# And what does Canon do?



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

https://fstoppers.com/editorial/exclusive-red-has-big-plans-be-your-still-camera-maker-34469



> Imagine a still camera that can shoot 16.5 stops dynamic range at 19 megapixels. It's also modular, which means it's infinitely customizable via proprietary and third party accessories. It can also use lenses by Canon, Nikon, and an huge library of PL mount cinema lenses. In addition, it can also shoot up to 6K RAW video files at the frame rates of 23.98, 24, 25, 29.97, 47.96, 48, 50, and 59.94. It would also have a similar form factor and size to popular digital medium format still camera systems. Sounds amazing right? When does it come out you say? It's out NOW.



And Canon? A rather boring 7D MK2....
It will sure not the Videographer camera this site and others hyped all the years.


----------



## mkabi (Sep 5, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> https://fstoppers.com/editorial/exclusive-red-has-big-plans-be-your-still-camera-maker-34469
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is not new....RED always had 6K RAW and has had a still camera for a while now.
The question is price. Your looking at 10s of thousands of dollars. A 1D-C pales in comparison.
And, by the authors final words, " I love my Phase One IQ140, but I definitely see the merit of getting comfortable with using my Scarlet more often on my future shoots."
Tells me that money and price is a non-issue for him.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

Good grief. One HUNDRED frames per second. And people complain about 50mp image sizes...it doesn't matter if all you have is 19mp, at 100fps full RAW stills your going to eat all the disk space on the planet in less than a year!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> Good grief. One HUNDRED frames per second. And people complain about 50mp image sizes...it doesn't matter if all you have is 19mp, at 100fps full RAW stills your going to eat all the disk space on the planet in less than a year!


19Mp... say 25MB raw files, that's only 2.5GB per second... it would take 26 minutes to fill up a 4Tb drive....

and then you have to sort through the pictures to see which frame best captured the squirrel


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

What will Canon do? Release a 7DII/X that will sell thousands of units (if not tens of thousands) for every Red camera sold.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

What is the point of this thread? This is a canon site. If you don't like what canon has to offer, then go to another forum. Pretty simple.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 5, 2014)

And what does Canon do?

They will continue to make affordable, easy-to-use, reliable, high quality cameras that everyone but pixel-peeping-fools will appreciate and enjoy.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief. One HUNDRED frames per second. And people complain about 50mp image sizes...it doesn't matter if all you have is 19mp, at 100fps full RAW stills your going to eat all the disk space on the planet in less than a year!
> ...



LOL. You would fill up nearly 81,000 4TB hard drives in a year. That's nearly 324Petabytes in a year.  8)


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I would hate to have to sort that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Well, money is no object, right? Just hire a team of photographers to sort and process your images.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2014)

I wonder how Ford will respond to the new LaFerrari.


----------



## mkabi (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> Honestly, ppl. EVERYONE BUT PIXEL-PEEPING-FOOLS? It's the freakin pixel peepers who keep demanding more, who keep demanding technology progress, who keep demanding better IQ, which, in the long run...STILL BENEFITS YOU!!



Insatiable hunger... leads to nothing.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I'm cheap so I'll have to outsource, or as my company calls it, "right shoring"


----------



## pwp (Sep 5, 2014)

How could you have anything but total admiration for a company like RED, shouldering into the market just 10 years ago, then following up with a string of awesome products. The trickle down will continue and as viable hybrid cameras increasingly become a commercial necessity for professional shooters, announcements like this one have a reassuring resonance. 

Who knows? In the hybrid sector, this is the year of the crazy-good and hot-selling Panasonic GH4 (which I use for video work) and the low-light king, the Sony A7s. There may just be a RED in my future...

-pw


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, ppl. EVERYONE BUT PIXEL-PEEPING-FOOLS? It's the freakin pixel peepers who keep demanding more, who keep demanding technology progress, who keep demanding better IQ, which, in the long run...STILL BENEFITS YOU!!
> ...



You've once again entirely missed the point.  It doesn't matter who it is, it doesn't need to be forum posters. There are a gazillion pixel peepers out there in the real world (just about every camera reviewer is one these days, too). The point is, if no one demanded better products, far fewer better products would be created. Demand is ultimately what invites companies to innovate and develop better products. When people demonstrate that they want something, someone, somewhere, usually responds to that want.

And example is the car rear-video sensor market. That market just EXPLODED, thanks to increased legislation and demand for legislation to require that all cars have rear-view backup cameras. Before there was the demand, there was no real interest in that market. Now that there is demand, all the major sensor manufacturers are vying for the top spot. Aptina, Sony, and a number of other manufacturers have all been publishing market domination plans, each one saying they want to have the dominant position in X number of years. From what I understand, it was a handful of vocal people who suffered one terrible accident with a child or other who ultimately got the legislation on the docket and passed in the first place. It was those same few people who kept the pressure on to get the necessary rules for the law finalized by the deadline, and now that it's been done...huge new market, lots of innovation, lots of new products.

