviews and on forums. Hell, one of my mentors who has invested big money into Canon even went as far as saying that he is thinking about buying either a Sony with adaptor or the Nikon with the 12-24 because he is a landscape junky.

Can I fault anything else on the Canon _*system?*[/b]_ No I can't. Aside from the odd kink here and there, I simply cannot look pass the otherwise superb system.

Some of the very best lenses money can buy. A superb flash system. And all things considered, fantastic cameras too.

We have all sailed on this Canon ship for a while, yet now we're seeing many who sailed this journey with us, either jumping ship or not very impressed with what Canon is doing sensor wise.

There's contentions from many that the gap isn't that big. I disagree. It is a noticeable weakness that one's eye identifies in mere moments.

jrista, I'm very impressed with your photography and knowledge. It's nice to sound you out as a Canonista.

I am beginning to be very, very nervous that Canon will announce the 5Div with a re-hash of it's sensor technology. Canon must make a statement with the 5Div that will soundly put them back on a level playing ground for the very least.


----------



## Isurus (Sep 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > They also strongly implied that they don't care about low ISO DR and will wait until after sales tank, if ever, to bother. I think they just don't like the cost of a new fab and are doing everything to avoid it, not caring what anyone in forums says or how DxO scores look and gambling that only a few will leave and sales will keep going on as they have been for years to come even if they don't improve low ISO DR (and in other places, the word about 4k for 5D4 sounds pretty negatory as well) Oh well.
> ...



This. Let's face it; no one from PR is going to come out and say "yeah, you are right, our sensors are getting trumped by the competition." They are paid to do the opposite. I'm sure Canon is aware of the weaknesses of their sensors relative to Sony's. Whether or not they do something about it is another matter entirely, but I wouldn't take this interview as indication of much of anything at this point.


----------



## axtstern (Sep 25, 2014)

This forum is killing me....
The 5DIII has to much of what I don't need, the 6D to little of everything.
So I decided long ago to wait for whatever FF will come next and in the mean time I upgrade my APS sector with the marvellous 7DII which I was waiting for the last 2 years....

Then the 7DII got released and it has all this marvellous new tech, the perfect AF, dual this and dual that but wait a moment... MP up by 10% and 70D out to prove that neither 2 MP more nor 4 years of development result in a reall advantage.... Bah Humbug

So I decided to skip the 7D2 ....

than I started to read contribution after contribution here and stated to think: Ah what are 1800 bucks compared to the money I have sunk already in Canon glass, well why not living another five years with a sensor being only marginally better than what I have in my M? OK come on pre orders are cheap in Canada especially when you get a 24-70 4.0 for free and ordered.

Now comes this interview and the hope for another revival of the M area. More hope for something at least 24 MP, dual pixel AF combined with touch screen and GPS and WIFI and viewfinder and and and....

However I do not want to deplete my pockets on two APS cameras. That means postpone the 7DII and wait if there is a M3 before spring. Probably I will continue to read your guys contributions and change my mind another five times.... Oh how easy was my live when I did not know about this site and walked blind to rumors and current development into a shop to buy a 20D and was surprised that they had the 30D arriving that same day..


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

+1 ... exactly my situation too. 
7D sold. Some glass sold, some L glass still here. 7D II not interested, 5D III not interested, sensor not good enough, no Wifi, end of life. 6D way too crippled. EOS-M used as transitional "good-weather camera". Waiting for killer M3 and/or killer 5D IV. 



axtstern said:


> This forum is killing me....
> The 5DIII has to much of what I don't need, the 6D to little of everything.
> So I decided long ago to wait for whatever FF will come next and in the mean time I upgrade my APS sector with the marvellous 7DII which I was waiting for the last 2 years....
> 
> ...


----------



## tomscott (Sep 25, 2014)

axtstern there is no point waiting and wishing, buy what you need. Resale value is always good, if you don't think its good enough some one else will.

Its backward to wait for the perfect camera it will never come. There will be pos and cons to every cam that comes out.



AvTvM said:


> +1 ... exactly my situation too.
> 7D sold. Some glass sold, some L glass still here. 7D II not interested, 5D III not interested, sensor not good enough, no Wifi, end of life. 6D way too crippled. EOS-M used as transitional "good-weather camera". Waiting for killer M3 and/or killer 5D IV.



The 5DMKIII sensor isn't good enough? Its not at the end of its life either and there is some great deals on them. If you thought the 18mp sensor is ok the 5DMKIIIs will blow you away so will the 6D. Sounds like you need to actually try them. The 5DMKIII is one of the most capable cameras on the market regardless of you thinking its a poor offering. What rubbish.

Half of you sound like spoilt children throwing toys out the pram because Canon hasn't made a camera just for you.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> EOS-M used as transitional "good-weather camera". Waiting for killer M3 and/or killer 5D IV.



Oh my, that sounds awkward. I can understand the rationale, but if you've got some time to shoot and the eos-m is not just sitting there you'll be losing a lot of shots.

I am ranting about the 6d's af system and other crippling all the time, but if you've got L lenses you might want to have a second look at it - if you manage to get someting into focus the iq is excellent and it has well above 14 stops of dynamic range with Magic Lantern's dual_iso module. The 6d2 is imho far away, and late 2015's 5d4 will have a hilarious price tag attached if it's any real upgrade. Currently, looking for a cheap 6d might still be your best bet.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The 5DMKIII sensor isn't good enough? Its not at the end of its life either and there is some great deals on them. If you thought the 18mp sensor is ok the 5DMKIIIs will blow you away so will the 6D. Sounds like you need to actually try them. The 5DMKIII is one of the most capable cameras on the market regardless of you thinking its a poor offering. What rubbish.



No. The 5D III sensor is not good enough. Not for me. Not in 2014. Not by a long ways. In reality, 5D III is exactly what the 5D 2 should have been ... back when that one was released: OK sensor with good AF system. 

And yes, 5D III is end-of-life. Even when most of its owners don't want to recognize it. ;-) And even though Canon has not listed it as EOL or announced a successor ... yet. 

As a matter of fact, currently the Nikon D750 is closest to what I would want to get ... as a DSLR. But ... I want no mirrorslapper any longer. I want a fully capable, FF-sensored, yet compact mirrorless package. And the only one currently available (Sony A7/R/S) is not it, due to a number of shortcomings that ned to be fixed first. 

18 MP APS-C sensor is not "fine", but even worse, of course. To me, EOS-M is just a cheap stop gap measure until I finally get my "really-right" FF MILC camera system. EOS-M simply was and is by the cheapest and most compact APS-C camera system available. I find it OK for what it is and I like the user interface - there is no menu system as good as Canon's. Plus a nice touchscreen. Except there are a lot of situations where the lack of a viewfinder really kills me.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 25, 2014)

Isurus said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I hope they do something about it. That statement just seems both ignorant and arrogant to me, even as a Canon fan.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2014)

Canon is using an obsolete fabrication run to make it's DSLR sensors....

These lines have a finite lifespan and it will need to be replaced at some point.

They have a newer and finer fabrication run that is operating at under-capacity.... They have done prototypes (most notable is the 120Mp APS-H sensor) on this run...

2 fabrication runs cost more to operate than 1 run.

It is more than obvious that Canon will switch technology on it's sensors at some point in the future. It is beyond the point where this should have happened.... many of us thought the 7D2 would have been the point where it happened.... but it will happen at some point.... it is probably necessary for higher resolution sensors.

No executive is going to come out in public and say "our flagship manufacturing process is a piece of crap.... but in two years we will have a new one, so until then don't buy our product". We know changes are coming, we are just frustrated that it is taking so long!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> However, I AM one of a group of people here who are regularly treated like idiots and fools writing useless words because we want more DR in a Canon camera.


A complete - if utterly predictable - misrepresentation of the truth of the matter.

You're _not_ treated that way because you want more DR.

*You're treated that way for banging on, and on, and on, and on about it, to the level of trolling*.

And - for what it's worth - the only thing more deserving of criticism than a troll, is a troll who has the bare-faced cheek to present himself as a _victim_ because his trolling attracts the oh-so-predictable reaction from others...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 25, 2014)

zlatko said:


> What I am taking issue with is people saying this:
> "Canon sensors are lacking" (or worse)
> — when what they _really_ mean is —
> "Canon sensors don't meet _my_ DR needs."



*This!*


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> No. The 5D III sensor is not good enough. _Not for *me*._


_

I've emphasised the only vaguely relevant and accurate part of that sentence for you..._


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

Even though I don't always agree with Jrista I consider accusing him of being a troll an insult. Very uncalled for. He is going to extremes to substantiate his arguments with knowledge and facts. 

It is only fanboys who have a problem with this and to hear repeatedly, that Canon's sensors are not nearly as good as they could and should be. It hurts their ears and their egos. That's why they call it DRoning.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 25, 2014)

No offence AvTvM your the type of customer that won't be happy with any camera.


----------



## Ivar (Sep 25, 2014)

+1



AvTvM said:


> Even though I don't always agree with Jrista I consider accusing him of being a troll an insult. Very uncalled for. He is going to extremes to substantiate his arguments with knowledge and facts.
> 
> It is only fanboys who have a problem with this and to hear repeatedly, that Canon's sensors are not nearly as good as they could and should be. It hurts their ears and their egos. That's why they call it DRoning.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2014)

tomscott said:


> No offence AvTvM your the type of customer that won't be happy with any camera.


So true. So very, very true.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > However, I AM one of a group of people here who are regularly treated like idiots and fools writing useless words because we want more DR in a Canon camera.
> ...


Well, Keith you can expect to be pilloried for your observation but you are exactly right. The "Victim" act has gotten old. Unfortunately, judging by some of the responses here it seems to work on some people.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> As I said, there are plenty of things he could have responded with, without responding with a load of BS. He could have said he thinks Canon sensors are excellent and meeting the company goals for IQ or something along those lines, and I wouldn't have had a problem. No one would have had a problem with that. He shouldn't have feigned lack of knowledge about where the measurements for DR come from...he knows damn well where they come from...because they come from everywhere.



A long time ago a philosophy professor told my class that, if we're ever asked to do a self-evaluation, always give a perfect score. What works for philosophy also works for business.  

He's just not going to say anything different, even if he knows different.


----------



## AmselAdans (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> It is only fanboys who have a problem with this and to hear repeatedly, that Canon's sensors are not nearly as good as they could and should be. It hurts their ears and their egos. That's why they call it DRoning.



