# More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 25, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11396"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11396"></a></div>
<strong>A bit more information


</strong>I’m told that the coming big megapixel camera is a very new sensor design/overhaul. The emphasis is in the dynamic range of the sensor. Performance is said to be on the level of medium format, even better than the impressive D800.</p>
<p>The same person also says the camera won’d be a “3D” or any other “D”, it will get an all new naming scheme.</p>
<p><strong>EF 35 f/1.4L II


</strong>This is apparently also ready for an announcement, now that the manufacturing issues with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II have been solved. This lens could come at PhotoPlus along with the new EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p>Most of the information lately has been through third parties and from new sources, so keep the salt shaker beside you.</p>
<p><em>thanks for the info</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r </strong></p>
```


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Sep 25, 2012)

All of this info points to it being expensive as hell. I'm guessing $6K minimum.


----------



## bp (Sep 25, 2012)

OK, with specific talk on DR, the drooling and daydreaming has already begun.

Very interested to hear some info on price speculation



HurtinMinorKey said:


> All of this info points to it being expensive as hell. I'm guessing $6K minimum.



Agreed... if this tops D800 in DR, Canon could have a wallop of a price tag in store. If it just matches D800, Canon will still probably charge more, but perhaps not quite as much


----------



## DB (Sep 25, 2012)

If they're prepared to drop the xD naming convention, you can be sure that it's price will top that of the current 1DX (which by the way is > $8k in Europe), so I wouldn't be surprised if it is $9,999 ($7,999 in USA market)


----------



## Ricku (Sep 25, 2012)

THIS is what I wanted to hear. Finally some improved DR! 

I hope it is true.


----------



## DzPhotography (Sep 25, 2012)

Okay, starting to get excited


----------



## DonHorne (Sep 25, 2012)

Bring on the added DR. Looks like it's time to modify my diet in case I have to sell an organ!!!


----------



## AJ (Sep 25, 2012)

_... a very new sensor design/overhaul. The emphasis is in the dynamic range of the sensor ..._

New sensor technology? If so I wonder what it is? Any patents to hint at it?

I'm interested because technology tends to trickle down to consumer cameras that I can afford.


----------



## Tayvin (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> i also think it will be very expensive.
> in the range of 8000-10000$
> 
> maybe called EOS-S (for studio).
> ...



It wouldn't make any sense for Canon to price a DSLR that high. You might as well buy a used hassy at that price. I bet it will be under $5000 - if this rumor is true, of course.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 25, 2012)

I'll believe it when i see it.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 25, 2012)

It'll be interesting to see if Canon sets the price so high that potential customers can purchase a D800 and Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 lenses, and still have money left over.


----------



## jrista (Sep 25, 2012)

If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)

My guess is that its still probably their same old sensor tech, but with some kind of efficient cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature (thereby reducing electronic noise), and extra bit depth. Canon needs the active cooling because they are either incapable of innovating and patenting technology similar but different enough to Sony Exmor, or there simply ISN'T another way to reduce noise electronically like Exmor, and Canon either has to pay Sony royalties, or do something entirely different.


----------



## KyleSTL (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> maybe called EOS-S (for studio).



I like that, I think Freelancer is the front runner right now for the possible name of said high-MP camera.



Freelancer said:


> ...it could be that this camera even has the rumored square sensor.



I thought we had all gone over this many times before that a square sensor cannot exist due to mirror clearance issues (unless of course it is 24mm x 24mm, which would be pointless)?


----------



## Tayvin (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Tayvin said:
> 
> 
> > It wouldn't make any sense for Canon to price a DSLR that high. You might as well buy a used hassy at that price. I bet it will be under $5000 - if this rumor is true, of course.
> ...



Yeah, you guys get screwed.


----------



## matukas (Sep 25, 2012)

> ...The emphasis is in the dynamic range of the sensor. Performance is said to be on the level of medium format, even better than the impressive D800...


I have seen...
...a light
8)
Well, if this is true, my observations about new tech are indeed confirmed.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2012)

Tayvin said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > Tayvin said:
> ...



Not if you consider I make 65k a year as a seller in a store... we can always buy half off from the US


----------



## jrista (Sep 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Tayvin said:
> 
> 
> > Freelancer said:
> ...



Grey market, no warranty? Hmmm...pass.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2012)

jrista said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Tayvin said:
> ...



No, I still have one year full warranty. I even used it once to adjust my 300.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Not if you consider I make 65k a year as a seller in a store... we can always buy half off from the US
> ...



One word: Union!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2012)

EOS 5HD or EOS 1HD. Depends on the body style.


----------



## jrista (Sep 25, 2012)

unfocused said:


> EOS 5HD or EOS 1HD. Depends on the body style.



Hmm. Interesting!


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> i would really like to know where a simple sales clerk (no offense) in europe makes 65k $ ... not to mention 65k euro....



???

yep, my sister is a anesthetist. after 5 years of university and 4 years of work she earns 2600 euro a month, after tax. thought it could be more if she finally marrys her boyfriend.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Freelancer said:
> ...



I meant 65k usd, not euro. That would've been fun! And of course no offense taken, I am a sales clerk by choice, no responsibillty, good money, and I get to talk photogear all day with all sorts of weird, interesting, funny and knowledgable people.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I meant 65k usd, not euro. That would've been fun!



that´s still 4000 euro a month.....


----------



## mws (Sep 25, 2012)

How long until we hear about people who switched to Nikon wanting to switch back to Canon.....


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 25, 2012)

mws said:


> How long until we hear about people who switched to Nikon wanting to switch back to Canon.....



yes you have to sit the dry years out.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> mws said:
> 
> 
> > How long until we hear about people who switched to Nikon wanting to switch back to Canon.....
> ...



Anyone been over at nikonrumors and hear what they complain over? It seems that the guys here love nikon more than they do...


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we had all gone over this many time before that a square sensor cannot exist due to mirror clearance issues (unless of course it is 24mm x 24mm, which would be pointless)?
> ...



We do not only put it on mars :-D we put a freaking rocket powered flying crane on mars and lowered it from that  After letting it fly 563,000,000 km trough Space! Just 2,4 km away from the spot we wanted  That is just like hitting a hair 280 Km away  

So let canon-engineers do there job and bring us something new! 
square-sensor ? problem with moving mirror ? let it stay and make its reflectivity electronic controllable  
you are skeptical about that? look at you automatic dimming rear mirror in you car ... its exactly that 

just the tip off the iceberg off what is physically possible


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 25, 2012)

*Canon 1B*

D for digital 
C for cinema
B for BIGASSHUGEMEGAPIXELS!


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 25, 2012)

How many of these people are unknowns with no history to CR, and are just repeating rumors back with a little daydreaming thrown in?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Anyone been over at nikonrumors and hear what they complain over? It seems that the guys here love nikon more than they do...



no wonder .. both companys have switched their school of thought drastically.

we user need some time to adapt. no matter if nikon or canon user. 

the poor nikon guys sitting there with a D800 on their knees and don´t know what to do with all the megapixels. it´s a heavy jump from 12 to 36 MP.

while we canon guys suddenly see that sony, out of nowhere, produces the best sensors.
and we wonder why our sensors have only 22MP and no better DR then a tiny, dwarf-size-photosite equipped D800 sensor.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 25, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone been over at nikonrumors and hear what they complain over? It seems that the guys here love nikon more than they do...
> ...



Actually, I find that 22 MPx is about perfect for me, although I would like more DR at low ISO, but my 5d3 still beats out the D800 at high ISO which I use quite a bit  Different strengths for different people is all.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 25, 2012)

AJ said:


> _... a very new sensor design/overhaul. The emphasis is in the dynamic range of the sensor ..._
> 
> New sensor technology? If so I wonder what it is? Any patents to hint at it?
> 
> I'm interested because technology tends to trickle down to consumer cameras that I can afford.



We'll see... We'll just have to wait for about 2 to 3 years before we can get it down to 5D2 price level then that's the time I'll get an FF.


----------



## pwp (Sep 26, 2012)

Tayvin said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > i also think it will be very expensive.
> ...


That's true, you might just get a pre-owned Hassy for similar money. But if the option is there to run with just one set of lenses, it makes Canon's megapixel monster hugely attractive if it's priced in the $8-10K range. Do a quick search for pricing on lenses for that Hasselblad. Ouch!

-PW


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> All of this info points to it being expensive as hell. I'm guessing $6K minimum.



Yeah the new naming scheme makes me afraid it will be the EOS 1$ ;D
expensive and brick sized and slow. 

But talk of super DR is pretty exciting.

Imagine a 5D4 in a few years with tons of DR, 38MP, super video, 6fps, same top AF.  All thoughts of going to the dark side might end pretty quickly. ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > mws said:
> ...



;D


----------



## heheapa (Sep 26, 2012)

High Megapixels for Landscape and Studio? That's 1DS Grade. I bet this should be sold for 10k+


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Actually, I find that 22 MPx is about perfect for me, although I would like more DR at low ISO, but my 5d3 still beats out the D800 at high ISO which I use quite a bit  Different strengths for different people is all.


"Different strengths for different people is all." — Well said! 22mp and great high ISO is perfect for me too.


----------



## RuneL (Sep 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)
> 
> My guess is that its still probably their same old sensor tech, but with some kind of efficient cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature (thereby reducing electronic noise), and extra bit depth. Canon needs the active cooling because they are either incapable of innovating and patenting technology similar but different enough to Sony Exmor, or there simply ISN'T another way to reduce noise electronically like Exmor, and Canon either has to pay Sony royalties, or do something entirely different.



Am I wrong in thinking that the amount electronic noise stems from the placement of the image processing unit? Too close to the sensor, too much heat for say video, far enough away to eliminate heat more electronic noise as it passe through the camera? 
Maybe they should redesign the chip and do a pure imaging camera meant for the absolute best stills possible.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 26, 2012)

I do mainly studio work and 46.1 megapixel is overkill. For magazines ads and catalog work a 16Mp 1Ds2 is all I need. I've used a 5D3, and it main advantage is it's lighter weight when used out of the studio.

DR is no big deal 'cause I've got enough Profoto watt seconds to cause sunburn  

But I'm sure 46.1Mp will sell well with the Doctor and Lawyer Photo Enthusiasts


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

RuneL said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)
> ...



You are thinking of "read noise". Thats one kind of noise that can be introduced by electronics, and the most frequently talked about noise. Its usually added by the ADC, which in most cases tend to operate at a pretty high frequency (which has the tendency to introduce noise. Analog-to-Digital conversion also tends to introduce quantization error, which exhibits as a minor amount of noise.

Thermal noise is different than electronic noise. It can be a problem, but when people talk about thermal noise its usually the kind that only occurs at temperatures a fair bit higher than room temperature...such as when the sensor has been exposing for a long time (say during long exposure with an ND filter or for night sky/milky way photography.) 

There are other forms of electronic noise. Dark current noise is caused by charge buildup due to the small amount of continuous current that runs through any circuit. There are also forms of noise caused by slight differences in response for each photodiode, etc.

Sony Exmor mitigates noise via more complex electronics. Their technology adds circuitry to each pixel to mitigate dark current noise, transistor response differential noise, etc. Exmor also moved the ADC on-die, and hyper-parallelized it by having one for each column of pixels. That all had the effect of greatly reducing (but not quite eliminating) electronic noise.

Prior to Exmor, the most common way to reduce or eliminate electronic noise was to cool the sensor. Silicon devices tend to improve in efficiency at colder temperatures. Around -80°C, noise in a circuit caused by the electronics themselves is nearly eliminated (approximately 200 times less than the same circuit at room temperature.) I highly doubt that Canon has attempted to cool their sensors to sub-freezing temperatures, so they won't be gaining that much of a lead over Sony and Nikon (and technically speaking, Exmor is still the better technology, as it mitigates noise without the need for added cooling, which to really be effective in Canon's next camera might need to be thermoelectric, requiring additional power.) I am guessing Canon has found a way to moderately cool their sensor, probably with an efficient heat pipe cooler or something along those lines. They won't be able to get the sensor below "room temperature", but they should be able to keep it cooler than it would otherwise be. If they add some form of active cooling...fans, external heat plates to exhaust heat from an internal heat pipe cooler, etc. they might be able to get the sensor below room temp. If they add a peltier that operated at a lower current load, they could cool the sensor quite a bit...but again that would require an additional power draw (proportional to how much they actually cool the sensor.)


----------



## Leon (Sep 26, 2012)

mws said:


> How long until we hear about people who switched to Nikon wanting to switch back to Canon.....



Did somebody just call my name? 

No seriously, I'd say it'll take a while. For me, and I think for many other people, the Sony sensor got Nikon attention, but actually Canons recent price policy had me buy the D800 instead of the 5D3.
The 5D3, good as it is, is priced at the top end of what they could take. So is the Speedlite 600XT, the 24-70 L II (gee, look what Tamron gets you for half the price), the 1D-C and, most recently, the 6D. DPReview put it very nicely: "Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price."

- I'm not saying Canon is stupid to do so, and I'm definitely not a Nikon fanboy, but this is a big part of what had me switch to Nikon, and since I don't see that changing soon, my bet is that system switchers like me will not reconsider as quickly.

For the big MP body: I don't know why you wouldn't want it, all Canon has to make sure is to include various downsized RAW outputs (and yes I find it annoying that Nikon didn't have that idea for the D800). They might need a pretty fast CPU in the camera, but in principle that shouldn't be a problem. Offer RAW output @46, 23 and 11.5 MP and no one can say it has too many MP. Hardly anyone NEEDS 46MP, but having it in the bag for landscapes or some commercial shoots is definitely a selling point.

However, not only the resolution, but also the aim to go for higher DR sounds like they're back on track with their sensor development. Someone here mentioned some special technology in the Sony sensors, could you go into more detail on that? I think it is very apparent that Sony has got some magic going on for the shadow noise/ DR. It's ridiculous how those Sony sensors can save your day after you screw things up in manual mode, so Ive been wondering why Canon and Nikon sensors can't put up with that. (ok this was already answered while I was typing)


----------



## elbeasto (Sep 26, 2012)

Newer, bigger and better specs are all well and good but I'd be happy if a new body was released from either company without any design flaws and having only average specs.

Both the 5DIII and D800 were released with problems.
In this day and age, with the technology available and the approximate price tag of $4k (upon release), glaring design flaws are unacceptable, period.

46MP, great, lets just hope it's light tight and all the basic functions work as they should.

EDIT: I'd also agree with the comment about about Canikon's pricing policies, neither their lenses or bodies quality reflect the asking price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2012)

I think CRguy mis-titled the topic. Here's the properly marked up version:

More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]



jrista said:


> If they add a peltier that operated at a lower current load, they could cool the sensor quite a bit...but again that would require an additional power draw (proportional to how much they actually cool the sensor.)



Indeed. Most of my scientific imaging cameras have Peltier-cooled sensors, in many cases cooled well below 0 °C.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm not worrying about this too much. I'm sure Canon engineers are brilliant enough to find other ways. Besides, it's their jobs that are on the line right now. I think there's a lot of pressure going around just to be able to have a very good sensor. The Canon marketing and management can only take that much criticism before they think of firing those engineers and hiring better ones.



jrista said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Sep 26, 2012)

heptagon said:


> I'll believe it when i see it.



append, when i see it take top ranking on DxOmark.

What needs to be accomplished to do this is not technically impossible, just probably expensive.

And it's taken things like recent Nikon's, the Olympus OMD EM5 (whatever) MFT to test with better DR than the larger Canon APS-C sensors. This is the kick in the pants Canon's needed for the last 5+ years.
Even the Fuji X100 from a few years ago appeared to have better IQ than my 5D2.

16b would be nice, if they can use at least 14 of them with good data.
when really pushing the limits on my D800's 14b raw at base ISO, I can get to a point where I'm seeing random noise and no more shadow detail. If more DR were possible to record it'd actually become hard to use but I certainly won't decline it if it's available.

C'mon Canon, show us what you can do. (even if it means getting humble and licensing better sensor tech from another supplier)


----------



## dougri (Sep 26, 2012)

Any chance this (and possibly the new APS-C sensors next year) will be the first to employ Canon's patent on pixel-level exposure time?