By the tone on these forums, you would think no one wants anything better than what they had five or ten years ago. (I know that isn't true, it doesn't seem logical that the photographers on this forum wouldn't want a better camera in their hands......yet if it really is....wow...)

It isn't about one person's opinion. If a thousand, ten thousand, a million "pixel peepers" (read: people who care about getting improved IQ) demanded Canon change something (and not necessarily on forums...in writing, in person, at conferences to Canon reps, whatever)...do you think Canon would ignore them?


----------



## preppyak (Sep 5, 2014)

Well, the Scarlet Dragon is what, $20k, and that's assuming you are only doing studio shoots with lots of free time to use one battery and one RedMag. By the time you get the batteries, the storage, the processing power, and the rig, you are easily over $30k for those features you mention.

And then of course, you're relying on manual focus if you really want accuracy...which kind of negates the advantage that 100fps gains you (do you really want to manual focus your sports/wildlife shoots?).

I'm more impressed with Blackmagic, who can give you 30fps (more than enough) at 8MP for 1/10th the price.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 5, 2014)

They don't mention autofocus anywhere. Maximum ISO is 2000? 30mm sensor? It weighs five pounds and costs how much?
They may as well be selling a film camera.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> Good grief. One HUNDRED frames per second. And people complain about 50mp image sizes...it doesn't matter if all you have is 19mp, at 100fps full RAW stills your going to eat all the disk space on the planet in less than a year!



The raw files are wavelet compressed. Compression is selectable but 9:1 or so is not uncommon. And you don't have to shoot at 100fps.

And, an EPIC Dragon with all the required trimmings is going to be in the $40-50k range, without lenses. A Scarlet is cheaper but can't shoot 6k at anywhere near 100fps.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 5, 2014)

9VIII said:


> They don't mention autofocus anywhere. Maximum ISO is 2000? 30mm sensor? It weighs five pounds and costs how much?
> They may as well be selling a film camera.



It can effectively go way above 2000 and it does have fast contrast detection AF.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief. One HUNDRED frames per second. And people complain about 50mp image sizes...it doesn't matter if all you have is 19mp, at 100fps full RAW stills your going to eat all the disk space on the planet in less than a year!
> ...



Oh, I know. I was just being funny about 100fps for still photography.  I mean, 30fps is standard for VIDEO, 60fps is "high speed". At 100fps, your well into "slow motion" territory. 



Lee Jay said:


> And, an EPIC Dragon with all the required trimmings is going to be in the $40-50k range, without lenses. A Scarlet is cheaper but can't shoot 6k at anywhere near 100fps.



Yeah, Red Dragon's products are phenomenal. If I did cinematography, I'd probably pick up one of their cameras. Arri also makes extremely nice products, but I think they are even more expensive than Red.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I honestly don't know if I've ever read a post from you that wasn't trying to pick a fight... ???


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> What will Canon do? Release a 7DII/X that will sell thousands of units (if not tens of thousands) for every Red camera sold.



So what?

Buy a P&S they sell even more of that crap.


The 7D MK2 will not even beat the Panasonic GH4 when it comes to video features. :


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 5, 2014)

am I the only one that thinks video shutter speeds are too slow to make this an effective method for shooting stills? regardless of data and bloat and all the other issues all you will end up with is terrabytes of blurred images...


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> am I the only one that thinks video shutter speeds are too slow to make this an effective method for shooting stills? regardless of data and bloat and all the other issues all you will end up with is terrabytes of blurred images...



People who actually tried it find it usefull.


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 5, 2014)

Red Dragon, Phase One, Hasselblad, medium format, cine lenses, etc. are the names, which most of us see only on internet screen  These products are currently extremely expensive, however they show what technological achievements are possible in the future for standard consumers.

Neuro always advocates Canon by saying that Canon financial results are better than Nikon or other, that 5D Mark III outsells RED in thousands of times  However, by looking at technological achievements during the last 20 years we can see how technology (especially computers) became so advanced, very cheap (compare 90's supercomputer abilities and price with simple current computer and price.... today even phone processor abilities are much more advanced than 90s' supercomputer).

Many years photography quality was related to optics only as it was quite hard to make significant and visible improvements in analog camera, however, with introduction of digital cameras everything has changed. Cameras are no different from computers, however, I do not see significant improvements in this area for years (especially from Canon side). My reasoning is the following:

1) The 2 main components in digital camera are sensors and processing chip. When computer processors became extremely powerful and quite cheap camera's processor advancement pace is much slower.

Sensor technology - I still can not understand why sensors are still so expensive. e.g. Canon using the same sensors for many years, R&D costs are already written-off few years ago, production facilities already paid-off also few years ago. As far as I understand initial sensor production costs were quite high, that's why smaller APS-C sensors were used (they were cheaper), however, today everybody should be producing FF sensors for fractional costs comparing to costs few years ago.