I indeed have a problem to hear the DR topic repeatedly.
Why? 
1) Because nothing, absolutely nothing is added by another lengthy rant by someone who is not satisfied with one aspect of a highly complex product.
2) placing one's indivdual needs (very high DR) above the needs, wishes and interests of almost all other forum readers, by hijacking almost every thread with this issue, is just inpolite or as mentioned above... just trolling.
3) I waste (yes, waste) too much time by scrolling across deserts of text full of whining about DR while looking for the posts, which are related to the ACTUAL thread topic.
4) this is getting too meta. We already have a thread that discusses discussions about DR in threads. And here its starting again.
5) I don't like that sometimes personal insults result out of these discussions. Be nice to each other. Have a laugh sometimes, don't take your opinion too important and remember if its worth to make somebody feel unhappy, just because of some black painted box, which magically captures images.

Solution?
1) open some dedicated threads for discussing DR
2) accept, that opinions differ (some cannot live with the DR of canon sensors; some see DR shortcomings, but aren't heavily handicapped by this; some are just fine with DR) and try not to convert people. It's not about denying facts, I think most people here agree, that other sensors may provide better results in terms of DR or noise. But everybody is free to decide whether he thinks that this is important or not


and just because I can't get the image out of my head:
*ding dong*
"Yes? Hello?"
"Good Morning Sir. Do you have time to talk about DR, the bearer of IQ?"


----------



## chauncey (Sep 25, 2014)

I gotta say up front that I'm a news junkie and watch tons of interviews...DPReview's interview was just about the absolute worst that I've ever read. I was as if both of them was reading from a script, sans any kind of follow-up questions.

It would be interesting to see some sort of sales breakdown and cost analysis of Canon products...they do sell the most. Trying to please the folks like us might not rate that high on their priority list.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Sep 25, 2014)

This interview is a joke.

Asked why it took so long to update the 7D he has to ask his engineers.

Compare this to the interview of the Fuji rep (compared to the Canon rep obviously a younger man): "To be honest we’re pretty clear about what we need to do, and I think we’re moving in the right direction."
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1289445414/photokina-2014-fujifilm-interview-over-the-past-few-months-i-ve-been-getting-more-confident


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 25, 2014)

unfocused said:


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


I stay out of most of these threads because, quite honestly, I'm just not smart enough for them. But I have observed a few things. DR problems are, as someone has noted, as old as photography. You think Canon sensors are bad, try shooting a high contrast scene with a lot of red using a slow orthochromatic film. IOW, there have always been challenges. Even though I am not the sharpest knife in this drawer, I have been able to learn some things from reading jrista's posts (only a few things, refer back to my first sentence). I also have learned from reading Keith or Neuro's responses, along with others. I think one of the problems is that every thread (at least those that seem to interest me) deteriorate to the exact same DR discussion and then further deteriorate to those who are fond of the (excellent) exmor sensors being referred to as DRones and those of us who like the excellent ergonomics and function of the Canon bodies as "fanboys." (I'll accept the fanboy title since I have been using Canon cameras exclusively since switching to digital and, along with a Leica, a couple of Bronicas and an old Speed Graphic, for many years prior to that switch). 

I'm not sure there is a solution to the issue. Certainly a better sensor would be nice in the Canon body. But I am to old, and poor, to switch systems. I get a lot of pleasure out of my photography, though my pictures are not usually at the level of those taken by jrista, keith, or others who are more active. So I will just muddle along with what I have (and the 7DII that is on order). And I will thank all those that have helped educate this old man while asking you all to tone down the rhetoric toward each other. Most of you have some great points to make, don't let them get lost in the rhetoric.


----------



## TeT (Sep 25, 2014)

in looking at DR... Is it just more at ISO 100 to 200 that you all want or higher consistent DR across the whole range..? Some of the higher DR cameras really start to drop off as ISO increases...


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 25, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "*One thing we know from our own testing is that Canon DSLR sensors can’t quite compete with some modern sensors from Sony in terms of dynamic range. How important to you is developing sensor technology?*
> 
> We are very focused on getting the best image quality. I’m not sure what measurements you’re looking at but when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best.
> 
> ...




Wow. So in a question of "best sensors", Canon reps reference the 7D II? Does the 70D even crack the top 100 at DXO?


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

tomscott said:


> No offence AvTvM your the type of customer that won't be happy with any camera.



wrong. I bought the Canon EOS 7D the first day it became available, paid full MSRP and was *quite happy* with it until I sold it 2 months ago. It was clearly *the best* APS-C camera when it came out in fall of 2009 and it did not cost an arm and a leg or a kidney. Do you see any Canon offering in 2014 which manages to score on both of these 2 parameters. I don't. 

I'll be happy again with a Canon camera, once it is a "best-in-class" FF-sensored MILC in a body sized liked Sony A7 ... plus matching lenses ... at reasonable prices. 8)

And no, I am not the only one, who wants this. ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Just how many interviews do you think aren't scripted or where question matter is agreed on beforehand?



Especially when every word is recorded and analyzed (over analyzed)?

Especially when not only reporters but the people who read/watch the interview are just waiting for any mistake or even hesitation and use it against them?

I am surprised that anyone even talks to the press these days.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 25, 2014)

TeT said:


> in looking at DR... Is it just more at ISO 100 to 200 that you all want or higher consistent DR across the whole range..? Some of the higher DR cameras really start to drop off as ISO increases...



High DR at high ISO is physically NOT POSSIBLE.

Currently, Sony sensors that Nikon uses have a slight disadvantage at ISO >1000 but that seems to be fixed with the A7R. With these sensors you could basically shoot everything at ISO100 and lift in post which gives a lot of headroom to recover highlights.

The only way to gain some significant quality at high ISO is the use of layered sensors with higher quantum efficiency. With Silicon only this seems not possible but there are other material combinations in development which will make this possible in some years.

What can be done with current technology is a) higher pixel density (up to the 200-800 MP range for full frame) and b) lower ISO for even more dynamic range.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 25, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Especially when every word is recorded and analyzed (over analyzed)?



True, but this response is often associated with lack of information, transparency, and directness in communication.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 25, 2014)

So basically you will only buy a product when they beat the opposition in all aspects?

It won't happen. There are always pros and cons. 

What baffles me is you say your happy or were happy with the 18mp sensor which was a dog when it came out and your still using it and saying how bad the FF sensors are when they are a such huge improvement your almost kidding yourself.

Should try them before coming to your conclusion. I also don't think the 5D is poor value and wouldn't hesitate buying another one I think its the best camera Canon has ever produced and is currently one of the best available as a whole unit, for the event photographer it is pretty much perfect (which is where the main economy of photography is) The 6D is also great value, in the right hands they make and will continue to make incredible imagery.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 25, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> I indeed have a problem to hear the DR topic repeatedly.



Another solution would be to accept that Canon cameras only provide 2nd grad sensors for photos below ISO 1000 and high resolution photos. Sure, this is good enough for journalists and they are not here to complain. Sure, Birders can use crop cameras and teleconverters (along with the associated loss in image quality). But what about enthusiasts who save a big chunk of money to buy the best camera system they can afford? Could they live with a 5D Mark I? Has that camera gone bad over the years? No, they want the best. Canon has some of the best lenses with the best resolution but no full frame camera to go with it. I mean the cameras are not bad, they don't get worse over time but people want the best and Canon sensors simply are not the best anymore. We could say they are second best, but virtually any other manufacturer now uses better sensors for their new models. Sure, focus systems are important and if you have time you can light the scene and stitch your panoramas and do multiple exposures for HDR. But why not use the technology that is on the table. Why not give the users what they want? Why not simply buy the same Sony sensor as Nikon does for a studio/landscaping camera? Take the 5D3, rip out the old Canon sensor and put in the Sony sensor. It's not THAT hard to do for Canon. They had years of time and the only thing holding them back is greed for money because people are reluctant to switch. But trust me, nobody switched back from Nikon because of the sensor. Many things are different or wrong with Nikon systems but the camera sensor is not one of them.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

tomscott said:


> So basically you will only buy a product when they beat the opposition in all aspects?
> It won't happen. There are always pros and cons.
> 
> What baffles me is you say your happy or were happy with the 18mp sensor which was a dog when it came out and your still using it and saying how bad the FF sensors are when they are a such huge improvement your almost kidding yourself.



The 7D sensor maybe was a dog even when it came out. It was still better than Nikon D300s and any other APS-C camera on the marekt at the time. The 7D was unequivocally THE BEST APS-C camera when it came out in fall of 2009, that's why I bought it. It's sensor was surpassed pretty soon thereafter, of course. 

I am fully aware that the 5D III sensor will give me much better IQ than the old 18 MP APS-C sensor. But, I will not settle for this. I want more, I want the best my money can buy and I want it in a smaller package.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 25, 2014)

heptagon said:


> We could say they are second best, but virtually any other manufacturer now uses better sensors for their new models.



Only at low ISO. At high ISO, Canon sensors are still the best or close to the best.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> @Zlatko: Your turning a general statement into a personal issue. THAT...right there...is the problem with these forums. Stop making it personal. It's not. There is absolutely zero reason to take issue with someone elses statement like that, because you are ASSUMING something about what they have said. Your creating mountains out of molehills, like so many others here.
> 
> This whole "Not everyone is like you" argument is really getting old. It is like it's intentionally making everything personal, which is exactly what we don't need. Sure, everyone is different. But everyone also falls into groups of like-minded individuals. No one ever has truly unique wants and needs. There isn't just one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera.
> 
> ...



NO, I am not "turning a general statement into a personal issue", nor am I "taking offense". Nor am I saying there is just "one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera". These are points I am not making, yet these are points to which you've addressed your long reply.

I tried to be clear in specifying what I am disagreeing with (not "taking offense"). I disagree with statements like:

"Canon sensors, from a technological and fundamental IQ standpoint, *are *lacking."
"Technologically, Canon sensors DO lag behind the rest."