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20100141792.PGNR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 26, 2012)

dougri said:


> Any chance this (and possibly the new APS-C sensors next year) will be the first to employ Canon's patent on pixel-level exposure time?
> 
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20100141792.PGNR.



who knows if the OP is even real ;D

but maybe that is it, I only super quickly skimmed it, sounds impressive at super quick skim, wonder if it is expensive


----------



## JR (Sep 26, 2012)

Well, I am drooling with this potential new camera. If the DR is anything close to the promise, I would gladely sell back my D800. I know many will complain that 46MP is not required for their work, but if this is the price to pay to get industry leading DR, sign me up!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 26, 2012)

JR said:


> Well, I am drooling with this potential new camera. If the DR is anything close to the promise, I would gladely sell back my D800. I know many will complain that 46MP is not required for their work, but if this is the price to pay to get industry leading DR, sign me up!



If it's as good as I have dreams of a 46 MP 1Ds Mark III being, then I may consider buying it as well, even though I don't need it


----------



## Osiris36 (Sep 26, 2012)

RuneL said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)
> ...



Yes, bluntly. The biggest reason that Nikon/Sony have better 'DR', is because they have a WHOLE lot of ADCs on chip and Canon doesn't. If Canon were to move from 8 channels of readout to something like 32 or 64, they would instantly get a stop more DR. If they manage to get more DR out of a 46mp chip odds are they've gone onchip with the ADC (like Sony) and then their DR would be the same as (or more likely a little better) than Sony (since their Sensel/Pixel tech is apparently a little better than Sony's)


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Sep 26, 2012)

This would be an awesome studio camera if true, but I bet Canon screws it up again by overpricing it. I own both the 5D Mark III and the 1DX as well as several 600EX-RTs and I'm not happy about the prices I paid for any of it. I feel completely violated. Canon have become nothing short of rip-off artists. They need to get back to making great equipment at reasonable prices and real technology innovation. This camera could be a huge step in the right direction if they don't let the marketing team frak up the pricing, because at $10,000 I rather have a Leica S2.


Let's hope Canon learns their lesson from the soon to be 1D-C flop. $15,000 for a camera with features they could have and should have included in the 1DX?!!! Bahahaha. Yeah right Canon. Good luck with that. There are professional video cameras at that price point without all of the DSLR video drawbacks that shoot much more beautiful 4K video. Why would anyone in their right mind pay $15,000 for something that will give them headaches and force workarounds when there are much better options on the market dedicated to that format? Stupidity and arrogance at it's best from the people at Canon.


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

Osiris36 said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Its more complicated than that. Sony Exmor puts the ADC on the same die as the sensor itself. That shortens the channel distance from pixel to ADC. It is also a hell of a lot more than 64 ADC's...its one per column or few columns, which means there are thousands of ADC's. That allows each ADC to operate at a far lower frequency (since each one only has to process a small fraction of the total pixels in the sensor), and a large part of the reason ADC's add noise to the image is their high operating frequency (which tends to generate electronic noise.) 

From what I understand, the 1D X already uses a 16-channel readout (8 channels per Digic 5+ processor). Moving to 32 or 64 channels would complicate the image processor (probably at high cost...high frequency ADC's of the caliber required for something like the 1D X aren't cheap), but probably not allow a full stop DR improvement. Each ADC would still be responsible for processing nearly 720,000 pixels every time an 46.1mp sensor was read out...where as if there was one ADC per column or two columns, each one would only have to read about 5500 or 11000 pixels every time a 46.1mp sensor was read out. By the time you get to the ADC, you've already extracted the pixel...and that pixel already has the bulk of the electronic noise present in the sensor. The ADC will add some, bit its minimal...a bit of additional noise due to the high frequency current and some quantization error noise...both of which look very natural and random. At the same time, its burning in the nasty kinds of noise...fixed pattern, horizontal and vertical banding (crosshatch pattern noise), transistor differential noise (difference in efficiency between each pixel), color noise, etc. Even though you have parallelized pixel conversion 64-fold...each ADC has to work with pixels from a lot of different columns, so they can't really correct vertical banding like a CP-ADC design can. 

Canon's pixel technology really isn't better than Sony's. The high ISO capability of the 1D X, 5D III and 6D is thanks to a weaker CFA, which basically allows a lot more green light into the red and blue channels. It was a "cheat", since at the time Canon really didn't have any other way to combat the onslaught of sensor tech improvements from SoNikon. That cheat requires stronger curves to be applied when processing RAW images to compensate and "remove" that extra green in the red and blue channels...so while color can still look great, its not actually as pure and accurate as it could be.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 26, 2012)

Salt Shaker??
I've a dump truck of salt standing by.


----------



## Osiris36 (Sep 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> Osiris36 said:
> 
> 
> > RuneL said:
> ...



If you re-read my post you'll notice I said Sony whole lot of ADCs on chip, so I'm not sure what you're taking issue with in my post. I was merely saying that if Canon runs more (and slower) ADCs their noise will improve (or more accurately, the accuracy of their ADC conversion will improve). Sony runs one ADC 'light' per column. I'm not convinced that's entirely necessary, but I also think Canon's 8 channels is too few.

Also the ADCs don't have to be on the image processor, once you run through the ADC there is no need to keep the signals all that short. There's no reason Canon couldn't mount 4 discrete 8 channel ADCs around the sensor and then haul the digital signals from there. 

The big difference is high-speed ADCs usually have higher error rates than slow ADCs, and that's why the Exmor wins. The signal distance is a really trivial portion of what makes the onchip ADC special, the fact that they can operate much slower is what makes them 'good'. 

Finally Canon's CFA isn't a cheat, any more than anyone else's CFA is a cheat. Canon's CFA is actually the closest to 'right' in terms of balanced performance across normal lighting spectrum. I'm assuming you're basing color accuracy on DXO's CFA measurements which really have very little to do with color accuracy at all.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 26, 2012)

I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR

I dream of the day I can get the same output out of my camera as to what I see in the viewfinder. 

Technology today should enable multiple sensors for highlights and shadows and midtones combined in real time. 

Even if the camera did 3fps and have 7MP (approx. 4K resolution) I would
Buy one. 

It's about time cameras start "seeing" what we see...


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 26, 2012)

Timothy_Bruce said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > KyleSTL said:
> ...


----------



## Ricku (Sep 26, 2012)

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

Ricku said:


> WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.
> 
> You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.
> 
> Simple.



You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read. I've worked with both mRAW and sRAW. You have far less editing freedom in post than you do with an actual RAW image. The range of exposure tuning freedom is limited to a couple stops at most, particularly in the brighter highlights and deeper shadows.

If someone doesn't have the computer horsepower to edit 46mp images (which IS a real-world concern...many Nikon D800 users complain that its 36mp images are too much for their computers to handle), then image size can indeed be a concern. On the flip side, bitching about the mere rumor of a 46.1mp camera is still ridiculous...if you don't want it, don't buy it!! If you want something in the 20mp range, then buy a friggin camera with 20mp. For those of us who do have the digital horsepower to crunch 46mp images in post and want a high resolution camera, more power to Canon and I really hope the thing sees the light of day!


----------



## Woody (Sep 26, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR



Well, as SoNikon has clearly demonstrated, pixel count/density has little to do with DR. The 16 MP D7000 sensor and 36 MP D800 sensor have better DR than Canon's 22 MP 5D3 sensor.

Anyway, I have finally come to understand why Canon was so much more wary of Sony several years ago. In an interview with Chuck Westfall, the latter deemed Sony as a very serious competitor without mentioning Nikon. Sony's CMOS technology is really quite impressive, considering how much they struggled in the past with their terrible CCDs... this all changed after some disgruntled Canon employee in Japan went online to repine how badly he was treated by his employer... back then, many dismissed his complaints as fake or juvenile, but look what's happened in the past few years... sigh...

If Nikon, Sony or Olympus offers similar lenses to what own now, I will have jumped ship.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 26, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR
> 
> I dream of the day I can get the same output out of my camera as to what I see in the viewfinder.
> 
> ...



multiple sensors? around $20K up.  It will only be available for those who really gets a lot of money through photography or those very rich pampered guys. Well, we can dream...


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

dilbert said:


> So finally a rumor to stop the bleeding of people owning Canon gear selling up for Nikon.
> 
> i.e. this rumor was to be expected after the combination of the D800 and D600 showed up Canon's current full frame sensor being found wanting.
> 
> Expect the 5D Mark III to have a shorter life than either then 5D or 5D Mark II.


So, are you one of the people "owning Canon gear selling up for Nikon"?


----------



## mystic_theory (Sep 26, 2012)

More DR with a Canon body? Unbelievable: have our prayers being heard?
After looking at the Canon R&D sector sleeping for a (few) year(s) I start daydreaming myself.


----------



## dougri (Sep 26, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR
> 
> I dream of the day I can get the same output out of my camera as to what I see in the viewfinder.
> 
> ...



Check out the patent I linked previously... if they have developed this to production, it may be the single sensor solution to your wishes. Lots of 16b ADCs and pixel-level exposure control might get the 15-stop DR you are dreaming of. Oh well, nice to dream about anyway 

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20100141792.PGNR.


----------



## pasghik (Sep 26, 2012)

Woody said:


> If Nikon, Sony or Olympus offers similar lenses to what own now, I will have jumped ship.



Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except 70-200 f/4 (which I never wanted) and 135 f/2.
On the other side they have brilliant 14-24 f/2.8, 28 f1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, 50 f/1.8G and other lenses.


----------



## Ricku (Sep 26, 2012)

pasghik said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > If Nikon, Sony or Olympus offers similar lenses to what own now, I will have jumped ship.
> ...


They are also lacking when it comes to 24 and 17 mm tilt shift lenses. This is one of the big reasons to why I haven't jumped ship.

If this new sensor from Canon is all we are hoping for, then I will have zero reason jump.


----------



## Woody (Sep 26, 2012)

pasghik said:


> Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except 70-200 f/4 (which I never wanted) and 135 f/2.
> On the other side they have brilliant 14-24 f/2.8, 28 f1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, 50 f/1.8G and other lenses.



For my use, their 10-24 performs horribly and they have nothing like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS. Their 16-35 f/4 and 24-120 f/4 perform similarly to the Canon counterparts. Besides, I have too many other Canon accessories... need to consider more carefully...


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 26, 2012)

dougri said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR
> ...



You are basically correct. There's only one sensor and pixel level control on exposure time and something like a mini HDR being done on per pixel level. 
"5. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the exposure amount map generation unit is configured to set at least one of two types of exposure time to each of the plurality of pixels. "

Wow! This means an additional processor just for controlling and computing the exposure time on a per pixel basis. So the more pixels, the more processing time and the more processing time, the more heat generated by the camera... I hope they do develop a good way of releasing those heat since I am thinking that this technology will generate more heat than whatever the present Canon cameras are generating. I think this is the primary reason why Canon is already stating that this camera will be a DR monster but at the same time may not be able to operate efficiently at high ISOs. Don't you think this is also the primary reason why Canon was not able to implement it with 5D3, 1DX and 6D since the technology may have been available since 2009? They don't want to sacrifice the HIGH ISOs vs better DR.


----------



## Woody (Sep 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think CRguy mis-titled the topic. Here's the properly marked up version:
> More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]



So, do you think if Canon has given up completely on high pixel cameras? Or are you saying we should only expect something like that much later...? An early pre-announcement with much later release seems to be Canon's strategy lately... ;D


----------



## pasghik (Sep 26, 2012)

Ricku said:


> pasghik said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...


Personally I never even considered TS. So for me it is not a problem. BTW, Samyang has made 24 TS.
That must be good.



Woody said:


> pasghik said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except 70-200 f/4 (which I never wanted) and 135 f/2.
> ...


Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm 1:2,8G IF-ED not IS, but still.
I am not pro in nikon lenses, but for wide angle there is excellent Tokina 11-16.

I also have other Canon accessories, and I am considering more carefull.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 26, 2012)

Woody said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I think CRguy mis-titled the topic. Here's the properly marked up version:
> ...



Well, Canon can't sleep that long.  It might feel that they're ignoring the threats but behind the scene, they are busy pressuring their engineers to deliver a better body. It's always about money and money will drive Canon's strategy. They're a big company with lots of managers with lots of experience. Money will always be the driving factor for these companies.


----------



## Louis (Sep 26, 2012)

This is exciting and depressing all the same, because exciting that it could be what we all have wish for but with a price tag we don't, Canon annoy me because anything they do that means effort they charge mega dollars for it, the D800 is so reasonably priced, I cant see Canon ever producing a D800 beater for around the same price bracket, also I cant see Canon ever developing a camera in the 3D 4D range, it would kill sales of the 1D Line, expect it to be a 1Dx S or as mentioned an all new name and that of course the same pricing as the 1D Line.


----------



## FunPhotons (Sep 26, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > I rather have a 7MP camera with the dynamic range of a 4K video camera than 40+MP with the existing DR
> ...



Have a single sensor, but with a mask that drops a few stops on every other pixel, i.e. they've got sunglasses on. Combine the pixels and off you go. It would just drop the resolution of your sensor by 1/2, so if you combine it with a higher pixel sensor overall (46mp), then you'd stay par with today with increased DR. I should patent that idea (probably already been done)

And the whiners won't complain about file sizes being too big


----------



## caruser (Sep 26, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...



Fuji has built sensors with alternating larger and smaller pixels for higher dynamic range.


----------



## garrie (Sep 26, 2012)

Ok some thoughts. 

Studio cameras do not need high dynamic range, landscape/industrial and other professional applications do. Wedding photographers do... but hey they are 6D clients...

Question, how big a sensor can they fit in the EOS mount and get coverage from at least 5 lenses? Canon has been releasing quite a few new lenses and i'm guessing they are for a HR camera... but are they also for a bigger sensor say 40x30mm? certainly the shift/tilts will.... what about the 24 and 28 just released...? That would justify a 'medium format' type quality and price.... and name change... or it could just be a new mount... and new lenses... not 35mm at all? Pentax does... Leica admitted it can't get MF quality from 35mm sensors....

(No one so far has asked if the 6D has a significantly better dynamic range in any of the videos i can access in China.)


----------



## gecko (Sep 26, 2012)

Big MP would be nice...for some. 

But I'd rather see Canon take the Magic Lantern hint and go to town on their firmware. It's clear that there is massive unrealised potential in that area.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 26, 2012)

it all sounds like the same old fan based rumor both camps are famous for. whenever one side does something the other spews rumors of the next big thing that is better than the other's.

sure a big MP body is coming. not just from canon, but from Nikon as well as the D4X will be due next year. It is where the industry is going so those 20 or so megapixels are now "low resolution".

if you don't agree, you don't have to. but consider that even if every glass on the market is out-resolved by an 80MP body, the benefits are still there as it makes the effects of the bayer pattern less evident thanks to the oversampling. we have all seen this in the spectacular image quality the D800 delivers when compared to the 5DmkIII at equivalent sizes as well as in the Nokia 41MP cell phone camera. Now scale up the 24MP APSC sensors from Nikon/Sony and you end up with a 50+MP body which surely is next. 

the days of ISO performance being the key marketing driving term are over now that every DSLR is good enough for nearly all light conditions except the niche extreme market of dark closet photography. oversampling and dynamic range is the new frontier so get used to it.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 26, 2012)

garrie said:


> Question, how big a sensor can they fit in the EOS mount and get coverage from at least 5 lenses? Canon has been releasing quite a few new lenses and i'm guessing they are for a HR camera... but are they also for a bigger sensor say 40x30mm? certainly the shift/tilts will.... what about the 24 and 28 just released...? That would justify a 'medium format' type quality and price.... and name change... or it could just be a new mount... and new lenses... not 35mm at all? Pentax does... Leica admitted it can't get MF quality from 35mm sensors....



You have a 43mm hole. You need a sensor that is visible through that hole. If the corners of the sensor are outside that 43mm circle they are not illuminated and therefore not much good....

a 36x24 rectangle just barely fits in that circle. To go for a square sensor, it would not be 36x36 as some people seem to think, it would be a 30x30 square. A 36x24 sensor is 864 square millimeters, a 30x30 sensor is 900 square millimeters, not a whole lot of improvement in area but at the cost of abandoning conventional aspect ratios. Besides, is there really a use for square images? Monitors, magazines, billboards, printers, etc all seem to using rectangular images most of the time.... going square will probably result is LESS usefull pixels.