2) From Canon (industry leader, profitable company) I would expect significant R&D in sensor technology in order to fortify its leadership in the future as well. However, what we see: the same sensor is used for many years, 7D is not updated for 5 years. And we are living in technology years. For example, if Apply would sell their computers with 5 year old processors they would be bankrupt already.

Also, we see that Sony makes quite significant breakthroughs in sensor technology as their sensors have higher DR, better noise performance, investing in curved sensors and etc. This is how technology company's should behave.

3) Currently Canon has a very big number of different camera models, which seems stopping their technological advancement as Canon has to think quite hard how not to make good camera, i.e. not to include same features in newer camera models which are considered in lower level cameras. For example, Canon 6D was made a really cripled camera with old autofocus system in order not to canibalise 5D III.

Few years ago Steve Jobs get rid of many Apply products and concentrated company's effors on few models of compputers and 1 phone and made these products really superb. Canon also should revise their product portfolio. IMHO the following products cameras could be produced:

a) Pro level - Canon 1Dx (FF)
b) Semi pro - Canon 5D Mark III
c) Consumer - Canon 7D
d) Forget all Rebels and P&S cameras.

Also, camera prices should be at least 2 times less comparing to current prices, In such case much higher volume of cameras could be sold.

4) If Canon is not willing / able to produce good sensors it can buy sensors from Sony. In computer market there is Intel and AMD processor manufacturers. In sensor market also there is no need to have many sensor manufacturers.

5) Lenses - for many years Canon was considered as a real leader in manufacturing quality lenses, however, currently it started to significantly lose competition to Sigma and Tamron due to the following factors:

1) Canon does not update many of its popular lenses for many many years (e.g. Canon 50 1.4 is produced since 199X). Come on, guys, you can not expect that you can compete with Sigma 50 1.4 Art, which are produced by using the current technology comparing with 20 year old technology.

2) Canon does not listen to customer needs. E.g. 100-400 lens update many loyal customers are waiting for many years.

3) Price: just compare Canons 24-70 2.8 L with Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. Tamron is twice cheaper, has vibration control and just only fractionally lower quality. Many customers are happy by paying twice less and getting superb product. Another case Canon 600 mm lens comparison with Tamron 150-600. Of course, Tamron quality is worse but not 10 times comparing to their price difference.

This shows that Canon is either ripping its customers or is not controlling its costs and not able to produce quality products cheaper.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> Neuro always advocates Canon by saying that Canon financial results are better than Nikon or other, that 5D Mark III outsells RED in thousands of times



And we know how important that is for the enduser, that Canon makes more money than Hasselblad or Phase One. :

I mean, who does not buy his camera because of company profits? :

When the profit would give us impressive new technology other companys don´t have... well yes that would be something. 




> From Canon (industry leader, profitable company) I would expect significant R&D in sensor technology in order to fortify its leadership in the future as well. However, what we see: the same sensor is used for many years, 7D is not updated for 5 years. And we are living in technology years. For example, if Apply would sell their computers with 5 year old processors they would be bankrupt already.



+1000

And when they update the sensor it can no more than keep up with the competition but not beat it (70D).

You have to look at the whole system today to justify buying Canon.
The bodys alone are not such a big argument anymore.

Why?
Because others brands closed the gap and Canon can or will not counter that.


----------



## alistairm1 (Sep 5, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > wsmith96 said:
> ...


The company I work for calls it right shoring. The staff all call it wrong shoring.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 5, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> Efka76 said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro always advocates Canon by saying that Canon financial results are better than Nikon or other, that 5D Mark III outsells RED in thousands of times
> ...



So just please look for the company which offers in your eyes good cameras and makes least profit. Don't cry if after a few years of investment in camera and lenses this company doesn't exists anymore. I invested a lot in photography during the past years, but I want a financial healthy company which earns money and satisfies his shareholders. That's strategic thinking about my investment. If it was only 100$, then of course I don't mind. So, I have concerns about Sony. I'm really convinced that Canon is still delivering cameras and lenses in 5 years.

A company like Nikon has strategic a big problem. They are fully dependent on sensors of Sony. What if the next release of sensor of Sony is only kept for Sony itself. Then Nikon really has a problem. 

Combined use of a sensor can give great advantages, however business is business. No one can tell what happens next year. Look at F1 racing. In the past we had many successful combinations of chassis/team with engine. However, no one can force the other company to go on. It happened several times because of different strategy of management/shareholders.

The only way a company can survive is by generating profit !!!! 
Not by delivering the best high quality products !!


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 5, 2014)

FEBS said:


> A company like Nikon has strategic a big problem. They are fully dependent on sensors of Sony. What if the next release of sensor of Sony is only kept for Sony itself. Then Nikon really has a problem.



Not exactly, considering that they have more then one supplier.
Currently Sony, Toshiba and Aptina are on the list. The sensors of the D3/D4 custom built and perform quite well despite not being Sony's.
I.e. Sony dropping Nikon would imply giving that business to their competition & at least damaging if not burning some bridges. Quite a steep price to play for a short term advantage.