You keep saying these things as if they are some _universal_ truth. They aren't. They are true for certain photographers in certain situations, not for everyone. There are plenty of photographers who don't perceive this "lacking" or "lagging" because their work is not about maximum DR and doesn't rely on maximum DR. For those photographers, Canon sensors are doing a great job, and they are choosing Canon sensors to do their job. The list of renowned and skilled photographers choosing and using Canon is long and deep and covers an extremely diverse range of photographic situations. You can repeat what you are saying "technologically", but it doesn't reflect what they are doing _photographically_.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > NO, I am not "turning a general statement into a personal issue", nor am I "taking offense". Nor am I saying there is just "one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera". These are points I am not making, yet these are points to which you've addressed your long reply.
> ...



as lots have pointed out ---DR levels out as ISO's rise and if your bread and butter is mostly shot between 800-6400 then canon sensors are not lagging or lacking at all - go past 1600 and the canon out performs the exmor. Someone here said a page ago this:



heptagon said:


> Currently, Sony sensors that Nikon uses have a slight disadvantage at ISO >1000 but that seems to be fixed with the A7R. With these sensors you could basically shoot everything at ISO100 and lift in post which gives a lot of headroom to recover highlights.



To me, the really raises my hackles. So the solution is now to underexpose and push in post? While yeah it's easy enough to batch process stuff in lightroom, it's still time that needs to be spent correcting for an issue that ---on a canon you won't have because you can push the ISO a bit more.

something I find really funny about all this is that this is a fear of shadows? Personally, I try to use shadows as much as possble in my images because it leadsto a more dramatic mood. I also use other things like off camera light to increase the difference between the light and the dark. I find that pulling all the shadows into the light just leads to boring images, or, something that looks more like a comic book or an over the top HDR - if that's your style then fine, go with it but it's not for everyone. Different tools for different jobs. 

Would I say no to more DR, of course not. but for the work I do, it's not a make or break issue. And there are lots of folks in this camp too. But at this stage in the game, with the sheer amount of posts now about this issue, from a handful of people - no matter the topic really is is just getting out of hand. Should this site be renamed the DR envy forum?


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > NO, I am not "turning a general statement into a personal issue", nor am I "taking offense". Nor am I saying there is just "one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera". These are points I am not making, yet these are points to which you've addressed your long reply.
> ...



What is a _fact_ and what is _relevant_ is not always the same. It depends on the individual and the situation. It is a fact that the Sony sensor is better in certain situations. But that fact is not relevant for all photographers. Obviously it is relevant to some such as yourself — I am not disputing that.

It is a fact that slide film had less dynamic range than negative film. A fact. Or FACT as you say. And yet slide film had an era of great popularity. And not just among amateurs, but professionals. Steve McCurry's amazing lifetime body of work is almost all slide film up until the digital era. The images are magnificent — maybe not according to some test that DxO would apply — but they are magnificent nevertheless. That's the kind of _image quality_ that escapes the DxO definition of "image quality". The number of professional photographers who chose slide film for their work was long and deep. Obviously DR was not THE defining characteristic of what would meet their needs; obviously other factors were more relevant. 

There are facts that are universal ("the sun rises in the morning"), and there are facts that are qualified by who is speaking and under what circumstances ("xyz computer is too slow").

It is a fact that part of Sebastiao Salgado's magnificent Genesis book was made partly with Canon (after he stopped using medium format film). Whatever facts may be proven or tested "technologically" about the sensors he used, they didn't stop him from producing this great work. It is a fact that Annie Leibowitz has been using Canon for years for some of her editorial and advertising work. It is a fact that numerous photojournalists, including a great portion of World Press Photo award winners, use Canon. And many sports photographers choose Canon and produce great work with Canon. Those are facts too. All of these people could choose cameras with other sensors, but didn't. It's not because they don't know or don't care (as is often alleged by sensor critics); rather, it's because Canon sensors meet their current technical and artistic requirements. Those photographers could easily go elsewhere if Canon failed them or if Canon's being "WAAAY" behind in some parameter actually mattered to them.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > No offence AvTvM your the type of customer that won't be happy with any camera.
> ...



I would tend to agree with tom here. If what you say about the 7d is in fact true, the 7d2 should be a fine camera for you as it fits a lot of your criteria - it does look to be the best APC body on the market today, and it's price isn't outrageous by any means. But, why am I even saying this because you moved the goal posts all of a sudden by adding a 3rd parameter - now it has to be FF, has to be mirrorless, has to have a totally redesigned body and a new set of lenses with a new mount for said lenses ---- and you want extra features that just are not feasible (like built in RT trigger). So yeah, if i were in charge of marketing and research, I would not be listening to you because you move the goal posts too much - if I were a canon R&D person, and listened to you - I would be authorizing a huge expenditure in creating he fab process for a whole new line of bodies - Even if they matched things spec for spec, by the time the whole process is done, your wish list will have grown --- which is why it does very much seem like no matter what happens - you will not be a happy customer. Just get yourself a dang A7R, and go use it and see if having the vast majority of your wish list makes ya happy...


----------



## Khalai (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I'll be happy again with a Canon camera, once it is a "best-in-class" FF-sensored MILC in a body sized liked Sony A7 ... plus matching lenses ... at reasonable prices. 8)



Why not buy the A7 (or A7r or A7s) then? It surely meet more needs than 7D2s, which is again most likely the best APS-C camera on the market at the moment. And I seriously doubt, that any mirrorless right now will outperform the 7D2 in the AF department (which seems to be one of the primary selling points for the 7D2), especially combined with Canon telephoto lenses


----------



## spandau (Sep 25, 2014)

I think there is something important missing in some of these discussions evolving technical achievements. What if had a DSLR with the ability for perfect focus where we wanted it on every shot along with 50 stops of DR and no noise in the photo regardless of ISO and was available at an affordable price. I think we would have a lot of absolutely perfect photographs of any subject you could imagine with absolutely no one interesting in looking at them other than the person who took the picture as there would be unlimited examples on the internet that would show the exact same thing that someone else had taken. Photographs have to appeal to other people in non technical terms after the novelty of uniqueness has passed. A perfect copy of the Mona Lisa is after all just a "copy". I do not believe that photography can be defined in technical terms and survive except to document a moment that will never happen again. To me, an excessive amount of DR in a photo, makes it look manipulated.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 25, 2014)

Admittedly, the DR arguments were until very recently, annoying the ever loving crap out of me.

Then I read a blog entry by the person behind the former fake Chuck Westfall site and if there was one point he made that stuck with me, it was that people need to be vocal if they want change. He was trolling, for sure, but he made a compelling argument as to why.

In light of this "official" comment, which seems to suggest that either Cannon is unaware of, or not concerned about _truly _seeing to it that their sensors continue to be the best, I'm suddenly less critical of those who are vocal about wanting more DR at low ISOs.

They serve a purpose, even when they annoy the heck out of most of us.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 25, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> In light of this "official" comment, which seems to suggest that either Cannon is unaware of, or not concerned about _truly _seeing to it that their sensors continue to be the best, I'm suddenly less critical of those who are vocal about wanting more DR at low ISOs.
> 
> They serve a purpose, even when they annoy the heck out of most of us.


Fair enough. But this is only valid, if they are heard on the right places, not just on bulletin boards


----------



## jonjt (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> @Zlatko: Your turning a general statement into a personal issue. THAT...right there...is the problem with these forums. Stop making it personal. It's not. There is absolutely zero reason to take issue with someone elses statement like that, because you are ASSUMING something about what they have said. Your creating mountains out of molehills, like so many others here.
> 
> This whole "Not everyone is like you" argument is really getting old. It is like it's intentionally making everything personal, which is exactly what we don't need. Sure, everyone is different. But everyone also falls into groups of like-minded individuals. No one ever has truly unique wants and needs. There isn't just one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera.
> 
> ...



Could you expound on what "so far ahead" means? I'm curious why Canon's sensors are dead last in terms of performance and innovation.

Thanks


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 25, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Admittedly, the DR arguments were until very recently, annoying the ever loving crap out of me.
> 
> Then I read a blog entry by the person behind the former fake Chuck Westfall site and if there was one point he made that stuck with me, it was that people need to be vocal if they want change. He was trolling, for sure, but he made a compelling argument as to why.
> 
> ...



I'll give you a good reason to be vocal about this even if you, like me, don't find current base ISO DR to be a problem.

That being, improving base ISO DR will happen primarily by reducing read noise. Reducing read noise means cleaner images, and that means you can be more aggressive about sharpening and other processing if you want to be. So, even if you don't need more base ISO DR, having it will still give you cleaner images over the DR you are using.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 25, 2014)

I would love to provide a reasonable statement here regarding the interview, but it would easily drown in the shouts and short stories. So I'll just sit back and read http://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-Arguments-and-Debates in another browser-tab while the storm settles. I'm sure it will enlighten me just as much.


----------



## pierlux (Sep 25, 2014)

Oh, boys, I'm switching to... macrumors.  (for a while...  )


----------



## powershot2012 (Sep 25, 2014)

Are these sensor going to be coming from Sony as well?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 25, 2014)

Anyone want to place a bet on what "very near future" means?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 25, 2014)

Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing? 

I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work. To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them. But, that's me. 

Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS. PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera. The cart is before the horse, no?

Just food for thought. 
Brian


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2014)

MintChocs said:


> Who are these higher resolution customers, one might ask? I can only think of two groups, landscape and studio. By the time Canon bring their product to the table, there will not be much room left on it! Unless they improve the dynamic range on a product aimed for landscape pros all those extra megapixels will be as useful as a chocolate teapot.  For studio photographers I see the costs dropping for MF though not to the same extent as it is a small market but maybe enough to attract more people who would otherwise have bought this Canon higher megapixel. The only reason I can think of for Canon not improving their sensors is the profit margin. Building a new fabrication plant would impact on their profits and share price something they don't want to do until they absolutely have too, they may never build one and instead in the future just buy in sensors as they foresee that there is no future profit to be made in a declining market.



I don't know how representative I am, but as a wildlife enthusiast I'd like more megapixels to help with cropping. Even with very long lenses you can't always get close enough.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 25, 2014)

MintChocs said:


> Who are these higher resolution customers, one might ask? I can only think of two groups, landscape and studio.



Your lack of photographic imagination limits your argumentative flow.

I take 98+% portraits and seriously need_ a lot_ more pixels. Anything less than 32 MP in a 5DIV would be a killer argument for me to jump ship.

But great news that it seems my next DSLR may still be a Canon. Have to believe they will want to match the D810 very closely. 

Go 5DIV!!!


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> Either they are just trying to cover their ass on their sensor technology, which is way behind the pack...or they are really just plain and simply delusional...



I understand your reaction but having worked with many Japanese companies - including Canon - I see the response as very typical of how a Japanese manager would react to such criticism. 