In short... it is really really really really doubtful that you will see a square sensor... even if they were to create a new mount and new lenses for that mount, the above logic holds.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 26, 2012)

pasghik said:


> Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except ... and *135 f/2*.



The Nikon 135mm f/2.0 D DC is the best 135mm available from anyone!! If you like 135mm lenses, this is all the reason you need to switch to Nikon. Check-out these photos made with the Nikon 135mm f/2.0D DC http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=129 Lots of creamy bokeh on display.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> The Nikon 135mm f/2.0 D DC is the best 135mm available from anyone!!



It's the best 135mm lens for those who's favorite color in the world is magenta, at any rate. Personally, I love CA when it stands for California, but I'm not a big fan of the optical variety, and the Nikon 135/2 has it in spades (purple-fringed spades, that is...).

Here's a comparison of the Canon 135L vs. Nikon 135/2. If I wanted that much CA, I'd shoot chrome with the Canon 85/1.8 wide open.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's the best 135mm lens for those who's favorite color in the world is magenta, at any rate. Personally, I love CA when it stands for California, but I'm not a big fan of the optical variety, and the Nikon 135/2 has it in spades (purple-fringed spades, that is...).
> 
> Here's a comparison of the Canon 135L vs. Nikon 135/2.



Oh WOW, another real world test ... complete with photos of his kids.

Sorry, but I'm noy buying what he's selling.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 26, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> pasghik said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I looked at Nikon's lenses. They have everything except ... and *135 f/2*.
> ...



Oh yeah!!! No, no, instead, we're all buying THIS!! Yeeeehaw!


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


With all of the vulnerability you claim Canon is having, one would think you would be the first to be selling your Canon gear. You say the D800 and D600 have superior sensors, and yet you haven't sold your Canon gear in order to buy Nikon?


----------



## stewy (Sep 26, 2012)

Canon made their most popular lens sharper in preparation for this camera. I'm curious to see how good this camera will be. I'm also curious about the price. If it rings in around $10K, then I'll be taking a closer look at the Pentax 645D.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.
> ...



I support DNG because of this - the lossy DNG format is at least scene referenced and full-resolution. So, it's both better and smaller than mraw/sraw.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.
> ...



Not only that, the camera will NOT likely shoot mRAW or sRAW. Unless you want to wait 30-60 seconds between shots and wait on the camera to convert the RAW down to m or s. Nikon chose not to do this in their D800/E models because of that reason.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...


mRAW and sRAW are great. I use the medium RAW quite a lot. It is not "the same as JPEG".

Of course the rumored 46mp Canon would offer mRAW and sRAW. These are highly desirable options that Nikon doesn't offer.


----------



## Bosman (Sep 26, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.
If i was into landscapes or got paid to do rediculous portraits of famous people i cant see a reason for this camera other than it would now compete or blow up the Nikon D800.
On another note, Nikon people, who i respect greatly as well as the brand by the way, used to say 12 mp was plenty since they didn't have more unless it was a 24mp D3x. Now they are thinking they corner the market somehow due to big mp. I just gotta laugh a little bit here.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.



Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time. Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW.


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



m/sRAW is indeed much the same as a JPEG. It is a processed image format. Ironically, both use a YCC-base chromaticity/luminance storage structure, and both are compressed. The only real difference is that JPEG is lossy-compressed, where as m/sRAW are losslessly compressed. But none of them are actually "RAW"...they take the RAW data from the sensor, process it, and burn in the tone curves (picture style) and all the other camera settings into a final output image. You have more latitude in an m/sRAW image than a JPEG because it is not compressed with a lossy algorithm...so you have all the original YCC data, and because that original YCC data is 14bpc, rather than 8bpc. 

You can push exposure around in post with m/sRAW a bit, and you can do moderate white balance corrections. But if you need the ability to do any significant editing in post (say, when you accidentally over- or under-expose a photo), your pretty much screwed if you use either one of those "RAW-but-not-really" formats. I've experimented extensively with them, and particularly with highlights and white balance, your freedom to correct is greatly limited relative to a true RAW.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Sep 26, 2012)

Between this and the rumor about a revamp of the APS C line, I'd be guessing that:
1. There is a new sensor technology coming that will be used across these units
2. The pixel pitch isn't changing much
3. That per-pixel exposure calculation patent sounds interesting
4. Combined with rear illumination (which, I'll say again, I'm shocked that it is even considered an innovation. I'd always assumed that was the way sensors worked...)
5. Combined with pixel binning of some form.
6. Probably a new series of Digic to process the mess.

What about a depth sensitive sensor, sorta like Foveon, but eliminating the red issue with a new color filter array, with alternating pixels sensing (by depth) two colors each, RG and BG. Leave the BG pixels unfiltered so you can get full LUM data, Green depth, and blue depth. Then have a yellow filter over the alternating pixels to let red and green have at it. You get 100% green coverage, and 50% each true b&w, red, and blue, instead of 50% green, 25% red, and 25% blue, and no full luminance data. If you wanted to get real fancy, you could still sense for a noisier red value from the unfiltered pixels, giving you 100% red coverage in good light.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Sep 26, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.
> ...



Semantic arguments aside about what does and does not constitute compression, using mRaw is just a different read off the sensor. It doesn't require any extra processing. Raw data is maintained, albeit from fewer photosites.


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



Sorry, that's not true at all. RAW data is NOT maintained. These are YCC encoded formats (in this case, YCbCr). The sensor is read directly for luminance (Y), chrominance (Cb, Cr) reads DEMOSAIC THE PIXELS (!!), and the information is processed to convert it into an entirely different format. The mRAW and sRAW formats utilize data from every pixel for the luminance channel (full luminance sampling). Color information for the Cr and Cb channels is interpolated from different pixel patterns (chrominance subsampling). The m/sRAW formats are 4:2:X pulldowns when it comes to encoding chrominance...4:2:2 in the case of mRAW and 4:2:0 in the case of sRAW. 

This is very similar to how JPEG images are encoded, they also use a YCC variant (although one that preserves FAR less information). Its actually also very similar to how video frames are encoded.

There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.

For more information: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf


----------



## Osiris36 (Sep 26, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)
> ...



You don't really understand what you're saying if you're saying 16bit ADCs wouldn't make a difference. 16 bit ADCs in high speed mode will yield more reliable information than 14 bit ADCs if the input is anywhere near the 14 bit point from the pixel level data. All that read noise everyone is thinking they are seeing is coming mostly from the ADCs being driven so fast with no headroom. The column parallel ADC on sony/pana is good because:
1) they are very simple ADCs
2) they are very slow ADCs

Both of these are due to the pure numbers of them. They are likely super conservative on both the count (probably way more than really needed) and performance (could be driven faster, but it's just cleaner this way).


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> m/sRAW is indeed much the same as a JPEG. It is a processed image format. Ironically, both use a YCC-base chromaticity/luminance storage structure, and both are compressed. The only real difference is that JPEG is lossy-compressed, where as m/sRAW are losslessly compressed. But none of them are actually "RAW"...they take the RAW data from the sensor, process it, and burn in the tone curves (picture style) and all the other camera settings into a final output image. You have more latitude in an m/sRAW image than a JPEG because it is not compressed with a lossy algorithm...so you have all the original YCC data, and because that original YCC data is 14bpc, rather than 8bpc.
> 
> You can push exposure around in post with m/sRAW a bit, and you can do moderate white balance corrections. But if you need the ability to do any significant editing in post (say, when you accidentally over- or under-expose a photo), your pretty much screwed if you use either one of those "RAW-but-not-really" formats. I've experimented extensively with them, and particularly with highlights and white balance, your freedom to correct is greatly limited relative to a true RAW.


Granted s/mRAW is not the same as full RAW, but your characterization of it as "much the same as JPEG" is not at all my experience. I process 100's, usually 1,000's, of m/sRAW files every week and your characterization is not at all what I see. If there is any less correct-ability than for full RAW, it is not meaningful in my work. Perhaps your work is different. I have all the latitude I need with m/sRAW files, but don't with JPEG. With m/sRAW, I have made substantial adjustments to white balance and exposure many times with excellent results. You can push them around in post more than just "a bit".


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > With all of the vulnerability you claim Canon is having, one would think you would be the first to be selling your Canon gear. You say the D800 and D600 have superior sensors, and yet you haven't sold your Canon gear in order to buy Nikon?
> ...


You can criticize Canon as much as you wish, but when you make claims that Canon is failing and losing customers because of the supposed superiority of Nikon products, then you can expect to be asked why don't switch to the supposedly superior camera. If it's so SUPERIOR, as claimed, then a switch would be the rationality and intelligent thing to do. Who wouldn't want superior gear? If a person makes such claims and states them as facts, but isn't switching, then that raises strong questions about their claims _and_ their rationality.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 26, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.
> ...



You may want to Google this and review mRAW and sRAW creation.


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



I can't say I've experienced any marked degredation in write speed when using mRAW/sRAW. It isn't that much different than JPEG, same general processing however with more bits. JPEG can be written out at an ungodly rate, and that rate can be sustained nearly forever. You probably couldn't write out 150-200 m/sRAW continuous, but they shouldn't reduce your frame rate. The biggest drag on frame rate and buffer depth is the size of data WRITTEN to the memory card. The Digic chip is explicitly designed to handle the conversion processing, and shouldn't be imposing a noticeable drag.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 26, 2012)

mws said:


> How long until we hear about people who switched to Nikon wanting to switch back to Canon.....



You won't because most of them never switched.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 26, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...


Why Google it when my cameras create these files all of the time and there is no perceptible difference in write speed vs. full RAW? The buffer clears in about the same time as when writing full RAW. Is Google going to tell me that it takes 30-60 seconds to create a medium RAW file? If so, it is wrong.

I'm pretty sure Nikon doesn't offer medium/small RAW because Canon has the patent, not because "it takes extra processing time".


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Sep 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> Sorry, that's not true at all. RAW data is NOT maintained. These are YCC encoded formats (in this case, YCbCr). The sensor is read directly for luminance (Y), chrominance (Cb, Cr) reads DEMOSAIC THE PIXELS (!!), and the information is processed to convert it into an entirely different format. The mRAW and sRAW formats utilize data from every pixel for the luminance channel (full luminance sampling). Color information for the Cr and Cb channels is interpolated from different pixel patterns (chrominance subsampling). The m/sRAW formats are 4:2:X pulldowns when it comes to encoding chrominance...4:2:2 in the case of mRAW and 4:2:0 in the case of sRAW.
> 
> This is very similar to how JPEG images are encoded, they also use a YCC variant (although one that preserves FAR less information). Its actually also very similar to how video frames are encoded.
> 
> ...



There are no pixels on the sensor, only photo sites. The sRaw, and mRaw formats use information from fewer photo sites, but do not throw away any information from the photosites that are retained (or at least at the same level as regular Raw). The "pixels" are then generated from interpolation.


----------



## Blaze (Sep 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.
> 
> For more information: http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf




The article you linked to disagrees with you. The author claims that the sensor is *not* demosaiced, but rather that color four each pixel is computed from 2x2 RGGB blocks of photodetectors.

Relevant quote: " Thus, we can see that perhaps what happens to the Raw data on its way to the sRaw format does not, rigorously, involve either demosaicing or downsampling."


----------



## jrista (Sep 26, 2012)

Blaze said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way, by any measure, that mRAW and sRAW can really be called "RAW" formats. They do not preserve the original sensor data in any way, shape, or form. The sensor is demosaiced for christ sake when reading and encoding chrominance channels.
> ...



ROFL. That IS demosaicing. Thats exactly what Adobe ACR, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. DO. They computer each RGB pixel from a 2xr RGGB blocks (MASAICS!) of photodecectors! In the case of software on the computer, the demosaicing is actually better, potentially a lot better, than the basic demosaicing done in-camera. ACR/LR use a pretty advanced form called Adaptive Homogeneity-directed Demosaicing, AHDD, to produce cleaner results than you get with m/sRAW. The article clearly describes demosaicing, although the author is being somewhat political by stating "it perhaps should not be called demosaicing." The only reason for that statement is the fact that the Y channel (luminance) is full resolution, and its only the Cr (red-green) and Cb (blue-green) channels that are actually demosaiced by processing multiple CFA pixels to produce the encoded output "pixel". Simple fact of the matter is, m/sRAW are not actually "raw, unmodified sensor data". They most definitely ARE modified, regardless of whether full luminance data is preserved or not. 



Blaze said:


> Relevant quote: " Thus, we can see that perhaps what happens to the Raw data on its way to the sRaw format does not, rigorously, involve either demosaicing or downsampling."



Again, note the use of "rigorously". Only the luminance channel is full resolution. Both chrominance channels are demosaiced and downsampled off the sensor. Depending on whether you are using s or m RAW, the amount of color data utilized for those channels differs...neither provide 100% color data like a true RAW image does.

You could call m/sRAW an intermediate format. It does not contain RGB pixels such that you could directly render it on a computer screen. It still needs further interpretation and interpolation. Its something between a RAW image and an RGB image. But it doesn't come close to a full RAW in terms of post-processing freedom and latitude...not by a long shot.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Sep 27, 2012)

DB said:


> If they're prepared to drop the xD naming convention, you can be sure that it's price will top that of the current 1DX (which by the way is > $8k in Europe), so I wouldn't be surprised if it is $9,999 ($7,999 in USA market)



Agreed that if they are thinking of a new naming convention then the price is likely to be equal to or higher than the 1Dx. 

I'm starting to think more and more that there is no chance this thing is priced between the 5D Mark III and the 1Dx.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Sep 27, 2012)

There is no specific luminance channel directly off the sensor. It's RGB photo sites, and the native ratio on all the canon sensors is 4-2-2. So big deal that mRaw is 4-2-2, so is Raw, no?

Each photosite gives us one 14bit measurement of one of the RGB channels. All this data is essentially the raw data file (with minamal processing).

mRaw and sRaw are just using fewer sites. And just like full raw, they are demosaiced by DPP or whatever raw software you use.


----------



## mjbehnke (Sep 27, 2012)

Didn't Canon patent some form of the Foven Sensor a while back??? I thought I saw a post awhile ago on here regarding that sensor?? Maybe a 15.3 x 3 layer Sensor???

Just my 2cents!

Matthew


----------



## Aglet (Sep 27, 2012)

here's some other rumor links:

70D; 22MP, Digic 5+, 6fps, 19 pt AF

www.cameraegg.com/canon-eos-70d-eos-3d-rumors-from-japanese-magazine/#more-687


and someone's impression of a 3D and dig that lens 

www.cameraegg.com/46-1-mp-canon-eos-3d-x-to-be-announced-before-photoplus/


guess I'd better sell my Canon gear now while there's still SOME resale value left in it...


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> There is no specific luminance channel directly off the sensor. It's RGB photo sites, and the native ratio on all the canon sensors is 4-2-2. So big deal that mRaw is 4-2-2, so is Raw, no?
> 
> Each photosite gives us one 14bit measurement of one of the RGB channels. All this data is essentially the raw data file (with minamal processing).
> 
> mRaw and sRaw are just using fewer sites. And just like full raw, they are demosaiced by DPP or whatever raw software you use.



Correct. There is no luminance channel on the sensor. However every single pixel on the sensor can be read to determine the luminance level of that pixel, regardless of what color channel it is. Three pixels, a red, green, and blue (or even a full quartet, 2x2 RGGB) can be read to produce a single luminance value .

That said...Is the difference between an encoded format and a raw format unclear?

Raw...UNENCODED. ZERO processing. 

m/sRAW...ENCODED. Processed. Interpolated. Demosaiced. Not RAW. 

Since the picture doesn't seem to be clear to anyone who still thinks mRAW and sRAW are not RAW formats but demosaiced (or processed) and encoded formats, here is what happens when generating either one:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Sensels are all read.
[*]Luminance channel data (Y) is produced from the raw values read from every sensel, regardless of its color.
[*]Chrominance channel data (Cr, Cb) are produced from raw values of every other sensel read and a corresponding Y component. 
[*]The luminance and chrominance channel data is assembled and compressed with lossless compression. 
[/list]

The format and structure of this data is the same as for JPEG images, with the primary differences being non-lossy (lossless) compression and higher bit depth (14 bits vs. 8 bits). Outside of those two differences, mRAW and sRAW could be considered a better form of JPEG, rather than a smaller form of RAW. The very word RAW should be a clue here...RAW...unprocessed, uncooked, unmodified, natural and untainted in every way. As in raw meat, strait off the bone. Raw meat isn't yet a meal...it has to be cooked. To continue the analogy, m/sRAW would be like meat that is _cooking_...its been sliced and diced, seasoned, marinated, and just needs some heat to become edible. 