Canonicon said:


> You have to look at the whole system today to justify buying Canon.



Or for a long term perspective: the whole system, and the surrounding ecosystem, a few years down the road.
Somewhere between the current offerings of S&T in the lens department and the chinese flashgun tools or AirTTL the bodies became a much stronger factor. Other unique points of sale are being reduced to a few niche cases(and over there some irony lies in waiting).


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > Efka76 said:
> ...



Did you buy a Nokia phone or Sony TV?

Today a market leader gone tomorrow.

It´s all fine what you say and i fully agree in part, but i still wish Canon would do more. Push the boundaries.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 5, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > A company like Nikon has strategic a big problem. They are fully dependent on sensors of Sony. What if the next release of sensor of Sony is only kept for Sony itself. Then Nikon really has a problem.
> ...



I agree that the D3/D4 sensors are custom built and perform very well. However, will a Nikon D4 user be satisfied when a new D4 would come with only a 16Mp version. To make clear, I would have no problem with that as I also have a 1Dx with 'only' 18Mp. it's not only the pixels that is counting. It's the complete system. Would the same people say over here then that the D4s is 2 generations behind on the D810 with Sony's sensor? I agree fully that Nikon is multi sourcing what is a very good purchase strategic, however they are not buying the same product at all those places. The Sony Exmor with the big Mp is really top. If that source would be cutted off, they have a big problem for the Dxxx and Dxxxx series.

Sony dropping Nikon, might also give opportunities for Sony to buy after a short period Nikon if they don't succeed to get a good sensor. The development team of Nikon is really shrinked down as they are buying so many sensors and no longer developing. Combining Sony and Nikon in one company might create a real big competitor on the market for Canon. They would have decent glass then and very good sensor technology. Who can say that the cooperation of Nikon and Sony is not kind of startup of a relation to find out if they can work together. No one can say, as business is business. They always want to create win-win situations. Sony is doing a checkup of the company in meantime. The camera department is still a department that makes money. The TV department doesn't. No one can tell what they might decide at the end.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 5, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> Did you buy a Nokia phone or Sony TV?
> 
> Today a market leader gone tomorrow.
> 
> It´s all fine what you say and i fully agree in part, but i still wish Canon would do more. Push the boundaries.



Yes I did. I did use Nokia and had Sony TV. That's fully true, you will never know. 

However, pushing the boundaries for me doesn't mean increasing the Mp, and make a Mp race of it. For me it is the complete system that I take into account.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Canonicon said:
> 
> 
> > Did you buy a Nokia phone or Sony TV?
> ...



For me neither.
Give me around 30MP on FF and i will never ask for more i think.
Or maybe 90MP for oversampling with no AA filter.  

But there are other things Canon can improve on their sensors and cameras

The 7D Mk2 just does not seem to be the miracle that was hyped at CR and other websites the last 3 years.

Especially not for Video.


----------



## tolusina (Sep 5, 2014)

Red, no flash
weddings, events, not
ever​


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Red, no flash
> weddings, events, not
> ever​



No flash yet. 

You could use LED video lights, sure it´s no real substitute.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> By the tone on these forums, you would think no one wants anything better than what they had five or ten years ago. (I know that isn't true, it doesn't seem logical that the photographers on this forum wouldn't want a better camera in their hands......yet if it really is....wow...)



Are you being disingenuous, or is it actually your contention that Canon *cameras* have not improved? The T5i/700D is not a better camera than the T1i/500D? Is the 70D not a better camera than the 40D? The 5DIII...not a better camera than the 5DII? How about the 1D X...not a better camera than the 1DsIII? 

If you honestly believe those cameras are no better than their predecessors, that's surprising...and rather sad. The reality is that Canon cameras have improved substantially over the years – most people on this forum have little to complain about because they *have* better cameras. Canon cameras will continue to improve. Those improvements aren't necessarily going to be in areas where *you* want to see them, and they aren't likely to be in areas where a *small minority* of buyers want to see them. 




jrista said:


> It isn't about one person's opinion. If a thousand, ten thousand, a million "pixel peepers" (read: people who care about getting improved IQ) demanded Canon change something (and not necessarily on forums...in writing, in person, at conferences to Canon reps, whatever)...do you think Canon would ignore them?



Of course Canon would not ignore a majority opinion like that. But...people here on CR forums have been claiming *for years* that Canon needs to improve 'sensor IQ' (a bandbuggy – it's not really big enough to be called a wagon – onto which you've only recently jumped). If there had really been a million people clamoring for something for years, Canon would already have responded. Yet they haven't. Why not? Because there simply aren't that many people clamoring for it.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 5, 2014)

FEBS said:


> I agree that the D3/D4 sensors are custom built and perform very well. However, will a Nikon D4 user be satisfied when a new D4 would come with only a 16Mp version. To make clear, I would have no problem with that as I also have a 1Dx with 'only' 18Mp. it's not only the pixels that is counting. It's the complete system. Would the same people say over here then that the D4s is 2 generations behind on the D810 with Sony's sensor?