First of all the question will likely be seen as disrespectful or at least unfair. Second the manager has to be seen as defending his company's honor to the very last by underlining his pride in Canon's product line (even by Japanese standards Canon is a very self-aware company). Finally, I am sure Canon top management value the reference to their superior "overall" sensor quality as an excellent answer as it effectively ends any discussion about possible specific shortcomings.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

bbasiaga said:


> Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing?
> 
> I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work. To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them. But, that's me.
> 
> ...



I think that has a lot to do with it ... the use of Photoshop, Lightroom, and similar. Some forum experts seem to have one and only one solution for every problem: pushing software sliders. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_all_you_have_is_a_hammer,_everything_looks_like_a_nail
That's not to put down "hammers" (i.e. software sliders) — we need them — but the world of photography was built on a wide range of techniques and processes.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 25, 2014)

bbasiaga said:


> Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing?
> 
> I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work. To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them. But, that's me.
> 
> ...



No.

I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me. The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> bbasiaga said:
> 
> 
> > Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing?
> ...



That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 25, 2014)

To get some idea of what DSLR video users think of Canon, read this interview on eoshd and the associated forum comments:

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7178-canon-interview-at-photokina-2014-7d-mark-ii-magic-lantern-and-moire/

It is fairly clear that the video community thinks that the 7D2 (as well similar Canon products) are a fail. The Canon reps seem pretty clueless about the needs of the community, although I suppose that might be because they have been placed in a situation where they have to sell pigs ears and pretend they are silk purses


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 25, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > bbasiaga said:
> ...



I think you guys are probably in the minority. I read "I want it to look like what I saw" quite often, but then the people writing it load up their flickr streams with razor-thin DOF and desaturated images, water blurred to a fog and polarized skies. Things I have personally never seen in real life.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 25, 2014)

Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look. 
Which is not necessarily the way I saw a scene. Or imagined it. Or what the scene would have looked like to some other people. 



3kramd5 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look.



This is a really interesting point, unfortunately buried ot in a trash talk "dr / high res" thread so few people will join the discussion.

Personally, I am with the previous poster because I find that postprocessing is needed to create an accurate resemblance of what I saw and felt - this means directing the view, modifying the colors not to be over the top and giving a feel of direction/movement even in a still shot. Thin dof *does* help to achieve this, but how thin depends on the output/view size and it mustn't be there just to demonstrate you're able to afford a f1.2 lens on a ff.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

Tugela said:


> To get some idea of what DSLR video users think of Canon, read this interview on eoshd and the associated forum comments:
> 
> http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7178-canon-interview-at-photokina-2014-7d-mark-ii-magic-lantern-and-moire/
> 
> It is fairly clear that the video community thinks that the 7D2 (as well similar Canon products) are a fail. The Canon reps seem pretty clueless about the needs of the community, although I suppose that might be because they have been placed in a situation where they have to sell pigs ears and pretend they are silk purses



Forum commenters don't necessarily represent "the video community". People who dislike something and complain like to be heard, and forums give them a rich opportunity to that and to commiserate with others who are like-minded. People who are happy with a product typically just buy it and use it a lot; they don't feel as compelled to talk about it. 

Pretty much *every* successful Canon camera has been met with an amazing outpouring of complaints and criticisms on internet forums, and yet has been successful in the actual market. If people aren't complaining about the features, they're complaining about the price or the timing or something. If you read internet forums, nothing is ever enough. Every product is bashed as "that's what its predecessor should have been" or "it should include the same features as the more expensive model" and so on.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look.
> ...



Post-processing is an integral part of photography and has been from the start. I think the point was about the degree to which people push the post-processing, and the degree to which they rely on post-processing to the exclusion of other techniques, and then complain that a sensor can't withstand their special needs for extreme post-processing, and then finally conclude that it's a bad sensor.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2014)

yes it is interesting. Once I got the image on my screen, THAT is what I work with, no matter what I or others may have originally seen on scene when capturing the image.

Thin DOF .. only to some extent for me. I will move from APS-C to FF soon, to get thin enough DOF from f/28 zooms. To me, f/2.8 on FF provides enough power to control DOF. Shooting even wider open makes things unnessarily more difficult to me - AF hit rate suffers and I am forced to pay inordinate amounts of attention to exactly place the focal plane on the forefront of the eyeball rather than on the eyelashes or too far back etc. ... it seriously distracts me from capturing the right moment, the right image overall. I don't want to be a "photo mechanic", no dial twister, no knob turner, no "camera operator", but rather an observer, a seer and a capturer. 

And thin DOF requires fixed focal lenses. Potentially even very expensive ones, that I rarely ever use. Don't really like those 1-trick ponies. 3 f/2.8 zooms on FF is all I need. Holy trinity and be done with. Actually for 16-35 the f/4 would do for me. 

btw. I don't use PS. Hate the guts of the UI of that program. Lightroom only and whatever is possible with it. v5 is pretty good already.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 25, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > To get some idea of what DSLR video users think of Canon, read this interview on eoshd and the associated forum comments:
> ...



No one is going to buy a Canon camera for video. They might buy them for stills, but if video is important they will buy a Panasonic or Sony (and perhaps a Samsung, depending on how that camera turns out). The EOSHD community caters specifically to that demographic, so the fact that the camera is met with such disappointment there should tell you something, if you are prepared to listen (and, it seems, many here are not prepared to do that).


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I will move from APS-C to FF soon



... "soon"  ? You were the one waiting for a good Canon sensor in the famed 5d4, weren't you? Good luck with that 



AvTvM said:


> And thin DOF requires fixed focal lenses. Potentially even very expensive ones, that I rarely ever use. Don't really like those 1-trick ponies. 3 f/2.8 zooms on FF is all I need. Holy trinity and be done with. Actually for 16-35 the f/4 would do for me.



I understand f2.8 happens to be the sweet spot for zooms between size/weight and max open aperture. But on ff, my f4 zooms produce a dof thin enough for the 6d's af system to struggle, and they're small, light and cheaper. As we know, it simply depends on the camera-subject-background distance relation and f2.8 on a wide angle won't help you at all if your subject is standing in front of a wall.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 25, 2014)

Tugela said:


> No one is going to buy a Canon camera for video.



I will. My primary application is to shoot videos of the very high speed subjects of which I shoot stills. First, I don't want to have to have two separate systems and, second, dual-pixel focusing should make shooting those movies of the high speed subjects much more doable.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look.
> Which is not necessarily the way I saw a scene. Or imagined it. Or what the scene would have looked like to some other people.



Exactly. 

And I shoot thin (macro) DOF sometimes. But even my f/2.8 portraits don't look on screen/print the way the model and particularly what's behind the model looked when I saw them. 

I also blur moving water, use polarizers, etc.

If every photo I shot looked like what I saw, I'd have a pretty boring library


----------



## RodS57 (Sep 25, 2014)

Old Sarge said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



You sound just like me. One of us should go look in the mirror. ;D

Back on topic: I don't see why people are venting because of the interview. The gentleman that was interviewed was allowed to give the interview because he has the one required skill - he can talk for hours and say nothing.

Look at the 7D2. Right up to the official announcement there was no concrete information regarding specs. Even now, weeks after the announcement the camera is still a mystery. A UFO = unidentified fotographer's object.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 25, 2014)

RodS57 said:


> Back on topic: I don't see why people are venting because of the interview. The gentleman that was interviewed was allowed to give the interview because he has the one required skill - he can talk for hours and say nothing.



+infinity!
It is hilarious that pages after pages are being filled discussing some predictions that can be guessed by anyone with half a brain and some claims any big market leader is bound to make.
It is also quite disappointing to see some of the best contributors of this forum argue for argument's sake.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 25, 2014)

@jrista. I get it. You're an engineer or a scientist, right? Your entire post is about the fabrication of sensors and is based on terminology that non-engineer, non-scientist photographers don't use. You are very, very interested in the fabrication of sensors. You know all about how they're made, how they work, how they're measured, etc. You know the language of sensors, the theory of sensors, the history of sensors, etc. That is awesome and as it should be. You could probably go to the Sony sensor factory and understand how everything works, and you could have a great conversation with their engineers and scientists. It's like a chemist knowing all about the chemistry at Kodak or Polaroid. Very cool. 

Obviously, that's not my perspective on photography. So let's suppose you are correct in every technical detail that you cite. Does it matter? If you're making sensors, absolutely. If you're making photographs the way the vast majority of photographers make photographs, both pro and amateur, none of that matters as much as the quality they see in their own photographs. For them, that is the test of a good camera (and the sensor inside it). They don't need to ever know about or speak about fabs, 500nm processes, nanometers, die spaces, 200mm wafers, linear signals, silicon, or the like. If you're speaking to engineers and scientists, that's the stuff to talk about. If you're speaking about photography as most people practice it, that stuff is all deep "under the hood". 

Most photographers use their cameras in the way that most drivers use their cars. They don't build them or need to know the ins and outs of what goes on at the factory. Drivers don't need to argue about which robots Ford should be using, etc. Yes, the workings of the factory are essential facts for people at the factory. But they are utterly irrelevant to the typical photographer's understanding of how to operate the camera/sensor. Whether using Canon, Nikon, Sony, or something else, highly renowned, skilled and successful photographers around the world are producers of photographs and connoisseurs of photographs. They are not producers and connoisseurs of sensors, wafers, nm processes, quantum efficiency, and the like.

That's why I talk about facts and _relevant_ facts. For most non-engineer, non-scientist photographers, the relevant facts are the _photographs_ they make. That's where Canon has been delivering great stuff — that's where their sensors deliver beautifully — albeit not for every photographer or for every task. We see the results in photojournalism, advertising, movies, etc. every day. For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"


----------



## Woody (Sep 26, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III



Do you have a link to prove this?

Also, according to DXOMark, the RX100 Mk 1, 2 and 3 sensors are nearly identical in performance with Mk 1 only being very slightly behind for low light ISO.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> It would be so much more ideal to just have Canon deliver the goods...a kick-ass sensor paired with their wonderful ergonomics and all the lenses I already own.



+1 ... exactly!


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 26, 2014)

Out of curiosity, is it possible to put a nikon sensor on a canon camera?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
> ...



I believe you trust your judgment too much, especially with the knowledge of EXIF and the photographers gear. I suspect that a decent photographer could shoot with either Nikon or Canon and show you images and you wouldn't have a clue which was shot with which. This isn't a personal dig, if you noticed I normally leave threads now when somebody takes a huge swing at me, it is an honest observation of human psychology. We all do it, but normally fail double blind tests.