Neither mRAW nor sRAW actually contain original sensel data off of the sensor. Each value that is encoded in the output image, be it from luminance data or chrominance data, has been processed. According to the author of the article I linked, in his attempt to be accurate, prefers not to call the Y channel an actual "luminance" channel, as its based on linear data rather than gamma-corrected data. So he calls it Luma, which has long been a short-hand way of referring to a linear luminance component. Similarly, in an attempt to be accurate, he calls the Cr and Cb channels "Chroma" rather than chrominance, for the same reason. (In the world of CIE and standards-based color and transforms, luminance and chrominance must be appropriately weighted components to be real or "true".)

To generate a single Y (luma) value, three sensels, red, green, and blue, must be read and weighted: 


```
y = (0.296 * r) + (0.592 * g) + (0.114 * b)
```

No sensels are skipped in the production of y values, so were not losing any information here. Similarly, to Cr and Cg (chroma) values, every other (every even) sensel in a row is read and processed against the corresponding luma value:


```
cr = r - y
cb = b - y
```

Green pixels are not read into their own distinct color channel, as green is a byproduct of combining y (luma...which is based on red, blue, _AND green_ sensels) with Cr and Cb (which are the difference between a red sensel and a luma value and a blue sensel and a luma value). Each y, cb, and cr triple are then stored with 14-bit precision for saving to the actual image file (which is still ultimately a .CR2 container file, it just contains something entirely different than a normal full RAW .CR2.) The final output data in an m/sRAW file has very little to do with a two dimensional matrix of R/G/B/G sensels on a CMOS die like a true RAW file does. The final output data is a transformation of RAW data into something entirely different, and more reminiscent of pre-digital analog TV signals sent along airwaves and cable into peoples homes. 

It doesn't really matter if you think the processing described above is "minimal" or not...its still a transformation, and a fairly radical one. You don't have original untainted source information to regenerate luminance and chrominance with appropriate gamma weighting for the particular device you actually work your images on (which may be 2.2, or possibly 1.8 ). Luminance information is ALREADY weighted...its got a 0.296 weight for the red channel, 0.592 weight for the green channel, and 0.114 weight for the blue channel. Thats baked. Its in, its done. Burned off the sensor, and now it sits between you and the actual RAW data that would have given you a richer editing experience. The blue and red channels are also already baked, since they are the difference of a red or blue sensel read and the corresponding y value for those same pixels...which was weighted. 

The entire point of RAW is to get the data from the camera to the computer BEFORE such processing occurs...before ANY processing of ANY KIND occurs...since its effectively THAT processing that a RAW editor like ACR, Lightroom, Aperture, or one of the open source tools do. And, to be blunt, those tools to a far better job, with more advanced algorithms that require more horsepower than a camera image processor has to produce better images. Having shot mRAW for about two weeks solid after I first got my 7D, I was rather dismayed to see a variety of "demosaicing" artifacts (or YCC encoding artifacts, for those who want to be more accurate) baked into my images. Funky color fringing that had nothing to do with chromatic aberration, or odd aliasing along round edges that don't occur with more advanced demosaicing algorithms like AHDD.

_This is just a warning._ I'm trying to be honest _to those who expect 100% RAW capability out of an mRAW or an sRAW, with the assumption that you can push exposure, white balance, and noise removal around to the same degree as with an actual true RAW._ From someone who spent a fair amount of time experimenting with mRAW, I was _EXTREMELY dismayed _by the limitations and encoding artifacts. Both mRAW and sRAW produce far smaller files that import faster, load faster, and operate faster in LR's develop module. But there ARE tradeoffs...tradeoffs you should be aware of and take into account when choosing your image mode. Neither mRAW or sRAW are true raw formats. They are effectively super-jpeg, 14-bits with lossless compression. The deeper bit depth gives you about the same post-process editing latitude you might get from a 16-bit TIFF image.


----------



## Woody (Sep 27, 2012)

jrista said:


> _This is just a warning._ I'm trying to be honest _to those who expect 100% RAW capability out of an mRAW or an sRAW, with the assumption that you can push exposure, white balance, and noise removal around to the same degree as with an actual true RAW._ From someone who spent a fair amount of time experimenting with mRAW, I was _EXTREMELY dismayed _by the limitations and encoding artifacts. Both mRAW and sRAW produce far smaller files that import faster, load faster, and operate faster in LR's develop module. But there ARE tradeoffs...tradeoffs you should be aware of and take into account when choosing your image mode. Neither mRAW or sRAW are true raw formats. They are effectively super-jpeg, 14-bits with lossless compression. The deeper bit depth gives you about the same post-process editing latitude you might get from a 16-bit TIFF image.



Thanks for taking the time to write all that. I have played with exposure, white balancing and noise on my mRAW files but have not noticed anything significantly different than RAW processing. Maybe I am not pushing them hard enough? I guess I'll try again: create RAW and mRAW files from a static scene and push both in post-processing. Do you have results from such a test to show the difference?


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

Woody said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > _This is just a warning._ I'm trying to be honest _to those who expect 100% RAW capability out of an mRAW or an sRAW, with the assumption that you can push exposure, white balance, and noise removal around to the same degree as with an actual true RAW._ From someone who spent a fair amount of time experimenting with mRAW, I was _EXTREMELY dismayed _by the limitations and encoding artifacts. Both mRAW and sRAW produce far smaller files that import faster, load faster, and operate faster in LR's develop module. But there ARE tradeoffs...tradeoffs you should be aware of and take into account when choosing your image mode. Neither mRAW or sRAW are true raw formats. They are effectively super-jpeg, 14-bits with lossless compression. The deeper bit depth gives you about the same post-process editing latitude you might get from a 16-bit TIFF image.
> ...



I did have results. I photograph birds, and when exposing and trying to maximize my use of the DR my 7D offers, I tend to push exposure pretty far to the right. Lot of birds are white or have a lot of white parts. I often have to do some considerable highlight recovery to restore detail to the feathers in such photographs. When using mRAW, I found that the ability to adjust exposure is very limited. I could recover highlights some with mRAW, but it had some pretty severe limitations. 

With RAW I can recover 100% of the detail in feather highlights so long as I did not actually blow them (surpass maximum saturation). With mRAW, I could only recover some tonality and a little color (such as with a Snowy Egret, which has yellowish-silvery plume feathers that show up white when you ETTR), but detail was usually unrecoverable. I could push exposure around a lot, I could even drop the exposure slider as far as it would go, making midtone areas of the photos nearly black...but those white highlights would stay bright white.

Same thing usually went for shadows. If I needed to lift shadows (which was more often the case with landscape and macro photography than birds), in RAW...despite the fact that I use a Canon camera...I could usually lift shadows by a couple stops if I needed to. With mRAW, lifting shadows would ultimately result in rather muddy, blotchy patches of grayish tone, without much detail. I could push the exposure slider to its maximum positive setting, and still not extract much detail from the shadows.

I don't think I have any of those files. After messing with mRAW for a couple weeks, I was so disgusted I marked most (if not all) of them as rejects in LR. I purge my rejects periodically, so its doubtful they still exist. I could make some more, however most of the birds I generally photograph that exhibited the problem so well (such as Snowy Egrets) have all flown south.


----------



## Woody (Sep 27, 2012)

Aglet said:


> www.cameraegg.com/canon-eos-70d-eos-3d-rumors-from-japanese-magazine/#more-687



These are predicted specs from Japanese magazine CAPA. I tried to verify the credibility of CAPA: in June 2012, they predicted the following specs for the Sony A99 which was only announced recently (Sep 2012): 24 MP, SLT technology, 101 phase detect AF points with wide coverage and ISO up to 51,200. Turns out the A99 has 19 conventional phase detect AF points and 102 on-sensor phase detect AF points, all with limited coverage. Also, actual ISO that 'only' goes up to 25,600. 

So, CAPA has good but not 100% accuracy.


----------



## iso79 (Sep 27, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Why does buying Nikon gear require selling Canon gear?



Most gearheads only can afford one system at a time. They spend tens of thousands of dollars on gear only to have their state of the art cameras sitting on their coffee tables. They don't bother taking photos or learn how to shoot in manual. Then they wait eagerly on the Internet for the next uber megapixel camera with 50 extra stops of DR to come out from an opposing brand. Then they sell all their gear again and start all over again.


----------



## etg9 (Sep 27, 2012)

These are some thoughts I had while reading this thread...

The technical talk in this thread is most welcome, I'm a computer guy but didn't know a lot (compared to some of you) about how the camera does it's thing and S/M Raw. These are always good reads and I thank that couple of you talking it out.

To people saying naive things, and there were a couple (that guy probably has a rebel and kit lens). I'm sure there are people out there who could out shoot me with a pinhole camera. Let's remember that the equipment is only measured against other equipment and that photographers have nothing to do with their gear. Skill, passion, and vision can be had by anyone and not only those who can afford an expensive camera. 

The Nikon D600 looks far better on paper than the 6D, which is disappointment spec-wise and should have been a lot better for the money they are charging. I will not however be selling my Canon gear, as some of you have screamed for in this thread, for saying Nikon has a better product. There can be circumstances which you know nothing about that let people be in this position. Mine is that I already have a 5DIII that I feel is a nicer camera than both of the last ones but if I had to have a backup body or when I tell my friends to buy a camera I feel the D600 has the specs that I would rather have/tell people to get (and then borrow any good lenses they may have acquired) and I wish Canon was the name on it. I won't be buying a 6D.

And on the topic at hand. I would be interested in a Canon camera like this for landscape and maybe light studio work. More like a 645D than a D800. on this body I don't need high frame rates, I don't need a bazillion point AF, I don't need fancy video modes. I would like the following things, which I feel like Canon could do.


46.1mp Full Frame - amazing IQ and Detail
3 FPS
ISO 100-6400 (maybe a native 50)
16bit - 14.5+ Stops DR
Low point AF (4,9,11 tops) with good spread and very accurate low light center point
Very weather sealed
Built in flash controller
$4800-5200


----------



## Osiris36 (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> Random thoughts...
> 
> 4. People who equate number of bits with quality or DR seems to have been brain-washed by marketing. All of the info that I have seen suggests that very few or none current cameras are actually limited by the number of bits used in the ADC/raw file format (Sony FF DSLR being a possible exception). Rather, it seems that they are limited by various analog/physical noise phenomena, and the sensible engineers choose a number of bits that allows them to capture all of the information (pure noise does not contain information in the sense we are talking about: it can be replaced by a random generator in your raw developer). It is possible that the rumored camera brings amazing advances in signal/noise properties that warrants 16 bits, or Canon might do this for marketing purposes alone (just like medium-format manufacturers).
> 
> -h



Not really true. You need to look at how ADCs work. A highspeed 14 bit ADC will rarely give you 14 usable bits at output. Go look at the datasheets from very well respect semi companies who make discrete ADCs. You give up precision for speed. This is why the Exmor line has the noise floor it does. Very little is conventional electronic noise. Canon has two choice, a lot of (much) slower ADCs or more, 'wider' ADCs at almost the same speed (but slowed as much as possible).


Just an aside; look at this:

http://www.ti.com/product/ads5500&lpos=Middle_Container&lid=Alternative_Devices

14 bit resolution highspeed ADC by TI (no slouch in signal processing!) with an effective number of bits (ENOB) of 11.3.


----------



## Bosman (Sep 27, 2012)

Please feel free to test how many images you can take at full size then do it in mraw. Whether or not i am right about extra processing doesn't overshadow the fact that something slows it down and you can't record as many images before it takes a break. If you own the camera or manual pdf you will see on pg 121 the effect of how many images can be shot in raw continuously. Now almost double that files size with the d800 let alone a 46 mp canon and now imagine how long it takes to write a raw file let alone a med raw. Facts are facts. I tested the buffer out on my 5dm3 in march when it came out. It was one of the very first things i did.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 27, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Please feel free to test how many images you can take at full size then do it in mraw. Whether or not i am right about extra processing doesn't overshadow the fact that something slows it down and you can't record as many images before it takes a break. If you own the camera or manual pdf you will see on pg 121 the effect of how many images can be shot in raw continuously. Now almost double that files size with the d800 let alone a 46 mp canon and now imagine how long it takes to write a raw file let alone a med raw. Facts are facts. I tested the buffer out on my 5dm3 in march when it came out. It was one of the very first things i did.



This.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 27, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I'm only selling the Canon gear that doesn't perform as well as stuff I can replace with competitor's gear.
I keep the Canon stuff that works better than the competitor's for whatever particular uses I may have for it. But, wherever I can drop using Canon in favor of better raw IQ from competitor's products, I do.
I push my files in post and need better noise performance than Canon provides. If Canon's noise levels were as high, but at least not PATTERNED I would not be very concerned about shifting allegiance to the competition. 
I hate the noise stripes and plaid patterns on my big prints that come from my McCanon cameras.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 27, 2012)

You mean the noise stripes from the 1DX at ISO 25,600 on an 8 x 10 print? Oh wait, there aren't any!

Sorry, sorry, I know you were referring to 5D Mark III and down.


----------



## plutonium10 (Sep 27, 2012)

All I can say is that if Canon can one-up the Exmor sensor, I will have some serious respect for their engineers. The rumor of a new sensor actually sounds plausible to me. Canon CMOS technology in the last few years has shown relatively slow, evolutionary improvement without any radical design changes to improve performance. This points to the fact that they are quite likely concentrating most of their sensor R&D resources on an entirely new sensor tech while existing tech receives only moderate boosts in performance.

This could also be why Canon has been slow to introduce replacements for the 1Ds III and 7D. These are/were the flagship models of the full-frame and APS-C camera segments, respectively. This makes them ideal for introducing and showing off a brand new sensor technology in both sensor formats. Just my 2¢.


----------



## Osiris36 (Sep 27, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> All I can say is that if Canon can one-up the Exmor sensor, I will have some serious respect for their engineers. The rumor of a new sensor actually sounds plausible to me. Canon CMOS technology in the last few years has shown relatively slow, evolutionary improvement without any radical design changes to improve performance. This points to the fact that they are quite likely concentrating most of their sensor R&D resources on an entirely new sensor tech while existing tech receives only moderate boosts in performance.
> 
> This could also be why Canon has been slow to introduce replacements for the 1Ds III and 7D. These are/were the flagship models of the full-frame and APS-C camera segments, respectively. This makes them ideal for introducing and showing off a brand new sensor technology in both sensor formats. Just my 2¢.



If Canon goes to a 32 channel read out at 16 bit with their ADC, their DR will suddenly shoot up on the test scores (like DXO). Ofcourse for 98% of images taken this will mean absolutely nothing, but it will stop people from complaining.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> 4. People who equate number of bits with quality or DR seems to have been brain-washed by marketing. All of the info that I have seen suggests that very few or none current cameras are actually limited by the number of bits used in the ADC/raw file format (Sony FF DSLR being a possible exception). Rather, it seems that they are limited by various analog/physical noise phenomena, and the sensible engineers choose a number of bits that allows them to capture all of the information (pure noise does not contain information in the sense we are talking about: it can be replaced by a random generator in your raw developer). It is possible that the rumored camera brings amazing advances in signal/noise properties that warrants 16 bits, or Canon might do this for marketing purposes alone (just like medium-format manufacturers).



This is just naive. The bit depth of the ADC is what limits DR to that number of stops. Generally speaking, sensors these days are probably capable of more than 14 stops of DR. Tests done by Roger Clark indicate that the total dynamic range of the Canon 1D IV sensor is about 15 stops (as measured in electrons, from the lowest measured read noise of 1.7e- to the highest measured saturation of 55600e-: http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-1div/index.html). Even if a sensor is capable of 15 or 16 stops of pure DR from its lowest measureable read noise to its highest maximum saturation, you have to factor in gain and read noise at the ISO setting your using, and the bit depth of the ADC. Once you convert the analog signal, the number of stops is limited to the bit depth of the ADC at most. Read noise will diminish dynamic range further from that theoretical maximum, so its rare to actually get a full 12 stops from a camera with a 12-bit ADC, or 14 stops from a 14-bit ADC.

This is the danger of DXO's "Print DR" scores. They are fabrications. Purely unrealistic and based on sketchy and in some cases black-box algorithms that push pixels around POST-ADC. The D800 is not actually a 14.4 stop sensor. The "Screen DR" score is still 13.2, and that is more indicative of what the D800 hardware...sensor, ADC, read noise factored in...is ACTUALLY capable of. Note that its less than 14.0, which would be the absolute theoretical (and ideal) limit of what the D800 could do. In reality, the best you will probably ever see from a camera with a 14-bit ADC is 13.9, to some number of decimal places of precision, but never actually 14.0 stops of hardware DR (Screen DR in DXO-speak).