They have access to a fab that can handle 35mm sensors and at least two companies who create smaller sensors that perform on par with Sony's. Working something out shouldn't be impossible. It's hard to say no to the company that makes the machines you need to make your semiconductors after all 
Not the most pleasant way, but strategic deterrence involves options that neither party wants to become reality.

The two generations isn't about the resolution, but about signal quality. Its much easier to get a picture from a D4 past the editors then one from a 5D3 w/o debanding. And the debanding in turn softens the image in rather unpredictable ways. And costs money.
D8x0 otoh/additionally is more about not having to go to the Phase One, with its associated costs.



> I agree fully that Nikon is multi sourcing what is a very good purchase strategic, however they are not buying the same product at all those places. The Sony Exmor with the big Mp is really top. If that source would be cutted off, they have a big problem for the Dxxx and Dxxxx series.


The Toshiba sensor is good enough to keep people from noticing that some of the current Dxxxx aren't Exmor. 

As for buying Nikon - they are part of the Mitsubishi group, and those folks wouldn't want to see their supplier of lithography equipment and such getting under the control of someone else.

Thats maybe the meta-part of the story - it's not that Exmor is so extraordinary good, its just the best known, but that all but one of the others are in the same ballpark.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 5, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> What is the point of this thread? This is a canon site. If you don't like what canon has to offer, then go to another forum. Pretty simple.



I have checked the forum rules and there is nothing about only posting positive things about Canon. 

If you don't like what a poster has to offer, then go to another thread. Pretty simple. 

I prefer tollerance over censorship.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2014)

Most new threads seem to be transparent attempts to rekindle the 'Canon is failing' narrative. I suppose some of it is frustration - although since nothing has been officially announced, that's rather premature. Tiresome.

As for extracting video stills, I have done it (setting up a camera to film a bird feeder), and most of the frames are blurred with moving subjects (because the exposure time per frame is conventionally slow, to preserve video quality). It's useful for record shots, but is absolutely no substitute for a real still. 4k would add more resolution, but it's still not the same level of detail. And the motion problems would remain. I believe it will be a niche application at best.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Most new threads seem to be transparent attempts to rekindle the 'Canon is failing' narrative. I suppose some of it is frustration - although since nothing has been officially announced, that's rather premature. Tiresome.



+1

The trolls and DRones don't have real facts to fuel their ire, so they're gnawing old bones. If it's any consolation, when the announcements are actually made, we can look forward to a freshly-fueled round of complaint threads. Of course, that'll be nothing compared to the 7DII/X hitting the streets...then the lens-cap-shooting-5-stop-pushing folks (the small handful of them, that is) will post many threads showing the 'terrible IQ' and whining about how it's a bad camera and Canon really blew it and they're ******* and everyone will switch to Nikon or Sony. Meanwhile, the 7DII/X will be very popular with buyers, produce great images in capable hands, and life in the real world will go on.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point of this thread? This is a canon site. If you don't like what canon has to offer, then go to another forum. Pretty simple.
> ...



+1


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

alistairm1 said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm cheap so I'll have to outsource, or as my company calls it, "right shoring"
> ...



Personally, I agree with you. Problem is that I view my company's ledger from a different perspective than the executives. I'm sure they have a much clearer view than I do.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point of this thread? This is a canon site. If you don't like what canon has to offer, then go to another forum. Pretty simple.
> ...



That is true, there is nothing in the rule book that states that negative comments should not be allowed. But then again, neither is there a rule that states that a response like the one I gave is not allowed either.

I recommend you start tolerating.


----------



## Canonicon (Sep 5, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > wsmith96 said:
> ...



Your post was just trolling, correct.



> If you don't like what canon has to offer, then go to another forum.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 5, 2014)

Canonicon said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...


No.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

rs said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > By the tone on these forums, you would think no one wants anything better than what they had five or ten years ago...
> ...


 
Everyone wants something better. That's why we follow a site that focuses on predictions of what the next release will be. It's just that, as Neuro says, the majority of people on this forum are more realistic than the handful of trolls and obsessive whiners. 

We recognize that the state of the art today means that there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between Nikon and Sony or even between APS-C and Full Frame. We each have our individual preferences, but that is exactly what they are: individual preferences. And, most people on this forum don't obsess over the tiny differences and pretend that those differences have any real bearing on their ability to create quality pictures. 

We also don't presume that when Canon doesn't precisely meet our individual desires that that means they are *******.



neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't about one person's opinion. If a thousand, ten thousand, a million "pixel peepers"...demanded Canon change something...do you think Canon would ignore them?
> ...