Post processes, including different RAW converters, make vastly more difference to the final image than any difference in system. Pretty much any system deficit can be worked around when using the other system if absolutely needed.


----------



## The Flasher (Sep 26, 2014)

... I am not in the market for the 7d2 nor the 1dx nor the 5d3, for me the 6d has just been the most amazing commercial tool ito features and price/quality ratio. The lamented low 'dynamic' range everyone complains about has been a non event practically speaking in my experience. The 6d sensor has an amazing ability to capture highlights, which are more important to me than shadow detail....I am not really into HDR looking images...[/quote]

I'm in the exact same boat as you. I bought a 6d as a stop gap measure until canon releases a high MP body, and have been surprised at how great this camera really is. Commercial client to hold a tablet and review images as we shoot. Great image quality, light in the hand, etc. My hope for 6D2 would be a flip screen and second SD slot. 

J


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Were stuck looking elsewhere for someone to service our needs, and for those who don't want to or don't have the money to add a D810 and a few Nikon lenses to our kit (which can rapidly approach $8-10k if you pick up a few lenses)



Unload that 600mm f/4 and you're half way there ;D Just make up for that extra reach by cropping into the D810s massive resolution and call it day ;D


----------



## Etienne (Sep 26, 2014)

Woody said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III
> ...



Two things:

1. The RX100 mk III is 20.1 MP, mk I and mk II are 20.2 MP as is the Canon G7x

2. DP Review interviewed Sony rep who confirmed that Sony does not sell their most current sensors to anyone, but keeps it for their own cameras. Sony sells only the sensors that no longer have unique value.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



I don't know about 1, but 2 is patently false. The D800/D800E/D810 has been demonstrably "better" than the Sony A7R and where is the Sony 50mp camera that is currently sold by Pentax, Hassleblad and PhaseOne all with a Sony sensor?

The Sony rep was spinning a line in the hopes that gullible people would take a bite.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

zlatko said:


> For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"



I keep seeing this or statements like this. "You can't tell the difference in the final product!" Yeah, no duh. You can't tell what tools were used to build the house you're living in either but that doesn't mean that all tools are the same and that they don't matter. I'm sure I could show you tons of pictures taken with 20D's or D90's and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 5DIII's and D810's. The end product isn't how you judge the tool, its how you judge the craftsman/artist. Cameras are tools and the photos are what are produced by photographers. Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but _because it makes the job easier_. I don't understand why people seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. AF makes your job easier. Accurate TTL metering makes your job easier. Frame bursts and fast shutter speeds make your job easier. You can't see any of that in a picture, but it sure is nice to have, right?

One last thing about this interminable argument and then I'm out because it _is_ pretty dumb at this point - have all of you that are saying that more DR isn't necessary, lifting shadows is for bad photogs, etc, actually manipulated the Exmor side by side with the Canon? RAWs have been made available here in several threads. I didn't care at all one way or another about this debate until I _actually looked at the files_. Its literally night and day. Once you see what the Exmor is capable of in post, the thought that immediately came to mind was "Holy shit I wish my camera could do that!" Its nuts. I don't think its possible to really appreciate the difference unless you do it yourself.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
> ...



Which threads and which images?


----------



## zlatko (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
> ...



"Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but _because it makes the job easier_." — I agree. So why do so many highly skilled, highly successful, highly renowned photographers seek out and stick with Canon? Because they feel it is the best tool available for their particular work. That's completely consistent with your point, and shows how the 500nm process isn't the huge problem that sensor critics say it is. Obviously, some other equally skilled, successful and renowned photographers choose other brands because those are the best for their particular work. 

More DR is nice to have but whether it's "necessary" depends on your work. Did you notice how many photographers built their careers on limited-DR slide film? Why didn't they choose the "best tools" available, such as color negative film with its greater DR? Because they *did* choose the best tool available — the best tools aren't necessarily defined by a DR test chart. How much DR is needed varies greatly from one photographer to the next. Some need a lot, some don't. Obviously Canon is already providing enough DR for heck of a lot of photographers.

I don't need to go looking for Exmor RAW files. I have thousands shot for me by Nikon-using 2nd photographers. If I ever need to fix extreme underexposure, I'm sure those files will outperform. Thankfully fixing extreme underexposure hasn't been a problem so far. So, until then, they are about the same as my Canon files.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
> ...



I fall into the camp of, would I say no to more DR from my canon? No, of course not. I really doubt that any of those here who are saying it's not that big of a deal are like anti-DR. Would I take more, of course I would! But, that doesn't mean that I'm swearing at my screen with every file I edit, because the work I am doing doesn't demand super intense shadow lifting. 

Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social [email protected]!!!). It's rather preachy, like religion. Sorry, not all of us need to push shadows 5 stops in post. 

Like you said, you can't tell what tools were used to build the house your living in. If Canon sensors were as inferior as the pro DR folks would have us all believe then yes, you would be able to tell the difference. But, to continue the house metaphor, you give the same budget and material to 2 architects with differing styles of building - take it to the extreme, one ultra modern vs one specializing in Victorian style homes. the results would then be very different. 

Sorry, but the sensor alone only matters in sensor tests. If we all only shot that still life setup we always see on image IQ tests then yeah, the sensor wins. but this is the real world and there are potentially thousands of factors that go into a final image - the sensor is only one of them....


----------



## daniela (Sep 26, 2014)

It is good that Canon will respond on existing and coming competitors. I heared from girlfriends in Japan that there will be an small revolution in Mirrorless Cameras in 2015. All big Camera producer have realized that the market likes small and capable Cameras. 
The autofocus system of coming ML Cams will be upgraded and an new generation of high MP sensors will appear. With better low light capacities. Rumored are a 24MP "low light" sensor and an better 36MP sensor (DR, noise) and maybe an big MP sensor around 50MP to compete the MF market. The lens problem has been acknowledged and there will appear better high-end lenses in 2015 & 16. 

From Canon is said, that the next M... Camera will be much better, around 24MP and faster at AF. Some say, the AF system of the 70D will be built in. Price much higher than the exisitng M2.
Nikon will do the same on its 1 series.


----------



## mirrorless (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
> ...


Yes, but that's not because he uses D800, but instead Marc manually blends separate exposures in a lot of his work => most of the photos are actually HDR. His photos look very nice, but some of them are bit too unreal.
https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/surreal-landscape-marc-adamus-3957


----------



## lo lite (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
> ...



Well, look what I saw this morning:


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

lo lite said:


> Well, look what I saw this morning



Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 26, 2014)

keithfullermusic said:


> Out of curiosity, is it possible to put a nikon sensor on a canon camera?



Not possible. You will have two problems 1) the electronics are different between the sensor and camera 2) the software used by the camera depends on the kind of sensor it comes with.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.



Even if its not a tangible promise I'm more hopeful of the "very near future". The important thing is Canon's admission its customers need more MP.

Since the real competition is a hot selling Nikon 36MP 810 at around 3.200$ I'd be very, very, very surprised if Canon thinks launching a 8.000$  monster MP camera will satisfy their customers.

Meanwhile you can get a D610 (we're not even talking D810 or new Nikon 7xx here) with somewhat better raw files than the 5DIII for 1.700$. Canon understands they need to answer asap.

Come on Canon; give us that killer 5DIV!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> The important thing is Canon's admission its customers need more MP.



I wouldn't interpret it this way, imho Canon just stated the obvious - *some* (select) applications like studio or maybe landscape work might need higher resolution, just as higher dynamic range only benefits just a part of photogs. In no way they're up to questioning their past product policy, so certainly no killer 5d4 in sight.


----------



## xps (Sep 26, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.
> ...



They will not build an "killer" 5DIV. Canon will improve the 5DIV a little bit. AF system of the 7DII with more double cross sensors. 24MP, a little bit more image quality, a little bit of lesser noise at high Isos....
500€ higher priced .... and ready is the 5DIV.


----------



## xps (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > Well, look what I saw this morning
> ...



The 6D and the 5DIII are still sold well. The pricedrop phushed both cams again. Maybe there is an near replacement, but i do not think so too. Another reason why Canon will hold such a replacement back, is the 7DII. I think, they will wait until the 7DII hype is over (let us say 1 year), then maybe they announce an successor of the 6D or 5DIII. An near announcement of an very high priced 1D_XY _ will not depress 7DII sales.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 26, 2014)

daniela said:


> From Canon is said, that the next M... Camera will be much better, around 24MP and faster at AF. Some say, the AF system of the 70D will be built in. Price much higher than the exisitng M2.



the last sentence is the one I believe at face value. 

EOS M3 with EVF and slightly iterated 70D sensor and articulated touch screen is the bare minimum Canon needs to do. And if they believe I will pay anything more for it than what a 70D costs, they are plain wrong. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I suspect that a decent photographer could shoot with either Nikon or Canon and show .... wouldn't have a clue which was shot with which. ...it is an honest observation of human psychology. We all do it, but normally fail double blind tests.



Knowing the difference in advance makes it easy to see what you expect. It can even reveal unconscious biases, as has been confirmed by ample neuropsychological testing. 




zlatko said:


> "Any craftsman or artist would like to have the best tools available, not because it affects what you see in the final product, but _because it makes the job easier_." — I agree. So why do so many highly skilled, highly successful, highly renowned photographers seek out and stick with Canon? Because they feel it is the best tool available for their particular work.



Exactly.


----------



## sanj (Sep 26, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, is it possible to put a nikon sensor on a canon camera?
> ...



You actually replied to that question?


----------



## sanj (Sep 26, 2014)

mirrorless said:


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



Yes. Beautiful. Unreal. HDR. Could be easily replicated by Canon but _perhaps_ easier with newer Nikons.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 26, 2014)

xps said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > lo lite said:
> ...



Remember he difference between being announced and being release. In the year of the 1dx, the 1dx was announced in November, and the 5d3 wasn't announced until March - but the 5d3 was released and available within a month of announcement while the 1dx wasn't avaialble fort he general public to buy until summer of that year. If they follow their own history, yeah, we may very well see the official announcement for the studio soon, that is of course if this thing is gonna be around by the summer of 2015.

Also, I am kind of hopeful that they will split the line - have the 5d series be about event work, low light work, and then have a big mp body in a 5d style shell. This won't interfere with either because this would hopefully be a totally different beast --- I would be real happy with a 40 MP canon that only has a burst rate of 2 fps. If i were to ever buy such a camera, maximum burst rate would not be a big concern to me (do you really need 10 fps to shoot a landscape image, or a model in a studio shoot (would your strobes ever have a chance in hell of keeping up with 10 fps?????). the 1 series big mp would get a larger buffer and thus greater fps, but even there i don't see the point ---splitt he lines I say...I would love to have the extra bump for about 20% of my work - the remaining 80% though will never see print, or if it does, it's a 4x6 or in an album...so all that extra mp just means extra HD space is needed....