If Canon's next camera uses a 16-bit ADC, then the theoretical maximum DR of the final digital output of the camera in RAW would be 16.0 stops. Assuming Canon does SOMETHING about their read noise, they could potentially achieve 15 stops, maybe more. If Canon does nothing about their read noise, then we MIGHT see around 14 stops of DR out of a Canon camera...but I would be surprised to see more than that without some additional mechanism to combat read noise...be it an electronic approach, a thermal cooling approach, or both.


----------



## plutonium10 (Sep 27, 2012)

Osiris36 said:


> If Canon goes to a 32 channel read out at 16 bit with their ADC, their DR will suddenly shoot up on the test scores (like DXO). Ofcourse for 98% of images taken this will mean absolutely nothing, but it will stop people from complaining.



Possibly. I think it's fair to say that some design decisions these days are made with the intent of pleasing synthetic benchmarks rather than improving actual real-world results. With Exmor having such a strong DXO score, it's possible that Canon might want to use this tactic.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This is just naive. The bit depth of the ADC is what limits DR to that number of stops.
> ...



You did not read my entire post. If you read it clearly, I state that the ADC is what imposes a THEORETICAL LIMIT on DR, not that it "guarantees DR". I also clearly stated that read noise is what reduces your real-world DR from that theoretical limit. If an ADC is 14-bit, that is the maximum limit. You *could* get *up to* 14 stops if the camera uses a 14-bit ADC. But because of noise, few cameras actually do. The D800, thanks to its use of a Sony Exmor sensor, has very low read noise. It gets 13.2 stops (note, that's LESS than the theoretical maximum of 14 imposed by the ADC's.) My Canon 7D also has a 14-bit ADC, but it only gets 11.12 stops of DR. That's because it has about THREE TIMES as much read noise as the D800 (at ISO 100). The D800 has 3e- read noise, my 7D has 8e- read noise. Its the read noise that eats away at the potential of the 7D to achieve more dynamic range. The ADC imposes a fixed limit...but the read noise imposes a dynamic limit...and how much read noise exists in a given sensor will limit actual DR to something below 14 stops...possibly well below.


----------



## Osiris36 (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> Osiris36 said:
> 
> 
> > Not really true. You need to look at how ADCs work. A highspeed 14 bit ADC will rarely give you 14 usable bits at output. Go look at the datasheets from very well respect semi companies who make discrete ADCs. You give up precision for speed. This is why the Exmor line has the noise floor it does. Very little is conventional electronic noise. Canon has two choice, a lot of (much) slower ADCs or more, 'wider' ADCs at almost the same speed (but slowed as much as possible).
> ...



The ADC is important part of the equation, and really the biggest difference for Canon and Sony at the moment. It's where your banding noise comes from, and a lot of Canon's noise in general is ADC artifacts. More bits in the ADC *will* make a difference in DR, and an immediate one. The downside is cost and the fact that more bits in the ADC make them finikier to work with (more jitter sensitive, etc.).

I don't think we should be downplaying the importance of a wider ADC at all.


----------



## plutonium10 (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly. I think it's fair to say that some design decisions these days are made with the intent of pleasing synthetic benchmarks rather than improving actual real-world results. With Exmor having such a strong DXO score, it's possible that Canon might want to use this tactic.
> ...



Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I'm not implying that real-world performance is sacrificed in order to get a good DXO score. I'm just saying that certain extra features (such as a 16-bit ADC) might be implemented for marketing and benchmarking purposes even if they will have a negligible positive impact on the quality of photos. Until I see details about the sensor, I won't even speculate as to whether or not a 16-bit ADC would have a large effect on the camera's DR.


----------



## Osiris36 (Sep 27, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > plutonium10 said:
> ...



Good news: Almost everything that will make DXO scores better will make some aspect of real world shooting better

Bad news: Many won't have any sort of meaningful impact *and* will add cost to the overall photography solution (including PCs, camera, lenses, etc.)


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > plutonium10 said:
> ...



Its very true that simply adding a 16-bit ADC might not have any real-world effect. If the sensor is only capable of around 12 or 13 stops of DR in terms of minimum read noise to maximum saturation, then adding a 16-bit ADC isn't going to get you more than 14 stops of DR. If read noise increases by a proportional amount, then you might not see any benefit at all. According to Roger Clark, it seems that Canon's 1D IV sensor is physically capable of a theoretical maximum of about 15 stops of DR. To actually achieve that, they would need to find a way to reduce ISO 100 read noise from the current ~28e- to 1.7e-. If they did that, and added a 16-bit ADC, then a future camera that used a "new and improved low read noise 1D IV sensor" could technically get 15 stops of DR. If the same exact sensor is used with a 16 bit ADC, its doubtful you would get more than the same 11.5 stops of DR it gets now.

There have been rumors that Canon is using some kind of fancy new cooling solution to help reduce noise in their next camera(s)/sensor(s). They mention it will produce some of the lowest read noise in a commercial sensor ever, so I'm inclined to think they have some kind of active cooling, maybe a peltier. If they really do reduce read noise to only a few electrons worth, any one of their current sensors, particularly the 5D III or 1D X sensors (which have improved SNR) should theoretically be able to get more than 14 stops of DR when paired with a 16-bit ADC. How much more remains to be seen. I am worried Canon has some weird issue with read noise that they have not yet resolved, and that even with an active cooling system their read noise will still be in the realm of 20 to 30 electrons worth per pixel. If so, we still might not see 13+ stops of DR in a Canon camera.


----------



## Greatland (Sep 27, 2012)

Perhaps someone here can shed some light on the rumored 46 megapixel camera that was supposed to be announced at Photokina. Just got off their website and there was apparently no announcement of any kind that I could find of such a camera yet we still have the story here at the CR forum....did they not do any type of announcement at Photokina??? Just asking


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

Greatland said:


> Perhaps someone here can shed some light on the rumored 46 megapixel camera that was supposed to be announced at Photokina. Just got off their website and there was apparently no announcement of any kind that I could find of such a camera yet we still have the story here at the CR forum....did they not do any type of announcement at Photokina??? Just asking



It wasn't Photokina. It was a different show called PhotoPlus that is supposed to happen soon (sometime in October) in New York.


----------



## jrista (Sep 27, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Its very true that simply adding a 16-bit ADC might not have any real-world effect. ... If the same exact sensor is used with a 16 bit ADC, its doubtful you would get more than the same 11.5 stops of DR it gets now.
> ...



Sure. There definitely has to be improvement in the whole pipeline to really make significant gains beyond 14-bits. There isn't going to be a magic bullet there...if just adding a 16-bit ADC was enough to instantly earn you a couple extra stops of DR, in this highly competitive environment it would have already been done. That's why I'm not surprised to hear rumors about 16-bit, active sensor cooling, new sensor designs, etc. Canon has a LOT of work ahead of them if they really want to start competing, and if the rumors are true, it sounds like they are serious about reclaiming...or at least attempting to reclaim...the technology crown.



dtaylor said:


> I dont know if the observed noise in Canon cameras come from the image sensor, signal amplifier, the analog front-end of the ADC, the wiring or something else. I dont think it matters that much, either.



Well, I would bet its from multiple sources. Fixed-pattern noise is caused by the physical nature of the sensor itself...nanoscopic defects and the like. Pattern noise is caused by the readout mechanics and interference mechanisms, which also occurs on the sensor. "Read noise" is usually introduced by the ADC itself due to its high operating frequency. Read noise tends not to be significant, however the ADC converting (and potentially amplifying) the entire signal, and by the time the signal gets to the ADC, it already has FPN and Pattern noise in it, so read noise is ON TOP of those other forms of noise. The ADC is also responsible for quantization noise, which occurs when you have a non-integral conversion factor (i.e. 2.6 electrons convert into one digital unit...you can't convert 2.6 electrons...you either have to convert 2 or 3 electrons, so the ADC periodically swaps back and forth between converting 2 for a while then converting 3 for a while, introducing a very slight differential...quantization noise.)

Increasing the number of ADC's can help a little. Putting the ADC on the sensor die and hyperparallelizing it would probably offer significant gains. Each ADC could run at a lower frequency, reducing or eliminating additional read noise. You could tune each ADC to the column or row it operates on, reducing fixed pattern noise (at least in one direction...horizontal or column). Canon's correlated double-sampling patents are pretty old...I think they date back to the late 1990's/early 2000's. That helps eliminate dark current noise, but it could probably be improved to provide greater benefits, and reduce noise at the time of pixel read even more. There are probably a whole slough of other types of electronic noise introduced by circuitry around the photodiode or in the sensor in general that affect IQ. Advanced noise compensation circuitry could be added for any one of them or all of them to further reduce "electronic noise" before its amplified by the pixel or by any additional downstream amplification (which Canon sensors seem to have, which is why noise off the sensor itself is so bad...something downstream, either in the ADC or just before it, is amplifying it further.)

There is one tried and true way of reducing electronic noise though: extreme thermal cooling. At room temperature, 70°C or around there, electronic noise can be pretty high. Cool an electronic die down to -80°C, and you reduce electronic noise by 200x or so. Scientific-grade CCD's frequently do this, and the efficiency goes through the roof. Read noise is nearly eliminated. Quantum Efficiency skyrockets to over 80%, in some cases over 90%. If Canon is pursuing some form of active cooling, they very well could reduce their read noise below Sony Exmor levels. They will probably have to draw a fair bit more power than Exmor's approach (which uses circuitry rather than cooling to solve the problem), but the results could be pretty incredible. 8)

On the flip side, if it works, Sony could just add active cooling to Exmor and leapfrog Canon again. ???


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



Canon doesn't necessarily need improve Q.E. to get more DR. The 7D's lowest read noise is also 2.7e-. I've never really understood why, but read noise increases at Canon's lowest two ISO settings. If Canon can achieve the same thing as Sony, where read noise is pretty much constant regardless of ISO setting, then a 7D with a FWC of 20187e- and read noise of 2.7e- would be capable of 12.9 stops of DR. The lowest read noise achieved in a Canon sensor is 1.5e- in the 1D IV sensor. Thats pretty amazing, regardless, to have a read noise that low for any ISO. If Canon could achieve a 1.5e- read noise across the board, the 7D, with the samw FWC of 20187e-, would have 13.7 stops of DR. Technically speaking, with thermoelectric cooling, making 1.5e- the highest read noise wouldn't be implausible...actually quite plausible. You could probably get read noise below that with sub-freezing cooling.

If you ALSO threw in some additional Q.E. (say, more effective microlenses, backillumination, etc.) and raise Q.E. to around 60%, and add additional noise-mitigation circuitry, and throw in a 16-bit ADC Canon could probably get well beyond 14 stops of DR with pixels less than 4 microns in size. But they don't necessarily have to do all of the above to improve their DR by a stop or two. Some efficient active cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature or even below freezing would go a LONG way towards making 1.5e- ISO 100 read noise and 13.7 stop 7D II DR a reality.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> .. Some efficient active cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature or even below freezing would go a LONG way towards making 1.5e- ISO 100 read noise and 13.7 stop 7D II DR a reality.



as yet, _efficient_ cooling does not exist
Peltier's terribly inefficient
the electron tunneling technology heat pump device isn't even off the drawing board yet, AFAIK.

HEHE! Maybe they can make it like a backscatter detector on an SEM and add a little liquid-nitrogen dewar with a cold-finger to the sensor assembly. Charge your battery, spare CF cards and a 2 gallon jug of LN2 and we're off to shoot some high-DR scenery.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2012)

AJ said:


> _... a very new sensor design/overhaul. The emphasis is in the dynamic range of the sensor ..._
> 
> New sensor technology? If so I wonder what it is? Any patents to hint at it?
> 
> I'm interested because technology tends to trickle down to consumer cameras that I can afford.


A BSI patent for large sensors was just released JP,2012-015275,A I'm suspecting it is involved. BSI has not been used in large sensors due to ailiasing, but the patent seems to resolve or at least greatly improve things.
I sent the patent link to Craig for him to review. Its very compllex and difficult to read, particularly after the translation, but it basically moves the electronics to a second substrate bonded to the first which has the photosites. The second substrate is then able to have better amplifiers as well as overcome ailiasing which should improve DR.


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Canon doesn't necessarily need improve Q.E. to get more DR. The 7D's lowest read noise is also 2.7e-. I've never really understood why, but read noise increases at Canon's lowest two ISO settings. If Canon can achieve the same thing as Sony, where read noise is pretty much constant regardless of ISO setting, then a 7D with a FWC of 20187e- and read noise of 2.7e- would be capable of 12.9 stops of DR. The lowest read noise achieved in a Canon sensor is 1.5e- in the 1D IV sensor. Thats pretty amazing, regardless, to have a read noise that low for any ISO. If Canon could achieve a 1.5e- read noise across the board, the 7D, with the samw FWC of 20187e-, would have 13.7 stops of DR. Technically speaking, with thermoelectric cooling, making 1.5e- the highest read noise wouldn't be implausible...actually quite plausible. You could probably get read noise below that with sub-freezing cooling.
> 
> If you ALSO threw in some additional Q.E. (say, more effective microlenses, backillumination, etc.) and raise Q.E. to around 60%, and add additional noise-mitigation circuitry, and throw in a 16-bit ADC Canon could probably get well beyond 14 stops of DR with pixels less than 4 microns in size. But they don't necessarily have to do all of the above to improve their DR by a stop or two. Some efficient active cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature or even below freezing would go a LONG way towards making 1.5e- ISO 100 read noise and 13.7 stop 7D II DR a reality.



http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_7D.html


*no, that is not at base iso = largest DR , and you are mixing up things 
number of electrons is halved with every f-stop or iso steps and you get lower read noise but also lower signal
The trick to keep read noise low at base iso = FWC
your other speculations I dismiss as Canon hardly has the capacity to build a more complex sensors with their 180 nm equipment, except with the equipment they use to the compact cameras sensors , and that sensor size is very small and lot of stitching must be done
Sorry , nothing is pointing in a good direction 
*
[/quote]

Your missing my point. IF <-- key word here -- Canon can reduce their ISO 100 read noise to the minimums recently seen in their cameras (1.5e- worth in the 1D IV sensor), they then could achieve an improvement in total DR at ISO 100. Sony Exmor effectively normalized read noise across all ISO settings. DXO's measurements seem a little sloppy...I've seen measurements from other reviewers that have much more consistent results, so my guess is that the D800 has a consistent 2.7e- read noise at all ISO settings (effectively the minimum read noise at all ISO settings.) IF Canon CAN DO THE SAME THING....make their minimum read noise from the highest ISO the read noise for all ISO's, like Sony did with Exmor, then Canon would have lower read noise than a D800. If that *hypothetical* (another key word there...my previous post was hypothesizing...might do you good to learn the difference between a hypothetical argument, which is all we can really do when speculating about future improvements Canon might add to their sensors)...if that hypothetical improvement was made, Canon could improve DR in a future 7D by 2.7 stops.

As for your presumption that Canon is incapable of developing a new fab or producing complex sensors at 180nm, there is nothing to stop Canon from innovating. Thats what competition does in a free market...it spurs innovation. Right now all we have about Canon's next cameras is rumor and speculation, but usually those rumors contain nuggets of factual, if not 100% accurate, insight. Based on the current rumors, I speculate that Canon IS innovating, and developing ways to improve their sensor technology beyond the current limitations it experiences today. That does not necessarily require a reduction in transistor size to accomplish. For that matter, does Sony even have a significant lead in transistor size over Canon? I know they use copper wiring in many of their latest CMOS sensor designs which saves them some space, but I hadn't heard that they generally had significant transistor size savings over Canon.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Sep 28, 2012)

Would it be too much to ask that this beast ship with built in Wi-fi and GPS?


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> Would it be too much to ask that this beast ship with built in Wi-fi and GPS?



Indeed. Is it too much to hope that the 6D is setting a new trend for Canon?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Sep 28, 2012)

Why can't they use a dual layer sensor to increase DR? Analogous to what they do in three sensor v-cams to get the three color channels.