Again, Neuro is spot on. There are maybe a dozen people on this forum who are disgruntled. And, even among those that are unhappy, they can't seem to agree on what they are unhappy about. Do they want more megapixels? Do they want a mirrorless full-frame camera? Do they want to be able to shoot directly into the sun and get shadows perfectly exposed? Do they want an APS-C sensor that performs better than a full-frame sensor? 

It's embarrassing to admit but I've followed this forum for longer than most here (with the possible exception of Neuro) and the arc of criticism is a bit amusing.

Prior to each release of a camera body there is always a group that stakes out their "demands" and predicts that if the next release doesn't meet that demand, it will be doom for Canon.

One of two things always happens. If Canon fails to meet their demand, we are treated to thread after thread declaring how terrible the company is – and Canon just keeps on selling cameras. 

But, the real amusement comes in when Canon actually satisfies the need. Then, there is a stampede to change the goal posts.

So long as Canon had more megapixels than Nikon, we were lectured about how much better Nikon was and how all Canon cared about was cramming more megapixels into their cameras. So the most recent generation of full frame Canon put a greater emphasis on ISO performance over megapixels. And, suddenly the complaints started to roll in: Canon is behind! They don't have enough megapixels. We are *******!

When the 5DII was current, the critics zeroed in on auto focus. Canon has terrible autofocus! No one can get a decent picture with a 5DII because of its autofocus! Canon improved the autofocus in the 5DIII. So, suddenly, that was unimportant to the complainers and we started to hear -- The 5DIII isn't any better than the 5DII in dynamic range! 

But, what has unquestionably happened over the years, is that cameras have gotten better, the differences have gotten smaller and the areas of weakness have gotten increasingly narrow and marginalized.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Despite my earlier response, this is a far better one.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Most new threads seem to be transparent attempts to rekindle the 'Canon is failing' narrative. I suppose some of it is frustration - although since nothing has been officially announced, that's rather premature. Tiresome.
> ...



I'm actually quite excited. It might be the next camera I buy, for daytime bird photography


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 5, 2014)

Mods:

If people keep doing this stupid nexted replies, can we please close this thread?

This type of nonsense does not accomplish anything.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Mods:
> 
> If people keep doing this stupid nexted replies, can we please close this thread?
> 
> This type of nonsense does not accomplish anything.



Actually, it does accomplish quite a bit. It clearly identifies the thread as a troll thread, mocks the trolls and demonstrates that the best response to trolls is humor.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 5, 2014)

unfocused said:


> mocks the trolls and demonstrates that the best response to trolls is humor.



Selfmocking trolls? Well, that kind of recursion is topically invariant.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > By the tone on these forums, you would think no one wants anything better than what they had five or ten years ago. (I know that isn't true, it doesn't seem logical that the photographers on this forum wouldn't want a better camera in their hands......yet if it really is....wow...)
> ...



I think that many (most?) of Canon cameras have gained certain features, yes. Is that an improvement? I guess it depends on whether you use the features. How many Rebels got the 18mp sensor? Far too many? Sure...Canon cameras have changed. That's not, and never has been, my point. My point is, for all the features on those cameras that have changed...the quality of the images they produce really has't. Even the increases in high ISO on those lower end cameras (and even the 60D, 70D...let's hope to God not the 7D II) have not really changed from an IQ standpoint. The maximum selectable ISO settings have changed...but the IQ at those ISO settings hasn't changed much...minor differences in color noise here and there.

It's the differences in IQ that I'm referring to. Features are a dime a dozen. They come...sometimes they go...a subsequent version of a feature might be minimally improved over a prior version. Some may be frivolous or otherwise unwanted/unused by many people (i.e. I would never use an articulating screen...too afraid it would snap off or something like that.) 

We use cameras to take pictures. When it comes to taking pictures, most Canon cameras have not changed much in YEARS as far as IQ is concerned. The 5D III, 6D, and 1D X definitely improved high ISO quality...however, when you run the numbers, they barely maintained a minimal lead over the competition that, today, seems to again have been surpassed. To achieve their temporary crown as far as high ISO performance goes, they had to make certain tradeoffs that affect IQ in other ways...such as weakening their CFA. That actually has a fairly severe impact on the color noise these cameras produce. Something that rapidly becomes apparent even with minor (1 stop maybe, which is trivial) shadow recovery.

Canon has made progress on certain fronts, for sure. Their AF system is currently, IMO, one of the best on the market, and it certainly matters a ton for certain types of shooting. Their meter on the 1D X is finally competitive...if the 7D II really gets it, that would be AWESOME, IMO. Those things both mean more in-focus shots with better exposure. However, at their core...fundamentally...when it comes to photography at ISO settings under 800...Canon's IQ hasn't changed. THAT is what I'm referring to.