----------



## xps (Sep 26, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Yesssss, this would be a senseful decision, if Canon does so. Agree and hope that it comes true...
I would like to see an "low Fps" camera with an superb IQ and some more MP. And for sports the 7DII, as I do not want to spend 6000€ for an body....


----------



## jonjt (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> jonjt said:
> 
> 
> > Could you expound on what "so far ahead" means? I'm curious why Canon's sensors are dead last in terms of performance and innovation.
> ...



Thanks for the info. I'll save my money until Canon moves to smaller processes, perhaps a BSI architecture, even.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 26, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I hope they split the line too. They won't make the camera I want, but I'd take a 12 MP low light monster, with awesome video (no moire or aliasing, DPAF, focus aids, etc etc) and swivel touchscreen.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

jonjt said:


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



I just wanted to do a full jrista quote at least one time, too  ...

... and care to comment that you have to take care of inflation, because when Canon has moved to a smaller process, faveon or quantum sensors it might be 2100 and you're money has gone :->


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Haha that's an interesting point. I do also like to use cameras to capture things that the eye cannot; macro, wide aperture work, long exposures, astrophotography. I suppose what I meant was (and should have been clearer about) on average, a raw image coming out of the camera needs work if it is to have the colour balance and (dare I use the term) dynamic range that my eyes saw. I recognise that it's still an approximation, an artificial concept. But SOOC images are further from the eye (in my experience) than further processed ones.

Incidentally, on the subject of things like blurry water - well our eyes can't take single snapshots, so in that sense _all _still images are unlike what we see. A short exposure freezing the water would be just as artificial.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



I believe the decision to with hold the newest sensors from competitors by Sony is a relatively new decision made earlier this year. The D800/D800E were released before this decision. 

The 50mp sensor is medium format and Sony does not have a medium format camera system. They have worked with Hassleblad before. I think the state of Hassleblad financially was what lead to Pentax and PhaseOne also getting the sensor. The D800/D800E/D810 are Nikon and it has been proven time and time again that Nikon adds proprietary processing before writing data to the "RAW" file. 

Both Nikon and Pentax have been getting better results then Sony from Sony senors for a while now. This is why people in the Sony world complaining about the Sony RAW files not being real RAW files. Sony sensor division also makes more money selling sensor to Nikon then its own camera division.

You will not see any competitors using the sensor in the 7s and there new high end P/S sensors in competitor cameras for a year at least. This is what the Sony exec was talking about.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



We will see. Sony needs to earn some serious money from somewhere, if the camera division can't do it and the sensor division is then I don't see them being able to hold out for too long, especially considering the other Sony divisions performance. If they were not a successful insurance company that supports it all we wouldn't have a Sony left at all.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > The important thing is Canon's admission its customers need more MP.
> ...



I'm curious to understand who wouldn't benefit from higher DR?


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> I'm curious to understand who wouldn't benefit from higher DR?



Obviously people shooting "low"-dr scenes <11ev @low iso or <8ev @very high iso ... that would include a lot of indoor shots or any shots with controlled lighting. And if you can bracket the scene, "high" dr is just a convenience, but most landscape will have more than 14ev anyway. The central issue fixed by higher dr are scenes with movement in high contrast natural lighting.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 26, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Everybody can benefit in certain situations. But there is a difference between wanting it and needing it. Some people need it, some just want it, and some don't care. It's like having a car that can do 110 miles per hour. If the fastest you ever drive is 65 miles per hour, then you're all set as your car does a splendid job of going 65 miles per hour, and it's reliable and has a bunch of other features you like. Now your neighbor comes along and he says his car can do 150 miles per hour. Wow, that is an awesome spec, clearly better right?! So you start to feel jealous and think about buying the same car as your neighbor. But will it make a difference in your life such as when you drive to work? Well, there are in fact situations in which it may be a benefit to have the neighbor's car. But you may also rationally conclude that your car serves you extremely well and will continue to do so, even though it's "limited" to just the old-style 110 miles per hour.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 26, 2014)

zlatko said:


> roby17269 said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I don't think anyone here is ever going to complain about an increase in DR. In fact when Canon leapfrogs Sony on DR, we will all be boasting :
I'm not jumping ship for anything I've seen yet in other DSLRs. But video stuff from Sony looks promising.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social [email protected]!!!). It's rather preachy, like religion.



This is pretty much how I feel. It seems to have got worse over the last few months. Like, if only they shout enough, we'll see the light. How can we not? It's so blindingly obvious! But it's just not a priority for me. I don't like being called a fanboy or an apologist by association just because I'm not upset about the same thing some other people are.


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> The 50mp sensor is medium format and Sony does not have a medium format camera system. They have worked with Hassleblad before. I think the state of Hassleblad financially was what lead to Pentax and PhaseOne also getting the sensor. The D800/D800E/D810 are Nikon and it has been proven time and time again that Nikon adds *proprietary processing before writing data to the "RAW" file*.



This is actually true of Canon now as well. DIGIC 6 processes the data before writing it to the RAW file. The 7D II will probably be fairly impressive at ISO 16000 for an APS-C camera. It'll be impressive because the data written won't really be truly "RAW"...it'll be cooked, just like a Nikon camera. The other thing Nikon does is clip blacks, instead of setting a bias offset. That tends to result in cleaner shadows, but it's discarding a little bit of data that could be useful in certain circumstances (such as astrophotography...which is the reason a hack was created to remove the black point clip and restore the bias offset, as it restores the linearity of the signal in Nikon cameras.) 

For what it's worth, the A7s, a powerhouse at high ISO, also cooks the raw data. The BoinzX chip is very similar to the DIGIC 6 (I honestly don't know which has the superior design or approach...we'll have to see.) It too does noise reduction on the RAW data before writing it out to the file.

Cooking the RAW is probably going to be a standard practice now. Even if you reduce read noise, at high ISO, IQ is ultimately going to be photon shot noise limited. You can increase Q.E., but the high end sensors like the one in the A7s are already at 67%. There is maybe a third of a stop of "real" improvement to be made in the sensor itself by increasing Q.E. to 100% (which is doable, but expensive...at least currently...it may become cost effective at some point in the future.) Any other gains are going to have to be made either by increasing the sensor area (i.e. medium format sensor), or by processing the RAW data. For established camera systems, increasing the sensor size isn't an option...hence the reason everyone is cooking their RAWs now.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social [email protected]!!!). It's rather preachy, like religion.
> ...


+∞

Though I do make the occasional half hearted effort to push back it only seems to rile them up more.

I am no a fanboy or an apologist, and I resist being preached to let alone shouted at.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

PrinceMarkus said:


> Guys you miss the point.
> 
> It´s not only HERE... it´s all over the web.
> 
> ...



As opposed to the Nikon D300/S update that took a more modest seven years and counting..........


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2014)

PrinceMarkus said:


> Guys you miss the point.
> 
> It´s not only HERE... it´s all over the web.
> 
> ...



DSLRs are a pretty mature technology. If mirrorless is advancing faster, it's because they are newer, and still finding their way. DSLRs *don't* need to change fundamentally every year, because in many ways they already work well.

Choose whatever analogy you like. Mobile phones have advanced massively in a generation; home phones much less so. Because one has been around a lot longer than the other. And because one already does what it needs to do.


----------



## canonvoir (Sep 26, 2014)

Give me a 5Diii with a lot more megapixels and lose the mirror. Go EVF. I would be happy for landscape photography. I want to keep using my L glass but would like to see mirrorless bodies have a presence in full frame without an adapter when using EF glass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

PrinceMarkus said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > PrinceMarkus said:
> ...



And Canon is a corporation with the main objective of pleasing their shareholders, not you, if nobody releases a competing body why would they? As it is we are lucky they got bored holding off with the 7D MkII. Competition drives innovation, for the APS "sports" camera market there is no competition, load in the 400 f5.6 which also desperately needs IS and an update but again has no competition, and it is difficult to look anywhere other than Canon for that niche.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 26, 2014)

PrinceMarkus said:


> Guys you miss the point.
> 
> It´s not only HERE... it´s all over the web.
> 
> ...



That was important, to put the AF system of a $6K camera into a $2K camera? First of all, I didn't expect a $2K camera to match a $6K camera in AF or anything else. Second, the original 7D already had an excellent AF system, better than the 5D2. Third, Canon has released a bunch of great products in the past 5 years, including some unique technologies like dual-pixel AF for video, flash with built-in radio control, and the new anti-flicker feature on the 7D2. Canon also makes some photo gear that no one else does, like the zoom fisheye and the 17T-SE. And those "old" sensors are doing a fantastic job for a lot of photographers.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 26, 2014)

scyrene said:


> DSLRs are a pretty mature technology. If mirrorless is advancing faster, it's because they are newer, and still finding their way. DSLRs *don't* need to change fundamentally every year, because in many ways they already work well.
> 
> Choose whatever analogy you like. Mobile phones have advanced massively in a generation; home phones much less so. Because one has been around a lot longer than the other. And because one already does what it needs to do.



Good points! The product with the greatest innovation isn't necessarily the one that's best on for the job. Otherwise pro sports photographers would be photographing the Super Bowl with their phones.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > The 50mp sensor is medium format and Sony does not have a medium format camera system. They have worked with Hassleblad before. I think the state of Hassleblad financially was what lead to Pentax and PhaseOne also getting the sensor. The D800/D800E/D810 are Nikon and it has been proven time and time again that Nikon adds *proprietary processing before writing data to the "RAW" file*.
> ...



I did not mean to imply that Sony did not precook their RAW files. Only that Pentax and Nikon are better a precooking their RAW files.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > No one is going to buy a Canon camera for video.
> ...



Then you will be shooting substandard footage.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 26, 2014)

Maiaibing said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.
> ...



But they said the similar things about video features, and look at the junk they gave us in the 7D2. Either they were selling their user base a line or they are completely clueless. Neither option is a good one.

I think they will say anything to stop you from jumping ship to competitors and instead wait for "stuff coming soon". Things like "we are working hard on it", "we see the importance of it" or "it is coming soon" are meaningless drivel.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 26, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Well, I could have great footage that's out of focus or substandard footage that's in focus.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> roby17269 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious to understand who wouldn't benefit from higher DR?
> ...