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> > Your missing my point. IF <-- key word here -- Canon can reduce their ISO 100 read noise to the minimums recently seen in their cameras (1.5e- worth in the 1D IV sensor), they then could achieve an improvement in total DR at ISO 100. Sony Exmor effectively normalized read noise across all ISO settings. DXO's measurements seem a little sloppy...I've seen measurements from other reviewers that have much more consistent results, so my guess is that the D800 has a consistent 2.7e- read noise at all ISO settings (effectively the minimum read noise at all ISO settings.) IF Canon CAN DO THE SAME THING....make their minimum read noise from the highest ISO the read noise for all ISO's, like Sony did with Exmor, then Canon would have lower read noise than a D800. If that *hypothetical* (another key word there...my previous post was hypothesizing...might do you good to learn the difference between a hypothetical argument, which is all we can really do when speculating about future improvements Canon might add to their sensors)...if that hypothetical improvement was made, Canon could improve DR in a future 7D by 2.7 stops.
> >
> > As for your presumption that Canon is incapable of developing a new fab or producing complex sensors at 180nm, there is nothing to stop Canon from innovating. Thats what competition does in a free market...it spurs innovation. Right now all we have about Canon's next cameras is rumor and speculation, but usually those rumors contain nuggets of factual, if not 100% accurate, insight. Based on the current rumors, I speculate that Canon IS innovating, and developing ways to improve their sensor technology beyond the current limitations it experiences today. That does not necessarily require a reduction in transistor size to accomplish. For that matter, does Sony even have a significant lead in transistor size over Canon? I know they use copper wiring in many of their latest CMOS sensor designs which saves them some space, but I hadn't heard that they generally had significant transistor size savings over Canon.
> 
> ...



Your making wild, speculative assumptions about what Canon is or isn't *capable* of doing. It most likely has nothing to do with what Canon is capable of, and most likely to do with the fact that Sony owns the patents on the technology you are talking about: CP-ADC. I know exactly what CP-ADC is, how it works, and its advantages. Its only part of the equation, though. Sony has half a dozen other electronic noise mitigation patents that they also use in Exmor. The point here is that SONY OWNS THE PATENTS. That is their competitive advantage...it has nothing to do with fab capacity or capability, engineering expertise, etc. Canon is prevented from implementing technology that infringes on Sony's patents unless they come to some kind of legal or licensing agreement that allows them to do so. My guess is that Sony is going to wring every last ounce of advantage they can out of their patents before they give Canon the rights to use the technology in their own sensors. The two are epic rivals.

Canon has little option but to solve their problems in ways that are different enough from Sony's approach so they avoid infringing on Sony's patents. I am not sure what kind of leeway Canon may have in terms of innovating integrated electronics to mitigate noise. They already have their own form of CDS (Correlated Double Sampling), and they have their own patents on it. Sony also has patents on a form of CDS. Apparently the two approaches are different enough that both companies can hold patents for their specific way of implementing circuitry to solve that particular problem (the problem of dark current noise.) Who knows what other patents Canon has up their sleeve, or what patents they may be developing that they could add to their sensor tech. The issue may simply be ongoing R&D and time to market. I do believe Sony caught Canon off guard, but Sony has been filing patents for a decade, and a lot of the technology in Exmor was patented before 2004. It could be a couple more years before Canon is able to fully develop, prove, and patent their own version of the same kind of technology. In the mean time, they are apparently exploring cheaper options that can be implemented more quickly...such as some way to cool their sensors to reduce dark current noise.

The other thing about Canon is they are a very careful, meticulous company. They bide their time while they innovate, and there have been several occasions in the past where they appeared to be losing out to Nikon, only to come out with something rather radical in response. This happened when they unveiled EOS and brought AF to the market in the 1980's. That took the world by storm, and was the turning point that made Canon the supreme camera brand. The lead they gained back then still holds to today. Canon was also the first to bring full-frame DSLR's to the market. I believe they were the first to surpass the 20mp mark with the 5D II, which itself was a market changing device in its time as it brought affordable DSLR video recording capability to the table. Canon is an innovative and competitive company. It's simply that at this moment in time, Sony and Nikon have the limelight as they have introduced their own disruptive technology to the market and its making waves. That's all a good thing. It's the kind of competition the market place needs. It's the fire that spurs heightened innovation. Canon isn't going anywhere. This isn't the beginning of their long demise. It's just the beginning of a new phase of growth and innovation in the digital camera market that will probably span years, if not decades.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> Your missing my point. IF <-- key word here -- Canon can reduce their ISO 100 read noise to the minimums recently seen in their cameras (1.5e- worth in the 1D IV sensor), they then could achieve an improvement in total DR at ISO 100. Sony Exmor effectively normalized read noise across all ISO settings. DXO's measurements seem a little sloppy...I've seen measurements from other reviewers that have much more consistent results, so my guess is that the D800 has a consistent 2.7e- read noise at all ISO settings (effectively the minimum read noise at all ISO settings.) IF Canon CAN DO THE SAME THING....make their minimum read noise from the highest ISO the read noise for all ISO's, like Sony did with Exmor, then Canon would have lower read noise than a D800.



Yeah but they have not been able to since they have bad read noise at one of the two stages, at higher ISO they boost the shadow signal above the point where the one stage adds tons of garbage to the lowest end of the signal. I mean that's the whole trick isn't it? You could say the same about just about any of the sensors out there.

As someone said if you use ISO1600 to read shadows and ISO100 to read highlights you'd have good DR.

Nikon can do it now because of the Exmor ADC architecture. They hadn't been able to do it too much before Exmore, although their D4 does show that you can do better than Canon does even with a pure straight design if you have better fab process or something.



> As for your presumption that Canon is incapable of developing a new fab or producing complex sensors at 180nm, there is nothing to stop Canon from innovating.



The unfortunate thing is that some website claims they looked over Canon's books and see no sign of the sort of expenditure that hints that they have done this and one Canon employee says they just slashed R&D development.



> Thats what competition does in a free market...it spurs innovation. Right now all we have about Canon's next cameras is rumor and speculation, but usually those rumors contain nuggets of factual, if not 100% accurate, insight. Based on the current rumors, I speculate that Canon IS innovating, and developing ways to improve their sensor technology beyond the current limitations it experiences today.



I sure hope so. I'd almost think they'd have to be. But then again I was sure the 5D3 would show low ISO improvements too and again some websites say looking over the books they don't necessarily see positive signs, at least not in terms of new fab lines, but I have no idea how well the website really looked things over or if Canon has some other way. But you would think they'd have to wake up to it all at some point.


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > As for your presumption that Canon is incapable of developing a new fab or producing complex sensors at 180nm, there is nothing to stop Canon from innovating.
> ...



Well, I don't think its that simple. Which Canon books? They have a presence in countries all over the world. And which R&D budget? They've done research and development in multiple countries. Are they moving R&D out of China and into Japan? Are they moving more to the US? Or out of both the US and China? Or more into China? Following a multinational companies books isn't an easy thing to do. Who knows exactly what Canon is doing? Anyone who claims to know what they are going to do in the future is just speculating.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > Thats what competition does in a free market...it spurs innovation. Right now all we have about Canon's next cameras is rumor and speculation, but usually those rumors contain nuggets of factual, if not 100% accurate, insight. Based on the current rumors, I speculate that Canon IS innovating, and developing ways to improve their sensor technology beyond the current limitations it experiences today.
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope so. I'd almost think they'd have to be. But then again I was sure the 5D3 would show low ISO improvements too and again some websites say looking over the books they don't necessarily see positive signs, at least not in terms of new fab lines, but I have no idea how well the website really looked things over or if Canon has some other way. But you would think they'd have to wake up to it all at some point.



I'm rather skeptical about "some website" looking over Canon's books. As I said, not an easy task to figure out what a multinational company does with its money, what its funding, etc. It takes armies of accountants to manage that stuff.

If Canon really does slash their R&D budget and refuses to improve their fabs, that very well may hurt them in the long run. But its illogical to think, and for Canon to actually ignore, the threat of competition. I don't believe they intend to simply ignore Sony. However if Nikon can't keep up with the demand for their products, Canon may not really be experiencing enough competitive pressure to forge ahead at the speed their customers want them too, either. Sony doesn't sell that many of their own cameras. Nikon is popular, but they don't seem to have the capacity to produce that Canon does. Other brands all have popularity in their niche markets, but none of them are particularly as mainstream as Canon is in the DSLR world. It is entirely possible they don't yet feel enough of a competitive threat to invest the kind of R&D horsepower they need to reclaim the crowns they've lost.

To be honest, when you have a significant advantage...whatever that advantage is, even if its simply market share and momentum...its the nature of the free market to capitalize on that advantage as cheaply as possible. Can't say I particularly like that, I really want a nice high-res, low noise landscape camera...but its the nature of the beast.


----------



## Greatland (Sep 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> Greatland said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps someone here can shed some light on the rumored 46 megapixel camera that was supposed to be announced at Photokina. Just got off their website and there was apparently no announcement of any kind that I could find of such a camera yet we still have the story here at the CR forum....did they not do any type of announcement at Photokina??? Just asking
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> Well, I don't think its that simple. Which Canon books? They have a presence in countries all over the world. And which R&D budget? They've done research and development in multiple countries. Are they moving R&D out of China and into Japan? Are they moving more to the US? Or out of both the US and China? Or more into China? Following a multinational companies books isn't an easy thing to do. Who knows exactly what Canon is doing? Anyone who claims to know what they are going to do in the future is just speculating.



Hopefully you are correct. One was some Swedish website or group and I don't know whether they knew how or were able to dig deep enough or not. They said they didn't see evidence of building any expensive new sensor lines. But who knows.

The R&D slash was Canon person but not from DSLR group (although I believe referring to that group). But who knows.

Hopefully they are wrong or it won't matter.




> I'm rather skeptical about "some website" looking over Canon's books. As I said, not an easy task to figure out what a multinational company does with its money, what its funding, etc. It takes armies of accountants to manage that stuff.



Hopefully and possibly so.



> If Canon really does slash their R&D budget and refuses to improve their fabs, that very well may hurt them in the long run. But its illogical to think, and for Canon to actually ignore, the threat of competition. I don't believe they intend to simply ignore Sony.



Hope so.



> To be honest, when you have a significant advantage...whatever that advantage is, even if its simply market share and momentum...its the nature of the free market to capitalize on that advantage as cheaply as possible. Can't say I particularly like that, I really want a nice high-res, low noise landscape camera...but its the nature of the beast.



True, although such companies usually stumble more in the long run than the ones that keep charging, but it is a very common occurrence for companies to end up acting like that. For some you can sort of understand the fear about pushing forward and risking this and that for cameras it seems a lot more stable so it seems a bit less understandable but it had definitely happens all the same.


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

Something else to keep in mind that Canon does a hell of a lot more than just DSLR's. They have dozens?, many dozens? (hundreds?), of research groups researching technolgoies for a variety of fields. A lot of it is sensor and lens related for other industries than DSLR, some of it is printer related, there is obviously a lot of optics research, etc. R&D budget slashing in general could affect any one of a number of areas at Canon that has nothing to do with their DSLR camera initiatives.

@Mikael: You stated, more than once, that Canon doesn't have the technology to generate large sensors with small transistors. I beg to differ. They developed a 120mp APS-C sensor with a high readout rate a couple of years ago. I found a page describing it: http://www.canon.com/technology/approach/special/cmos.html. 

Their CMOS technology, which is capable of producing larger sized sensors (at least up to APS-H size, but if they can do APS-H size they can do FF size) with pixel sizes as small as 2.2 microns. Their 120mp APS-H sensor sported some kind of hyper-parallel sensor readout _*and processing*_ to support the 9.5 FPS readout rate. That indicates some kind of column-parallel or maybe row-parallel read and ADC strategy, as the reason Sony designed CP-ADC originally was not so much for the IQ improvement as it was for the readout rate improvement (although in Sony's case they were aiming for 60fps readout for mirrorless cameras.)

I garner two things from Canon's prototypical 120mp APS-C sensor. One, they are most certainly capable of fabricating large sensors with very small transistors (the pixel size is 2.2 microns, so transistor size has to be incredibly small to pack enough red and amplifier circuitry into each pixel). Two, they already seem to have technology that allows very fast hyper-parallel readout of an incredibly pixel-dense sensor. Three, their parallel readout seems to *process* pixels as well as simply read them, indicating some kind of on-die ADC.


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Something else to keep in mind that Canon does a hell of a lot more than just DSLR's. They have dozens?, many dozens? (hundreds?), of research groups researching technolgoies for a variety of fields. A lot of it is sensor and lens related for other industries than DSLR, some of it is printer related, there is obviously a lot of optics research, etc. R&D budget slashing in general could affect any one of a number of areas at Canon that has nothing to do with their DSLR camera initiatives.
> ...



Well, I find it ironic that the moment I provide a hard link with some actual evidence of relatively recent innovation, you resort to a _personal attack_. To be blunt, I don't mind so much...that's a sign of weakness in your argument.

Let me flip your request around. Give me proof they Canon is not continuing to innovate. Give me proof that Canon actually has indeed cut funding to their _DSLR-related R&D_ and not to some other research group for an unrelated or tangentially related field that's proven unproductive or nonprofitable. You throw out a lot of anecdotes, but you don't really back much of it up. The couple times you did actually included an image to back up a claim, everyone on this forum could see that it was an underexposed shot produced for a biased comparison by the most chaotic photography forums on the net: DPReview. 

Let's dispense with the anecdotes and sketchy evidence, and start pointing to some hard facts. I've tried. Your turn.


----------



## jrista (Sep 28, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *Regarding 120 mp sensor, that is a pro type, have you seen that in a camera, Sony could do a 500Mpixel if they want with theres mobile tech and a 24x36mm surface .
> Focus now if you have any knowledge of the subject, dont take it as a personal attack, take it as you do not know what you are talking about, and I am not used to the drivel you are writing, meet me on facts *



What facts? You haven't supplied any _facts_. Only your *personal opinions and speculation*. Stating that _"Sony could do a 500Mpixel if they want with theres mobile tech and a 24x36mm surface"_. Well, for one, your grammar and spelling could use a little, well LOT, of work. But second...that statement is 100% speculation. You can't spew pure speculation like that then a moment later turn around and tell me to "meet you on the facts." That's about as hypocritical as it gets.

The simple fact is, Canon has demonstrated an actual 120mp APS-H sized sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate. Sure, its a prototype, but *its real*. Canon states in their own information about it that it has broad on-die parallel readout and pixel processing. Those are _facts_. I _speculate_ that Canon has something similar to Sony's CP-ADC based on that prototype sensor. What it is exactly and specifically how it works I can't say, as I have yet to find a patent on the technology in any publicly searchable repository. But the _fact _is, Canon does have on-die hyper-parallel (my term, since I don't know of a better one to describe something like row- or column- parallel logic in a sensor die) readout and pixel processing...something _they innovated_, and fairly recently (a lot more recently than 2004, which you assert is the last time Canon innovated anything...another anecdote.)



Mikael Risedal said:


> *And Jrista, if you are used to that people are listen to you (You have written many posts here on this forum) I am not impressed of your logic, and please keep your messages short and concise. I take it again,
> Simply, there are no evidence that Canon have invest any money in a new sensor linje, this is open figures and seen in business stories for shareholders.There are also companies that make money on communicating what competitors are doing or not. A new sensor line cost about 1 billion US dollars or more, a heavy investment which will also be distributed to general public*



Honestly, I could care less if you think my logic is flawed because my posts are not short. ???

I may have written a lot of posts on this forum, but I've written about 1/5th that or less compared to many members. I have about 700 posts. I guess that gives me a little bit of reputation, but not a ton. I don't expect anyone to listen to me at all. I'm a debater...people generally don't like debaters, so I rarely expect any positive return from my posts. There are members here who have thousands posts here, such as LTRLI and Neuro. A guy like Neuro has the kind of reputation that makes people listen and respect his opinion. I come and go, I chat and debate when I'm here, and then I'll be gone for weeks as I'm out and about camera in-hand photographing. I'm not terribly concerned with my reputation, I guess. I have made about 10,000 photos since the last week of August, so I have a good solid couple of weeks of post-processing, tagging, organizing, and printing to do for the keepers, which is why I'm here. I've been spending a lot of time in front of my computer browsing forums while I wait for a print to complete.

You, on the other hand, have what...50 posts? You barge in, hands chock full of personal attacks and gobs of anecdotal quips that you keep claiming are accurate, posts packed with some of the worst spelling and grammar I've seen in recent memory, but without anything to really back any of it up. We've both swapped anecdotes, and that will obviously get us nowhere, so I've requested that we both start backing up our claims with third-party evidence. I've tried...I've started supplying links to external resources that back up my claims. Yet you refuse to reciprocate.

All things being equal, you can feel free to keep doing what your doing. I don't think your grammar & spelling, your personal attacks at me, your persistent use of bold text, or your anecdotes are doing you or your arguments or yourself any good. For the moment, I'm done swapping anecdotes. I'm done even replying until you start backing up your own claims with hard evidence...press releases, financial reports, objective studies, whatever it may be. Otherwise we are just dancing around each other to no good end, and since you come off as a troll, I'm done feeding. (Hell, I probably should have stopped feeding you a _long time ago_.)