Now that I'm back into landscapes, I've noticed how truly far behind the times Canon's sensor IQ is. Canon, in my honest opinion, is not just "behind." At this point, I think Canon is *dead last*. In pretty much every way, ever aspect, Canon's core sensor technology, the design, the results at lower ISO, are many, many years behind the rest of the industry. So far behind, in fact, that Nikon has now become the new preferred DSLR for astrophotography! I thought that astrophotography would be the realm of Canon forever thanks to the fact that they maintain a much more linear signal behavior than SoNikon (who by default clip, rather than offset, to black point). A hacker removed the black point clipping, resulting in far superior signal linearity in Exmor-based cameras. It's so good that the guy regularly refers to Nikon cameras that have black-point fixed Exmors (and I think Toshibas) as "CCD linearity and quality"...and the results from them are STUNNING. 

Astrophotography has even swiched...that was a true stronghold of Canon DSLRs, there are a dozen modding companies out there that will mod Canon DSLRs for astro. The D800 and D5300 both have become two of the most popular DSLR cameras now for astro, and people are even imaging at ISO 100 on them! 

When I see things like that, when I see major strongholds of Canon cameras that I honestly NEVER thought would ever shift to other brands, shifting over to the competition...it is just a real-world indicator of the state of Canon sensor technology. It's way, way behind. At low ISO, I really do think it comes in dead last now...

And at times it truly does seem as though no one here realizes the differences, or just want to put their heads in the sand as far as the differences go. Canon is still a profitable company, they are still dominant...but, will things stay that way if the competition's technology keeps offering advantages (often significant advantages) over Canon's? I've brought up Nokia before, because the analogy between Nokia and Canon grows stronger every time a company releases a new camera. It doesn't matter if your the most profitable company or sell the most products. That can all change in a heartbeat! Apple was a nothing, a nobody company that had a niche of die-hard followers...then they released the iPhone. That one move, even though it took a few years to fully have a real, solid impact on the competition, took out (pretty much completely) TWO top-end companies that used to dominate that market: Nokia and RIM. RIM is pretty much dead...no one is interested in BlackBerry anymore (and it used to be called CrackBerry!!) Nokia sold off one of their core businesses to Microsoft...god only knows what Nokia will do now...how long they will still be around.

Canon's luck could change very rapidly. It hasn't happened yet. It didn't happen right way with Nokia and RIM...but it DID eventually happen once disruptive technology was introduced to the market. Canon is facing a disrupted market. Will they be the next Nokia a couple years from now? 



neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't about one person's opinion. If a thousand, ten thousand, a million "pixel peepers" (read: people who care about getting improved IQ) demanded Canon change something (and not necessarily on forums...in writing, in person, at conferences to Canon reps, whatever)...do you think Canon would ignore them?
> ...



I think people are clamoring for it. However they are clamoring for other products. The sheer number of new Nikon DSLRs being used with the black point hack in astrophotography (where Nikon cameras used to be completely shunned with the nickname "Star Eaters") is an indication of how quickly things can change. When people ask what DSLR they should get as a beginner for AP? You used to hear an ubiquitous "Get a TNi camera, get it modded for astro, nothing better than that!" Today? The tone has shifted considerably. The D5300 is becoming the new favorite for the cheaper entry-level options. The D800 has been touted as a CCD-quality imager when the black point clip is removed...something that has NEVER been said about any Canon DSLR. You used to never see anyone imaging with Nikons...I see new images from people using Nikon cameras every day now. I also see cameras from Sony, and there are hackers working on the black point issue for them...mirrorless sony FF cameras are actually very appealing for astro imagers because of the significantly lower weight, which often allows the use of much smaller, more portable mounts.

So, people are clamoring...for the exits. Astro is a niche, certainly. It won't change things fundamentally, not for a while (and in the long run, the really good stuff is still dominated by mono CCD cameras). But that's just one example where I've seen people, a lot of people, who really are looking for better IQ...and picking alternative brands. A lot of the portraiture photographers I know have switched from Canon to either Nikon or Pentax (depending on whether they just want improved IQ, or want both better IQ and a good selection of small "unintimidating" pancake lenses.)

I think if you honestly believe there isn't a trend towards better IQ, your not looking and observing what's going on around you. I'm not saying Canon camera have disappeared from the streets. However, I HAVE seen a greater diversity of cameras than I used to...several years ago, it was pretty much Canon. Pretty much every landscape photographer I knew or encountered had a 5D II. Today, most of them have the D800, some the D600 or the A7/r. Those are trends...they are observable in real life. It isn't a purely Canon-dominated world out there where they have over 48% of the market...things are diversifying, and while not everyone is going to Nikon, they aren't always choosing Canon anymore.

I don't think Canon has "responded" because I don't really think that's Canon's way...they never seem to respond directly to the competition. But more than that, I think they haven't had the capability of actually improving their sensor technology. Not so far, anyway. Don may be right...Canon may be waiting for a wind-down on small form factor sensors on their better fabs before ramping up the fabrication of larger sensors on smaller processes. I certainly hope so...because I honestly don't want to see Canon become the next Nokia or RIM in 2018.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think if you honestly believe there isn't a trend towards better IQ, your not looking and observing what's going on around you. I'm not saying Canon camera have disappeared from the streets. However, I HAVE seen a greater diversity of cameras than I used to...several years ago, it was pretty much Canon. Pretty much every landscape photographer I knew or encountered had a 5D II. Today, most of them have the D800, some the D600 or the A7/r. Those are trends...they are observable in real life. It isn't a purely Canon-dominated world out there where they have over 48% of the market...things are diversifying, and while not everyone is going to Nikon, they aren't always choosing Canon anymore.