I do fashion photography mostly in studio (hobby) and it is often a high-contrast affair with plenty of latitude. I could certainly use better shadow recovery at ISO 100 than what my 1D X offers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > roby17269 said:
> ...



Why? It is a studio, you have complete control over the light and contrast!


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 26, 2014)

zlatko said:


> roby17269 said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Fine - what if I do fashion photography (which I do - hobby) and what if I need to see details in a black dress (which happens). 
Also... circumstances do change, you know? I was into wildlife/macro before I realized I could not afford frequent African safaris and moved to fashion photography. Needs do change. What was good time ago may not necessarily be good enough anymore.
I hope Canon does respond because I am too invested in their lenses (which I like a lot), I like the ergonomics / AF of my 1D X, I dislike adaptors and lossy RAW compression (so no Sony A7r unless they improve it) and I have not enough money to switch to Nikon (and in any case if I had the money I'd buy a MF digital back, but an older model with a CCD sensor)


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> roby17269 said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Having control does not mean that I want low contrast. Usually it is the opposite


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > roby17269 said:
> ...



You can have very high contrast and no issues with shadow detail, you are in control! 

It is like people who blast two lights at full power onto the background and then have all kinds of scatter and pollution to worry about, make the blacks just black and create an import profile with a touch of the "Blacks" slider and you are done. Very high contrast and as much shadow detail as you want with zero noise.

Stop thinking camera exposure, start thinking light for the optimal exposure to get the look I want when combined with an import profile, it will save you a shitload of time and money and get you the results you want with the gear you have.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You can have very high contrast and no issues with shadow detail, you are in control!
> 
> It is like people who blast two lights at full power onto the background and then have all kinds of scatter and pollution to worry about, make the blacks just black and create an import profile with a touch of the "Blacks" slider and you are done. Very high contrast and as much shadow detail as you want with zero noise.
> 
> Stop thinking camera exposure, start thinking light for the optimal exposure to get the look I want when combined with an import profile, it will save you a shitload of time and money and get you the results you want with the gear you have.


This is what I do
http://robertodemicheli.4ormat.com/
I know my light modifiers and I've played with high end equipment (profoto and broncolor)
I'd rather not be patronized thanks


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> I do fashion photography mostly in studio (hobby) and it is often a high-contrast affair with plenty of latitude. I could certainly use better shadow recovery at ISO 100 than what my 1D X offers.



It's true that the 1dx doesn't have superior iso 100 performance, actually the data says that the infamous read noise problem produces even *more* dr at iso 200: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html

The newer 6d has a bit better dr and (even) less pattern noise, but nevertheless, to really get into trouble with 11+ stops even after proper postprocessing and best exposure you have to have really difficult conditions like shooting wedding dresses?

Edit: Saw your website, your post crossed mine. Your shots are definitely tricky, at what print/view size are you getting problems with shadow noise? Or is it realyl that your in-studio lighting exceeds the sensor's dynamic range? I'm not trying to contradict you, just out of curiosity.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Obviously people shooting "low"-dr scenes <11ev @low iso or <8ev @very high iso ... that would include a lot of indoor shots or any shots with controlled lighting. And if you can bracket the scene, "high" dr is just a convenience, but most landscape will have more than 14ev anyway. The central issue fixed by higher dr are scenes with movement in high contrast natural lighting.



When you say "high" dr is just a convenience, you realize that you could say that about almost any technological improvement in photography ever, right? AF, metering, TTL flash control, whatever, its all just convenience. 

Anyway, I have a whole lot of photos of whiteheaded woodpeckers shot in 3/4 sunlight that I would love to have cleaner shadows. Black and white birds, shot to preserve the highlights, means I have to lift the shadows to get any detail in the black feathers and there is just a ton of noise, even at ISO200. Its pretty much exactly the situation you touched on at the end there. When I messed with a .NEF and realized how much additional latitude is present on the Sensor That Shall Not Be Named I was kind of bummed that Canon isn't interested in improving shadow latitude. I'm holding out hope that the 7DII has some improvement there, and I'm definitely going to try it side-by-side with my rig when it makes it to stores.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You can have very high contrast and no issues with shadow detail, you are in control!
> ...



I am not patronising you, I am giving you a kick up the butt, there is no more than seven stops of DR in your opening page, if you are reaching into shadows to recover detail there is something wrong with your technique, that is just a fact. Take it from me anonymously or learn it in time from somebody in person, I don't care. You have 100% control over everything, hell even your beach shots have so much flash power you can control the blacks and contrast to 1/10 stop.

If you got me to "assist" I'd have you shooting tethered into Capture One and have you dialed in with limitless shadow detail in under an hour, for life.

And don't think I am acting like some internet hero, I am not, I am sure I could learn as much if not more from you, than you could from me, but that doesn't mean either of us will ever know enough.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> When you say "high" dr is just a convenience, you realize that you could say that about almost any technological improvement in photography ever, right? AF, metering, TTL flash control, whatever, its all just convenience.



I disagree here: some shots simply cannot be taken at all w/o the proper technology - like in "never", not like in "sometimes, with a lot of hassle". Af, metering, whatever just help you get more keepers while you simply cannot shoot moving scene with a much higher dynamic range than your sensor can record in one frame.



Steve said:


> Anyway, I have a whole lot of photos of whiteheaded woodpeckers shot in 3/4 sunlight that I would love to have cleaner shadows. Black and white birds, shot to preserve the highlights, means I have to lift the shadows to get any detail in the black feathers and there is just a ton of noise, even at ISO200. Its pretty much exactly the situation you touched on at the end there.



Well, use Magic Lantern's dual_iso, problem solved.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 26, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You can have very high contrast and no issues with shadow detail, you are in control!
> ...



Nice work!


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Well, use Magic Lantern's dual_iso, problem solved.



Cool, let me just install that on my 1DIV....hmmm


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, use Magic Lantern's dual_iso, problem solved.
> ...



Sorry to hear that, way too many people with 1d cameras around here  ... I'll try to remember to ask next time


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Won't be easy to get on the 70D or 7D Mark II either.


----------



## jonjt (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I just wanted to do a full jrista quote at least one time, too  ...
> 
> ... and care to comment that you have to take care of inflation, because when Canon has moved to a smaller process, faveon or quantum sensors it might be 2100 and you're money has gone :->



Lets hope my investments beat inflation over that period. 

In any case, if Canon doesnt do something big for the 5DIV, I'll just get a 5DIII and be done with it. The move to FF will give me a big upgrade anyway.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Won't be easy to get on the 70D or 7D Mark II either.



If they eventually get it working on the 7DII, I would be very tempted to trade in the 1D just for dual iso. That looks pretty amazing.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Won't be easy to get on the 70D or 7D Mark II either.
> ...



Does anyone have a link to good dual iso shots? I haven't seen any. The resolution is cut in half, the skin tones look to be badly damaged (and hard to repair because there's only one shot) in the shots I've seen, and you will see moire and aliasing in both shadows and highlights. Since skin tones seem to a problem, this will mostly be "useful" for still shots, but you can't do near as much with the photo in editing as you can with an ordinary HDR shot, which gives you several shots to layer in addition to the HDR composite shot.

Dual ISO is a clever technical achievement, but not useful yet, IMHO. Maybe it will be useful when there's a 45 MP sensor, and a solution for moire, aliasing, and skin tones.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Cooking the RAW is probably going to be a standard practice now.



I sure hope not.
It is one thing that SOny really need to be taken to task for. Soon enough it will cause out and out serious damage and it creeps up in greater and greater degrees.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > To get some idea of what DSLR video users think of Canon, read this interview on eoshd and the associated forum comments:
> ...



They are being hit hard in the DSLR video segment. It's not forum nonsense.
And what of Panasonic saying that the GH4 has sold 3x more than expected in many markets because their main competitor did push video forward? Maybe those sales could've been all Canon just about?


----------



## Mork (Sep 26, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Cooking the RAW is probably going to be a standard practice now.
> ...



I doubt that. 
The signal is processed anyway. Why not cleaning it up a bit?
The endresult matters.
I don´t see them doing full NR in camera for RAW files.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2014)

zlatko said:


> That's why I talk about facts and _relevant_ facts. For most non-engineer, non-scientist photographers, the relevant facts are the _photographs_ they make. That's where Canon has been delivering great stuff — that's where their sensors deliver beautifully — albeit not for every photographer or for every task. We see the results in photojournalism, advertising, movies, etc. every day. For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"



You seem to forget that the only reason that many (although some like purely the tech, probably not most there though) people get into to talking about 500nm vs 180nm and so on is because they found things IN REAL WORLD SHOOTING and then when people ask why Canon can't allow you to do so and so with their sensor, it's because 500nm doesn't let them make things small enough on the sensor to get the sensor read cleanly.


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Does anyone have a link to good dual iso shots? I haven't seen any. The resolution is cut in half, the skin tones look to be badly damaged (and hard to repair because there's only one shot) in the shots I've seen, and you will see moire and aliasing in both shadows and highlights. Since skin tones seem to a problem, this will mostly be "useful" for still shots, but you can't do near as much with the photo in editing as you can with an ordinary HDR shot, which gives you several shots to layer in addition to the HDR composite shot.
> 
> Dual ISO is a clever technical achievement, but not useful yet, IMHO. Maybe it will be useful when there's a 45 MP sensor, and a solution for moire, aliasing, and skin tones.



https://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/

Here's a flickr group with some shots. Its mostly landscapes and there is definitely still noise in the image, though it seems more uniform. I'm not seeing the moire you're referring to but the one shot of the kid does seem a bit weird in the skin tones when zoomed in. I think a lot of these are set to 100/1600 just to see what it can do and maybe its better at like 100/800 or 100/400? Not really sure.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 27, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I talk about facts and _relevant_ facts. For most non-engineer, non-scientist photographers, the relevant facts are the _photographs_ they make. That's where Canon has been delivering great stuff — that's where their sensors deliver beautifully — albeit not for every photographer or for every task. We see the results in photojournalism, advertising, movies, etc. every day. For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"
> ...