----------



## canon1969 (Sep 29, 2012)

I like taking pictures of puppies... now I'll be able to make wall sized prints. (Just thought I'd lighten things up a bit.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Hopefully you are correct. One was some Swedish website or group and I don't know whether they knew how or were able to dig deep enough or not. They said they didn't see evidence of building any expensive new sensor lines. But who knows.
> *
> I know the group and one person is one of the best regarding sensors tech
> 
> ...



Well that is unfortunate.


----------



## jrista (Sep 29, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully you are correct. One was some Swedish website or group and I don't know whether they knew how or were able to dig deep enough or not. They said they didn't see evidence of building any expensive new sensor lines. But who knows.
> ...



I don't believe a new sensor line costs a billion in US$$. That is roughly the cost of a new semiconductor fabrication facility, and generally thats the kind of cost for one of Intel's incredibly advanced, cutting edge CPU fabrication facilities when they move from one die size to another. For one, if the design and development of a new sensor line doesn't necessarily require a new fab. If Canon has already produced a 120mp APS-H sensor with 2.2 micron pixels and some advanced parallel readout & processing circuitry with their existing fabs, it seems doubtful they would actually need to drop a billion or so a new one. As for R&D to design a new sensor, thats probably a cost of millions....but a far cry from a billion unless Canon has some seriously ground-breaking, game-changing technology up their sleeve. I doubt they have something that impactful (although one can hope...competition IS good for the consumer!), and they certainly have the sales and market share to invest a few tens to hundreds of millions in the development of new sensor technology (they still are the largest digital camera company in the world.)

It's highly doubtful Nikon and Sony spent a billion dollars designing Exmor. Just think about that for a moment...have either of them even made a billion dollars off the sales of the cameras that actually use Exmor sensors? (I mean, if we assume that Nikon actually made the full $3000 off each D800 they sold, they would have to sell over 333 million of them to make a billion dollars. At actual cost, they would probably have to sell over 500 million!) Thats an unholy lot of money to spend on "R&D". The development of a fab, in this case Sony's fab, is an entirely different story. Sony can use a single fab to produce a bazillion sensors a year in half a bazilion sizes and shapes for another half a bazillion purposes, for use in a zillion different industries and devices. Sony's (or for that matter Canon's) investment of a billion dollars in a semiconductor fab turns around and makes them many billions more. But that's a fab...not a new sensor design. And Mikael is purely speculating when he claims that Canon _has_ to build a new fab to build better sensors (a statement I'm still waiting on some hard evidence for, and for which I believe there is evidence against in the existence of their 120mp APS-H sensor.)


----------



## jrista (Sep 29, 2012)

Here is another little fact. Found this while digging through news for Canon's stock (spurred on by one of the other threads here on CR). Seems Canon has ranked third in overall patents filed in the US last year. That means Canon filed a HELL OF A LOT OF PATENTS!!



> Canon U.S.A., Inc., is a leading provider of consumer, business-to-business, and industrial digital imaging solutions. With approximately $45.6 billion in global revenue, its parent company, Canon Inc. (CAJ), ranks third overall in U.S. patents registered in 2011* and is one of Fortune Magazine's World's Most Admired Companies in 2012.



I believe the idea that Canon is not an innovative company with the horsepower to compete is a load of troll crap. As I've been saying, there is nothing to prevent Canon from stepping up their game and ultimately giving Nikon a run for their money. And the notion that they couldn't drop a few billion on a new semiconductor fab if they wanted to...another load of troll feces...they have a* $45 billion dollar global revenue*. A billion dollars is barely more than pocket change. 

Additionally, another strong mark for Canon that Nikon just doesn't hold a stick to is their customer support, which apparently has been award winning for nine years:



> In 2012, for the ninth consecutive year, Canon U.S.A. has received the PCMag.com Readers' Choice Award for Service and Reliability.



Reference: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oce-arizona-series-printers-ideal-for-producing-membrane-switch-overlays-2012-09-26


----------



## lola (Sep 29, 2012)

@Mikael Risedal : Why do you write in all bold?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Sep 29, 2012)

lola said:


> @Mikael Risedal : Why do you write in all bold?



It makes him feel important, in his own little egotistical mind. (just my opinion)


----------



## sach100 (Sep 29, 2012)

lola said:


> @Mikael Risedal : Why do you write in all bold?



so that others know which part to ignore in the discussion?


----------



## jrista (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another little fact. Found this while digging through news for Canon's stock (spurred on by one of the other threads here on CR). Seems Canon has ranked third in overall patents filed in the US last year. That means Canon filed a HELL OF A LOT OF PATENTS!!
> ...



Ok. No idea where that pie chart came from, so I can't verify its accuracy. 

Here are some more facts. Canon's business is primarily based on sensors of one kind of another and optics of one kind or another. 

Here is a report on their business units that covers three years. Within this report, Canon indicates they have three major business units: Office, Consumer, Industry/Other. All three of these business units produce products that use CMOS sensors and chips. From a revenue perspective, the Office unit, 53.6% of Canon's overall revenues, rakes in $24.5 billion. The Consumer unit, 37.5% of Canon's overall revenues, which covers all the photography, video, and printing stuff we are interested in (except imagePrograf printers...which are part of the Office unit) brings in $17.1 billion. The final and smallest unit, their Industrial products and everything else, 11.7% of Canon's overall revenues, brings in $5.3 billion. Canon's Industrial products division is capable of building the kind of equipment required for a semiconductor fab, such as Semiconductor Lithography units. 

Factual reference: http://web.canon.jp/ir/annual/2010/rep2010f.pdf



According to another report about Japan's local business (I assume this is just the local business, not worldwide like the above report, as Canon's worldwide revenue in yen is in the several trillions):

A full 27%, almost 1/3rd, of their business is consumer imaging. That 27% brings in around ¥164 billion in revenues. Another 49% of their business is business solutions. This largest segment brings in around ¥297 billion in revenues. Another 5% is industrial equipment, which involves a lot of sensor tech and optics, brings in around ¥30 billion in revenues. The final sector of Canon is their IT software, which is about 19% of their business. Not really sure what this division covers. This sector brings in ¥115 billion in revenues. There is also another ¥26.3 billion Canon simply chocks up to "Other". That is a total of ¥632 billion yen each year. In US dollar terms based on the current exchange rate, those numbers are:

Consumer Imaging Division: $2.1 billion
Business Division: $3.8 billion
Industrial Tech Division: $385 million
IT Solutions Division: $1.5 billion
Other: $338 million

Factual Reference: http://cweb.canon.jp/eng/corporate/activities/product.html



Even in US dollar terms, Canon's division related to consumer imaging, photography, video, etc. is almost a third of their business, and their second largest division from a dollar amount. Just about every device they ship from their consumer imaging division (including lenses) has at least one cmos chip in it. Every single actual imaging device, be it a DSLR, EOS-M, P&D, bridge camera, video camera, whatever...contains an image sensor and other CMOS devices to process pixels. They don't necessarily make ALL of those chips (many of their cheaper P&S cameras use CCD's manufactured by none other than Sony), but they make a significant percentage of them. And thats just the imaging division. The Industrial Tech division is also a heavily dependent on CMOS sensors and image processing chips. Hell, office products like printers and copiers require sensors. Canon most definitely has a significant need for a large CMOS production facility.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 1, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11396\"></glusone></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11396\"></a></div>
> <strong>A bit more information
> 
> 
> ...



My opinion on how this _should _go.

This camera should be a 5DIIIs or some such name (a sensor, software, and processing pipeline only upgrade to the 5DIII), released at $3599 or less with a simultaneous price drop on the 5DIII to $2799 or less. It should most certainly include at least one still-image crop mode that really crops, including the raw data, to allow faster frame rates, smaller sizes, and a deeper raw buffer.


----------



## Bosman (Oct 1, 2012)

Really Canon has a way to increase megapixels by a firmware update soon to be released. The 1dx/1dc/1dxs all the same camera just diff firmware lol...
For those hell bent on facts and info, i apologize for making lite of this but i am feeling a little wiley right now.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 1, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Really Canon has a way to increase megapixels by a firmware update soon to be released. The 1dx/1dc/1dxs all the same camera just diff firmware lol...
> For those hell bent on facts and info, i apologize for making lite of this but i am feeling a little wiley right now.



Oh please!! The 1DX is a letdown. Shoulda been 20 fps at 46.1 MP's!!


----------



## jrista (Oct 1, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Really Canon has a way to increase megapixels by a firmware update soon to be released. The 1dx/1dc/1dxs all the same camera just diff firmware lol...
> For those hell bent on facts and info, i apologize for making lite of this but i am feeling a little wiley right now.



I didn't realize the firmware update would affect the 1D X. I can see how you might be able to use firmware to improve the resolution of a video camera. I thought the 1D C was downsampling the pixels off the sensor anyway. Couldn't a firmware update allow it to sample every pixel, or add some form of RAW/native output?


----------



## stewy (Oct 2, 2012)

I have a feeling that this new camera is also going to be mirrorless. Hence a pro version of the EOS M with a digital viewfinder.


----------



## etg9 (Oct 2, 2012)

Mikael added that pie chart which is correct for the June 2012 standings of all CMOS/CCD standing. However that has little to nothing to do with what is going on as Omnivision and almost everyone else named there is a cellphone/small sensor manufacture. Cellphones, car backup cameras, security video cameras, ect. 

To add a little more to the pressure that Canon is having it's all in the numbers. Nikon and Sony are the only places Canon is feeling any pressure from in tech from but companies only care about these numbers.

Nikon 2011 profit: ~349 million USD
Sony 2011 profit: ~ (-584 million) USD
Canon 2011 profit: ~3177 million USD (1.17 billion of which is from consumer products)

As jrista said, Canon may or may not have the tech to beat Nikon/Sony but why should they go out and drop money on new stuff when selling the same stuff is working quite well making almost 10x as much as Nikon last year. 

//all numbers come from the companies 2011 financial report. Nikon and Sony are numbers from the entire company


----------



## Woody (Oct 3, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> It makes him feel important, in his own little egotistical mind. (just my opinion)



Mikael popped out of nowhere and started to make many posts about Canon sensors in this as well as Fred Miranda forums. He is either a kid having fun on the internet or a truly disgruntled owner of several Nikon/Canon/Hasselblad/Leica products.

In any case, even though I doubt he has any factual evidence to back his assertions, I feel that it is not necessarily a bad thing to repine about Canon sensors. It's the same with DXOMark: full of garbage but some of their basic (not projected or opinionated) findings are correct. Canon ought to step up their sensor technology especially with regards to their low ISO dynamic range.

The problem is this: does any of this whining get to Canon management and do they have the means to solve it?


----------



## Woody (Oct 3, 2012)

etg9 said:


> To add a little more to the pressure that Canon is having it's all in the numbers. Nikon and Sony are the only places Canon is feeling any pressure from in tech from but companies only care about these numbers.
> 
> Nikon 2011 profit: ~349 million USD
> Sony 2011 profit: ~ (-584 million) USD
> ...



They are #1 in worldwide market shares for both interchangeable lens as well as fixed lens cameras. In the former category, their market share is ~ 40%, compared to Nikon's 30%; the remaining 30% is shared among Olympus/Panasonic/Sony/Pentax/Fujifilm. Clearly, they are dominating the charts.

As you said, this is also their problem. Why should they innovate and improve on anything when they are already doing so well? The only way to make them sit up and listen is to stop buying their products... 

Unfortunately, I am still very enticed by their 6D...


----------



## generalstuff (Oct 3, 2012)

As I new member find comments here about DxOmark disappointing , just because some of you do not understand them, and they produce a result you don't like, is no reason to accuse them of not being reliable. Maybe you should seek to understand what they measure before you damn it.


----------



## Woody (Oct 3, 2012)

generalstuff said:


> As I new member find comments here about DxOmark disappointing , just because some of you do not understand them, and they produce a result you don't like, is no reason to accuse them of not being reliable. Maybe you should seek to understand what they measure before you damn it.



It's not they are not understood. Their derived data are just plain wrong sometimes while their RAW data is fine.


----------



## generalstuff (Oct 3, 2012)

Woody said:


> generalstuff said:
> 
> 
> > As I new member find comments here about DxOmark disappointing , just because some of you do not understand them, and they produce a result you don't like, is no reason to accuse them of not being reliable. Maybe you should seek to understand what they measure before you damn it.
> ...



Explain :-[


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 3, 2012)

generalstuff said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > It's not they are not understood. Their derived data are just plain wrong sometimes while their RAW data is fine.
> ...



Well, the obvious example is the DR score on a sensor like the Nikon D800 - DxOMark reports that as 14.4 EV, while the sensor has a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter meaning a real, measured DR of 14.4 is electronically impossible for the sensor. If you look at the raw data they actually measure, before their flawed method of normalization, it's 13.2 EV (which is, of course, very good...just not _impossibly_ good).


----------



## jrista (Oct 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> generalstuff said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



This is exactly correct. 

@GeneralStuff: If you are truly concerned about what the "camera" can do, you want to look at DxO's "Screen DR" results. Screen DR is what the sensor/ACD/image processor in the camera itself produces in the RAW image. Print DR, on the other hand, is what computer software produces after some specialized processing _well past_ the point its been imported off the camera, and has little to do with the actual hardware capabilities.


----------



## generalstuff (Oct 3, 2012)

Sorry, then you do not understand the read outs from Nikon and the Sony sensors , and it is more than one data reading.
Even the D3x with 12 bit ADC have more than 12 stops DR because of more than one data reading
Study the subject before pre mature conclusions


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 3, 2012)

Guys, no matter what facts you have or what you say it's not going to help much, lol.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Guys, no matter what facts you have or what you say it's not going to help much, lol.


I know, I know. But...the windmill is right there, just sticking straight up out of the field and begging to be tilted at and charged...



generalstuff said:


> Sorry, then you do not understand the read outs from Nikon and the Sony sensors , and it is more than one data reading.
> Even the D3x with 12 bit ADC have more than 12 stops DR because of more than one data reading
> Study the subject before pre mature conclusions


Really, the D3x has a 12-bit ADC? Quick, you'd better call Nobuyoshi Gokyu (President & CEO of Nikon, Inc., but I'm sure you know that) and tell him that the features page for the D3x, which states, "_Fast 14-bit A/D conversion incorporated onto the image sensor_," is wrong and needs to be corrected immediately, based on your thorough understanding of the read out from Nikon sensors.

So, if we can agree that Nikon is correct about their own D3x specifications, and that you, despite your extensive understanding and studying, are wrong about their D3x specifications, let's just say that the D3x has a 14-bit ADC and move on...

In that case, DxO's measurements show a very decent 12.84 EV of DR for the D3x. Their 'Landscape Score', however, is an artifically inflated 13.65 EV - still technically possible (unlike the D800), but again, artifically inflated as a direct result of a flawed method of data analysis.

Study the subject, indeed. Oh, puuullllleeeeeeeze. It's almost as if I _didn't_ have a day job that includes both analyzing quantitative image analysis data and managing a large group of scientists who do the same... :


----------



## jrista (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> 
> Study the subject, indeed. Oh, puuullllleeeeeeeze. It's almost as if I _didn't_ have a day job that includes both analyzing quantitative image analysis data and managing a large group of scientists who do the same... :



;D *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* ;D


----------



## elflord (Oct 4, 2012)

jrista said:


> This is exactly correct.
> 
> @GeneralStuff: If you are truly concerned about what the "camera" can do, you want to look at DxO's "Screen DR" results. Screen DR is what the sensor/ACD/image processor in the camera itself produces in the RAW image. Print DR, on the other hand, is what computer software produces after some specialized processing _well past_ the point its been imported off the camera, and has little to do with the actual hardware capabilities.



"The hardware" does not consist of a single pixel. "Screen" is fine if you want to evaluate the capabilities of a single pixel. 

If the cameras being compared have similar resolution, the difference should be relatively minor. (EDIT I mean both cameras should see their "dynamic range" change by a similar margin, which is the case with the D800 vs 5DIII for example -- depending on whether you believe the "screen" or "print" number, the Nikon wins by 2.5 stops, or "only" 2.2 stops.)


----------



## elflord (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> generalstuff said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



Why is 14 a hard limit ? I understand that it's impossible to represent more than 2^14 different intensities but that's not what dynamic range is. DR is log2(saturation point) - log2( blackpoint). Why can't this be greater than the number of bits in the ADC converter ? .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2012)

elflord said:


> Why is 14 a hard limit ? I understand that it's impossible to represent more than 2^14 different intensities but that's not what dynamic range is. DR is log2(saturation point) - log2( blackpoint). Why can't this be greater than the number of bits in the ADC converter ?



It could with a nonlinear ADC, except that almost all IC-based ADCs are linear. So, while the analog DR is the delta between the full well capacity and the noise floor (in e-), a 14-bit ADC maps signal at the noise floor to 0 and signal at full well capacity to 16,383, binning intermediate e- values incrementally, subject to quantization error.


----------



## elflord (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Why is 14 a hard limit ? I understand that it's impossible to represent more than 2^14 different intensities but that's not what dynamic range is. DR is log2(saturation point) - log2( blackpoint). Why can't this be greater than the number of bits in the ADC converter ?
> ...



You have the response (possibly nonlinear of the ADC). What about the response of the sensor itself to light ? Must this always be exactly linear ?

Also, if I pool four adjacent signals into one supersize pixel, how many bits do I have in my new "superpixel" ? Do I not have 56 bits ?


----------



## generalstuff (Oct 4, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Guys, no matter what facts you have or what you say it's not going to help much, lol.



Well, in this case they must blaime theirs own ignorance regarding multipel read outs and not
DXO meassurements.
Go to sensorgen, there you have all data ,FWC and read out noise


----------



## caruser (Oct 4, 2012)

elflord said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > elflord said:
> ...



That would be too easy, no, when merging 4 pixels you gain (at best) two more bits, because 4 is 2^2 (where the exponent is the one we're interested in). Think about it, you have 4 times a value from 0 to X, so the combination gives you a value from 0 to X*4, which is two additional bits, not X^4 or whatever you need to go to 56 bits! Said differently, you can't multiply the bits by 4 when you multiply the pixels by 4 because the pixels are on a linear, and the bits on a logarithmic scale.


----------



## generalstuff (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, no matter what facts you have or what you say it's not going to help much, lol.
> ...


Really, the D3x has a 12-bit ADC? Quick, you'd better call Nobuyoshi Gokyu (President & CEO of Nikon, Inc., but I'm sure you know that) and tell him that the features page for the D3x, which states, "_Fast 14-bit A/D conversion incorporated onto the image sensor_," is wrong and needs to be corrected immediately, based on your thorough understanding of the read out from Nikon sensors.

So, if we can agree that Nikon is correct about their own D3x specifications, and that you, despite your extensive understanding and studying, are wrong about their D3x specifications, let's just say that the D3x has a 14-bit ADC and move on...

In that case, DxO's measurements show a very decent 12.84 EV of DR for the D3x. Their 'Landscape Score', however, is an artifically inflated 13.65 EV - still technically possible (unlike the D800), but again, artifically inflated as a direct result of a flawed method of data analysis.

Study the subject, indeed. Oh, puuullllleeeeeeeze. It's almost as if I _didn't_ have a day job that includes both analyzing quantitative image analysis data and managing a large group of scientists who do the same... :
[/quote]





Sorry but you are wrong  

D3x sensor is the same as in the Sony A900, there has been much discussion whether it is a 12 or 14-bit column ADC and if Nikon has changed it . In the Sony's sensor is it determined that is a 12-bit column ADC.

Whether it's a 12 or 14 bit ADC in Nikon . In the d3x . D90, d7000, d800 it takes place two readouts of data and these data are merged so the number of dynamic stops are higher than the number of stops from a normal read out to a common ADC.

With Canons sensor layout it's different . Based on the 18MP APS-C pixel with a very good and very expensive external ADC - probably 16 bit could give them better "more mega pixel camera " and DR, if they can deal with the banding. One sensor expert always maintains that they (Canon) could deal with banding by leaving larger areas of masked black pixels (allows them to make the required changes in line by line and column by column gain.

So do not blaim DXO meassurements as incorrect when Canon is showing poor data like DR and other meassurable parameters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2012)

generalstuff said:


> So do not blaim DXO meassurements as incorrect when Canon is showing poor data like DR and other meassurable parameters.



I'm not. Their measurements are fine. It's their _analysis_ of those measurements, specifically the method of normalization which pushes values beyond the possible measured range, that is flawed (and their factor weighting for the overall score is a black box of 'weighted' combination where the weighting is undisclosed, and thus may not even be consistent). 

Nor am I saying that Canon's sensors have as good a DR as Nikon's, at least at low ISO (they don't, because their noise floor is too high, which diminishes in importance as gain is applied). 

But...it really doesn't matter, so I'll not continue to respond to your obviously specious statements, because:



generalstuff said:


> D3x sensor is the same as in the Sony A900, there has been much discussion whether it is a 12 or 14-bit column ADC and if Nikon has changed it . In the Sony's sensor is it determined that is a 12-bit column ADC.



Ok, so Nikon says it's 14-bit, but you say Nikon is *lying* and it's actually 12-bit....



Razor2012 said:


> Guys, no matter what facts you have or what you say it's not going to help much, lol.



I concede the point.


----------



## elflord (Oct 4, 2012)

caruser said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > You have the response (possibly nonlinear of the ADC). What about the response of the sensor itself to light ? Must this always be exactly linear ?
> ...



Sorry, yes, that's what I meant (and what I hammered away at earlier). You get log2( number pixels merged). 

It seems the conclusion though is that no, the number of bits in the ADC really is not a hard limit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2012)

elflord said:


> It seems the conclusion though is that no, the number of bits in the ADC really is not a hard limit.



Agreed, at least that it's not a hard _theoretical_ limit. I believe it is a hard _practical_ limit for the sensors under discussion, though. Could they be nonlinear? Unlikely - real data from previous sensors indicates linearity (e.g. Roger Clark's data), and as I stated, almost all IC-based ADC's are linear, except the very earliest ones. As for binning, yes, you can gain DR, as well as sensitivity. But you lose resolution - and since that's linear, not logarithmic, you trade a lot of resolution for that DR gain (having said that, many fluorescent imaging systems, where the signal is faint, do make just such a trade off, although the goal there is usually higher sensitivity, not the higher DR that comes with it). If you interpolate back to full res, you get a softer image - and the D800 images are plenty sharp, so I don't think binning is going on here, either (for luminance, obviously color interpolation is a different story).


----------



## elflord (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > It seems the conclusion though is that no, the number of bits in the ADC really is not a hard limit.
> ...



This seems a bit counterintuitive -- because generally, physical saturation affects manifest as asymptotic bounds, not straight lines that run into a ceiling. So I'm a bit sceptical here. Could you point me to some reference that demonstrates this linearity ? 



> As for binning, yes, you can gain DR, as well as sensitivity. But you lose resolution - and since that's linear, not logarithmic, you trade a lot of resolution for that DR gain
> ...
> If you interpolate back to full res, you get a softer image - and the D800 images are plenty sharp, so I don't think binning is going on here, either


But I think that _ is_ essentially what is going on, because DxOmark's print score is based on a normalization to 8 megapixels. I'd think that would buy you a gain of a stop or so. ( something like log2 ( sqrt(36 megapixels / 8 megapixels ) ) 

As long as you're working with the premise that the viewing size of the image does not depend on the number of megapixels on the camera, the print number is the one you want. The "screen" number is nice to have also as it is (one of many) example(s) of DxO being thorough about documenting the intermediate steps of their process.


----------



## marinien (Oct 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> But...it really doesn't matter, so I'll not continue to respond to your obviously specious statements, because:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



@generalstuff: you should do more research before jumping on any conclusion. The Sony A900 has a 12-bit ADC does not mean that the sensor is limited to 12 bits! It means that Sony only includes a 12-bit ADC in their A900.
BTW, the Nikon D3X has a max of 5fps in 12-bit mode (Nikon specs) and of about 2fps in 14-bit mode (estimation).


----------



## straub (Oct 4, 2012)

elflord said:


> But I think that _ is_ essentially what is going on, because DxOmark's print score is based on a normalization to 8 megapixels. I'd think that would buy you a gain of a stop or so. ( something like log2 ( sqrt(36 megapixels / 8 megapixels ) )



That's the theoretical part, which would work in an ideal situation with ideal noise characteristics and real numbers instead of quantized integers.

AFAIK, Nikon RAWs currently clamp any digitized negative values to zero (compare that to Canon having a bias value of 2048 in the data). This roughly halves the stdev of the dark frame image captures in Nikon's case, in the end inflating the "measured DR" by roughly one stop.

Another result of this is that for values of low magnitude, oversampling the individual pixel values in SW does not result in the expected behavior of noise converging towards zero. Since the noise-converging-to-zero is a key assumption in the whole "increase-DR-by-binning" scenario, it's quite trivial to notice that the theory doesn't hold water in this case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2012)

elflord said:


> ...physical saturation affects manifest as asymptotic bounds, not straight lines that run into a ceiling. So I'm a bit sceptical here. Could you point me to some reference that demonstrates this linearity ?



http://scien.stanford.edu/pages/labsite/2007/psych221/projects/07/camera_characterization/sensor_linearity.html

Granted, it's not peer reviewed, an as a Cal alum I am properly skeptical of data from students of Leland Stanford _Junior College_ University... 

But seriously, the photodiode fills in exactly that fashion - linear up to the full well capacity, then it hits a ceiling where no more photons can be absorbed (if it were a CCD sensor, those surplus photons would just spill over to adjacent photodiodes, i.e. blooming). The ADC is linear by design (although nonlinearity is introduced to the image later, intentionally, as a gamma correction to simulate human visual processing, i.e. to 'make the picture look good').


----------



## nightowl (Oct 4, 2012)

About DXO
we can use the DXOmark data to derive the sensor parameters. From the DXOmark dynamic range we get the ratio of full well signal to read noise. From the SNR plot we get the ratio between the signal and the total noise at a given exposure. By using the dynamic range and two SNR values at full capacity and one other level from the fullSNR plots we can solve for the read noise, full well capacity, and gain variance.etc etc

5dmk3 and read noise and dynamic range http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkIII.html
D800 and read noise and dynamic range http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html

and as some member mention here before , with a very good and very expensive external ADC 16 bit could give Canon a better DR and if they can deal with the banding.


----------



## elflord (Oct 6, 2012)

straub said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > But I think that _ is_ essentially what is going on, because DxOmark's print score is based on a normalization to 8 megapixels. I'd think that would buy you a gain of a stop or so. ( something like log2 ( sqrt(36 megapixels / 8 megapixels ) )
> ...



I don't follow this at all. Luminance isn't negative, so why would it make sense to have negative numbers ? If this clipping really takes place, does this show up on the SNR curves ? I don't really buy that they can inflate the estimated dynamic range by clipping relatively high values (one problem with this is that it leaves some dynamic range on the table). I see other problems with this line of reasoning. For one, you don't halve the standard deviation by throwing away half the distribution because it's heavily skewed (e.g. the left tail is bounded and the right isn't). I might be missing something, but the above looks like nonsense to me. 



> Another result of this is that for values of low magnitude, oversampling the individual pixel values in SW does not result in the expected behavior of noise converging towards zero. Since the noise-converging-to-zero is a key assumption in the whole "increase-DR-by-binning" scenario, it's quite trivial to notice that the theory doesn't hold water in this case.



When we talk about how "theory" plays out in the real world, it is far from "trivial". 

In the case of signal to noise and its application to dynamic range -- even we fail to realize the "theoretical" blackpoint due to quantization error (because the actual noise is less than the quantization error), we still increase usable dynamic range. 

Suppose for example our "shadow noise level" (noise at signal level of 1) is 1 -- so 1 on our scale corresponds to the blackpoint. If we average, theoretically, we could reduce the blackpoint, but our error is stuck at 1 due to quantization. That if I understand it is your argument. 

But lets step up a couple of stops. At a signal level of 4, our noise level is 2 (proportional to sqrt of the signal), so at this level we would reduce signal to noise by binning (that is, quantization error isn't the limiting factor). 

So you will gain usable dynamic range by increasing resolution, even quantization places a kind of floor on your blackpoint.


----------



## jrista (Oct 8, 2012)

elflord said:


> straub said:
> 
> 
> > elflord said:
> ...



Only photon shot noise follows a Poisson distribution, and is therefor proportional to the sqrt of the signal. But were not talking about photon shot noise...were talking about read noise, the fixed amount of noise that exists in the lower range of the image signal, and how downscaling affects *that kind of noise*. I'm not sure you can simply and cleanly apply poisson statistics to read noise, or how scaling affects read noise, especially considering that there is also photon shot noise to content with at those levels. I think your making the problem far simpler than it really is, and ignoring a key factor about the discussion involving DR, and why a Sony Exmor sensor _does_ have more DR than any other sensor on the market right now, but not as much as DXO's results indicate.


----------



## straub (Oct 8, 2012)

elflord said:


> I don't follow this at all. Luminance isn't negative, so why would it make sense to have negative numbers ? If this clipping really takes place, does this show up on the SNR curves ? I don't really buy that they can inflate the estimated dynamic range by clipping relatively high values (one problem with this is that it leaves some dynamic range on the table).



Negative values in reference to the RAW file blackpoint, which for NEFs is 0. Canon RAWs use either 1024 or 2048. See e.g. here http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/. The values clipped are not "relatively high", they are on the low end of the scale.



elflord said:


> Suppose for example our "shadow noise level" (noise at signal level of 1) is 1 -- so 1 on our scale corresponds to the blackpoint. If we average, theoretically, we could reduce the blackpoint, but our error is stuck at 1 due to quantization. That if I understand it is your argument.



No, it's about the clipping. See the curves in the link I posted. In the case of 40D, the read noise follows normal distribution. You can see that by binning pixels, the resultant noise will converge towards 1024, i.e. the blackpoint. In Nikon's case it would approach something > 0, i.e. a value over the black point set in the NEF.


----------



## straub (Oct 8, 2012)

elflord said:


> But lets step up a couple of stops. At a signal level of 4, our noise level is 2 (proportional to sqrt of the signal), so at this level we would reduce signal to noise by binning (that is, quantization error isn't the limiting factor).
> 
> So you will gain usable dynamic range by increasing resolution, even quantization places a kind of floor on your blackpoint.



Do you understand that on a 14-bit scale, the level 4 corresponds to LV roughly 12 stops down from the maximum? Minimizing noise by pixel binning at LV -12 doesn't do anything to the resultant DR if the per-pixel DR is already over 13 stops. The quantization and 14-bit representation only limit the maximum attainable DR to 14 stops. The clipping of the bottom-end limits it to something <14 stops.


----------



## luftweg (Oct 11, 2012)

They should call it the EOS 1DZ....... because all this talk is making me 'DZ'.......


----------



## jbayston (Oct 12, 2012)

the trouble with these massive file sizes is that it shows the lenses to be less than perfect. i still think that a great lens and a reasonable size sensor would beat and average lens and massive sensor.


----------



## jrista (Oct 12, 2012)

jbayston said:


> the trouble with these massive file sizes is that it shows the lenses to be less than perfect. i still think that a great lens and a reasonable size sensor would beat and average lens and massive sensor.



I would argue that it shows there is a renewed need for image stabilization. Or, alternatively, that the user doesn't have nearly as steady of hands as they think they do. 

I can't say much about consumer lenses, as they are mass produced and use lower quality materials for the optical glass. But professional grade lenses, particularly Canon L-series telephoto lenses, are made with much higher quality glass and usually hand crafted for precision. I believe Canon's latest Mark II telephotos are plenty capable of resolving enough detail for a 46.1mp sensor. I recently used the new EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS, the successor to what was previously considered Canon's sharpest lens ever, period. The sharpness of that lens is unbelievable, and was fully capable of keeping up with my Canon 7D for birds (lots and lots of super fine feather detail). Even my slightly older Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens is capable of keeping up with the resolution of my 7D, and it isn't anywhere close to the engineering feat that the 300mm lens is. 

The 7D, BTW, has a pixel pitch about the same as a 47.6mp FF sensor would have... So I seriously doubt anyone will have a problem with lens resolution, so long as they use professional-grade glass, and use newer lens models.


----------