I haven't forgotten that at all. That's why I said "most photographers". I know there are photographers who would benefit from a different/newer sensor. If you have problems with the sensor in real world shooting, then you're one of them. But there are many photographers who don't have that problem in real world shooting and who are happy with their photos. For them, talking about 500nm vs 180nm is like talking about deep sea creatures or moon dust — facts that are just not that relevant to their photography. For them, arguing about 500nm vs 180nm is like arguing about which robot is used at the Toyota factory vs. which robot is used at the Honda factory. While that argument may be very important to some people, it's not going to figure into most people's car buying decisions.

If 500nm vs 180nm were as critical as some people make it out to be, then usage of Canon cameras would have dropped off to zero in photojournalism, advertising, editorial, fine art, movie-making, etc. That's far from the case. Instead, highly skilled and talented people are choosing to create with Canon. They know the results they get — that's what matters to them — and if they even know about 500nm vs 180nm then it's not like some brick wall that gets in their way.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 27, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > Well, look what I saw this morning
> ...



Well, you didn't examine my "screen shot" closely, didn't you? Otherwise, and if you'd really had read the text in it, your reply would have been different.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 27, 2014)

xps said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > xps said:
> ...



i think you misread what i said a tich, i want the 5d4 to focus on improving the basic stuff in the 5d3 - and unlike others here, I actually don't really need it to be a revolutionary upgrade - it can be an incremental evolutionary upgrade across the board improved AF (it doesn't need much, just add more cross points and the -3EV center point, incremental evolutionary upgrade), A digic 7 may help the IQ woes at lower ISO, I'd be happy with 22MP too - again file size for some of us is an issue (hence why I'd loveto see a split in the lines), increase that sync speed to at least 1/250th - more would be great though (like 1/500th), add that built in intervalometer !!!!

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF. But yeah, I would totally love to have a big mp body with more DR for ---like I said in the original post about 15-20% of my work. Posed shots with bride and groom in midday light, the first dance, the rings and the engagement shoot is where that would be used. For the rest though (that 80-85%), no need at all for big mp or more DR - the snapshot of uncle tim and aunt jane won't be printed to 30x40, if it is printed it would be a 4x6. 

What would be bada$$ --- if canon could find a way to turn pixels off for mraw and sraw (as opposed to the lossy way they are converted. Then I would be begging for the 5d4 to be big mp's. But without that, nope, i'd rather have the workhorse and the fine art body as it were. That's just me though....


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 27, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social [email protected]!!!). It's rather preachy, like religion.
> ...



what i love is how it's now....if we aren't crying about how bad canon is then we are anti DR...like we want less DR...lol. If canon is watching this forum or other forums then the math geeks would find that many don't care, some have reasonable needs, and then there are like 5-10 people that post so much that it makes it seem like hundreds want want want...but when it comes down to it, money talks. if the haters were serious they'd not be hating and just be buying a sony or a nikon. they aren't switching ,in fact many are getting their toes wet with the A7r and not liking it ....lol. But, even jrista loves the DR doesn't but like the A7r enough to buy...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 27, 2014)

Etienne said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > roby17269 said:
> ...



that's why i compared them to religious zealots, because even if you are in the middle, not actively pro or against...you are against because you are not gun ho pro....


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.



You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> they aren't switching ,in fact many are getting their toes wet with the A7r and not liking it ....lol. But, even jrista loves the DR doesn't but like the A7r enough to buy...



I'd buy the A7r for landscapes, since I really wouldn't need the majority of it's features. I wouldn't buy it as a general purpose camera...too many issues. Plus, I'm NOT a fan of EVFs...and that isn't a thing unique to the A7r. I'm not buying it _yet_ because I want to see what Sony does next (which isn't far away, if they are really releasing new things in January). If they don't change anything, then I found some used A7r's for $1700, which is a lot more reasonable for a landscape-only camera than $3400 for a D810 (and more for some lenses.)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.
> ...



i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me. I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality... and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



honestly.... 1344mm focal length... i so have no NEED for that...want...sure...i do like shooting the moon at times...but i really have no bird shooting desire...and...while i do like putting the couple far away from me at times and shooting with the 70-200...for what makes me $$$...no need at all...

on a side note...i just sold a $1000 piece that was shot on...my old 7d...don't even own that now, nor do i still own the lens i it was shot with (the old 244-70mm 2.8)....go 7d...still earning after being sold...lol


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Congrats on the sale! Must feel nice. 

I don't generally need that kind of focal length myself. I use 1200mm on the 5D III, but usually it's to get headshot closeups of shore and wading birds and waterfowl. I'm usually at 840mm on the 5D III and 600mm on my 7D for birds. I'm usually at 600mm on the 5D III for wildlife (much better FoV than the 7D ever offered). I've used 840mm, and even as much as 1680mm (2x + 1.4x) on the 7D for astro stuff, but at that level diffraction is really kicking in, and I'm better off with a proper large aperture telescope.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



for me...that's so the kind of stuff of...when i have extra cash to play around with sure...bu right now...i am 40 years old...3 years into launching my biz, recently married, and...i have a 3 day old son now!!!!...so yeah, i do have to clearly separate needs from wants.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.



That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV. Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



If you buy that £100k 1200mm f/5.6 and stick a 1.4x on, you can get 1680 f/8!


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.
> ...



It depends on what your shooting. As I said, my primary use case for 1200mm is not full body birds...it's bird headshots. The distance doesn't increase, only the amount of detail you are resolving on a smaller area of your subject. Similarly, when it comes to the smaller shorebirds, like a Least Sandpiper. Were I could get away with using 840mm for larger ones, 1200mm is useful for smaller ones. Again, distance does not increase. 

Therefor, atmospheric effects are not an issue. The primary issue is getting pixels on target, for a subject that is filling a good portion of the frame. The 7D II will put more pixels (and hopefully BETTER pixels, at least than any other crop camera) on a bird headshot at 840mm f/5.6 than the 5D III at 1200mm f/8. I'd expect the IQ to INCREASE with the 7D II, assuming Canon isn't just playing games, and their high ISO has really improved by about a stop.


----------



## skoobey (Sep 27, 2014)

Once you learn the lighting and poses, and start working with really great MUAs, models, set designers, assistants, retouchers etc, the resolution really becomes the last thing you think about. I think that 36mpix is really all you need. And if you want to go crazy higher, the lenses and AF systems must follow. 

I don't think 100mpix can be resolved with current line up, so I'd rather see them work on wi fi transfer, high and low ISO grain(less), camera and lens weight, battery life, video auto focus, tethered shooting, video tethered shooting, support for stereo external mics, 4k video, video RAW, flash speed sync, going from motor mirror to electronic shutter (going from mirror to transparent using micro current), image stabilization, multiple JPEG creation at the moment of capture, better controls...

So there is A LOT room for improvement, mpix is just one of them.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 27, 2014)

jrista said:


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



Don't forget songbirds! Little sparrow-sized passerines need a lot of focal length, even at moderate distances. It's rare they'll let you get close - especially the best-looking ones (in my experience).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.
> ...



birds are often very small so the distance even at 800mm and more are not always all that great and atmospherics don't always play much of a part in things


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 27, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



Yes, to demonstrate the point, this (rare and exotic) bird was less than 50 feet away, and this was taken at 1,900mm on 1.6-crop.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 27, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> roby17269 said:
> 
> 
> > I do fashion photography mostly in studio (hobby) and it is often a high-contrast affair with plenty of latitude. I could certainly use better shadow recovery at ISO 100 than what my 1D X offers.
> ...



Didn't know about ISO 200 having higher DR (although 1/10th of a stop is prolly not something that would change my life). In any case using ISO 200 would have other effects on the exposure settings that might or might not work.

Some of my photos have been printed in mags to A4 size more or less. No one has complained about noise.
I usually see on screen - there was a shoot where the model had a black skirt made of plastic that was particularly bad in post when I was trying to give it more pop. I had to use noise ninja at max. It worked because it was smooth plastic. With different textures it would have been a problem. The second shooter had a D800 and his files were way way cleaner for the skirt at the same exposure. So his files needed much less time in post. Simple as that.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I am not patronising you, I am giving you a kick up the butt, there is no more than seven stops of DR in your opening page, if you are reaching into shadows to recover detail there is something wrong with your technique, that is just a fact. Take it from me anonymously or learn it in time from somebody in person, I don't care. You have 100% control over everything, hell even your beach shots have so much flash power you can control the blacks and contrast to 1/10 stop.
> 
> If you got me to "assist" I'd have you shooting tethered into Capture One and have you dialed in with limitless shadow detail in under an hour, for life.
> 
> And don't think I am acting like some internet hero, I am not, I am sure I could learn as much if not more from you, than you could from me, but that doesn't mean either of us will ever know enough.


"give me a kick up my butt". Yes that didn't sound patronising at all...
Oh well. I'll reveal a secret. The second shot on the site, a beach one, is pure natural light. No flashes, not even reflectors. Ok ok I had a CPL on my lens.
You are judging heavily processed images, do you realise that? They look like that because I wanted the final product to look like that.
You also seem to assume that every time I shoot for my hobby, I have limitless heads with limitless power. That's not usually the case. 

Do I know everything? Nope. I keep learning all the time and I keep challenging myself. But, since I do value my butt, I will have to progress without your wise advice


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 28, 2014)

roby17269 said:


> The second shooter had a D800 and his files were way way cleaner for the skirt at the same exposure. So his files needed much less time in post. Simple as that.



Yes, I remember a sports photog on CR doing beach volleyball switching to Nikon right after the d800 was released because for him, the performance was way superior to the 5d3. I imagine many pro photogs with high dr requirements left in the meantime, and the there's no indication the situation is about to change. So for these types of shots, the 1dx is simply not your best bet.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 28, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


You might need an equipment upgrade for pictures of rare and exotic birds.... Might I suggest black oil sunflower seeds  The trick is to focus on the sunflower seed and wait for a bird to materialize around it..

Seriously though, I shoot birds from dozens of centimeters to hundreds of meters. Usually (although obliviously not always) getting close is a big problem and more pixels on the target is usually a good thing.


----------



## roby17269 (Sep 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> roby17269 said:
> 
> 
> > The second shooter had a D800 and his files were way way cleaner for the skirt at the same exposure. So his files needed much less time in post. Simple as that.
> ...



Don't get me wrong I like my camera - there is a lot to love about the 1D X. I do think that it has the best ergonomics ever and the best viewfinder (bar MF bodies) and the responsiveness is something and battery life is awesome... and of course at high ISO is great. But I could use more MPs and more DR and less noise in the shadows at ISO 100 anytime


----------



## alberto1232 (Sep 29, 2014)

good


----------