Same idea for fashion/glamour & advertisment - those used to be 5D2-dominated, something in the 80% range. Well, today 2/3rds are not Canon. And if you talk to the people you hear that status quo this trend will continue as tax depreciation allows.
Now this doesn't show up in the sales figures as the gear has already been bought. But it would be wise to consider the implications for the next cycle.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 5, 2014)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: sony and others breaking the stagnant canon/nikon status quo is welcomed, overdue, and inevitable. This means better products at better prices for everybody.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> And at times it truly does seem as though no one here realizes the differences, or just want to put their heads in the sand as far as the differences go.



I respect you a lot, and have found your input on this forum very useful. But sensor performance at low ISO really isn't a priority for some/many of us. It's not burying our heads in the sand, it's prioritising what's important to us.

I've dabbled in astro work. But light pollution is by far the biggest factor holding me back - and I suspect, most UK-based folk. I'd be much better off sinking money into learning to drive and going to a remote spot, or some other way of getting my gear out to darker skies, than buying a Nikon and hacking it. A better sensor isn't gonna help if I'm limited by other factors.

Ditto wildlife. What limits me is disposition (I'm not a getting-up-before-dawn person, to get out to the best spots), and ability to travel. After that, autofocus, focal length, and high ISO quality are all far more important than anything else. A D8xx would get me more reach through cropping, but that's about it.

Image quality is massively important - but a little less noise isn't that big a deal to some of us. That's not belittling your position, nor is it wilful ignorance of reality. It's an assessment based on needs and desires. (And for example, I expose to the right as much as possible - so higher ISO quality is more important than shadow raising, because I prefer to lower the exposure in post, not the other way round).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's the differences in IQ that I'm referring to. Features are a dime a dozen. ...
> 
> We use cameras to take pictures. When it comes to taking pictures, most Canon cameras have not changed much in YEARS as far as IQ is concerned.



We use *cameras* to take pictures, _not_ just sensors (where have I heard that before? : ). Of all the pictures taken with a dSLR, what fraction would you say we're shot _without_ autofocus? Less than 2%? Less than 0.2%? The 40D got a big AF boost, in the T4i that was improvement reached the entry-level line. The 7D had the best APS-C AF available, now in the xxD line, and if the rumored spec is true, the 7DII will once again have the best APS-C AF system. The 1D X and 5DIII have top AF systems, and both are significant improvements over their predecessors. 

Better AF – more cross-type points, spread further across the frame, f/2.8 accuracy in the center, those 'dime-a-dozen' features translate directly to a higher rate of in-focus images. So...does a blurry, misfocused image with 13 stops of DR have better IQ than a properly focused image with 2 stops less DR? Are you going to take a blurry, misfocused image and lament over noise when you push the shadows...or just delete the image?

For the small minority (there's that word again) who's shooting style depends primarily on the sensor...tripod users shooting static scenes, Canon sensor IQ has improved only slightly...and as the many award-winning, awe-inspiring landscape scenes shot with Canon cameras will attest, the sensor IQ was excellent already. 




jrista said:


> I think people are clamoring for it. However they are clamoring for other products. The sheer number of new Nikon DSLRs being used with the black point hack in astrophotography...



I didn't say people aren't clamoring for it. I said *not many people*, as in a *minority* of dSLR buyers, are clamoring for it. "_The sheer number of ... DSLRs being used ... in astrophotography..._," LOL. I know you later acknowledged it's a niche, but thanks for the laugh on the way there...


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 5, 2014)

I need the sensor to be as good as possible, but at high ISO, not low ISO. My Rebel T2i is good enough at low ISO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> My Rebel T2i is good enough at low ISO.



Clearly, you are neither dramatically underexposing nor pushing your shadows several stops. Get with the program!!


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > My Rebel T2i is good enough at low ISO.
> ...



Actually, I do sometimes. This is an example I use for something else, but this was shot in raw, many of the raw pixels in the ceiling were blown so it isn't underexposed, I just had to push the shadows a lot. This was shot on the T2i.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Then you're obviously doing something wrong if you can produce images like that, which aren't totally destroyed by shadow noise and banding. You have to try harder...lift exposures more, use no NR, crop away 90% of your image. If all else fails, try shooting with the lens cap on. 

;D


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > And at times it truly does seem as though no one here realizes the differences, or just want to put their heads in the sand as far as the differences go.
> ...



I would point out, that it is no longer just low ISO. I was poking around with 1D X and A7s numbers the other day. The A7s is trouncing the 1D X. The former has over a 30% lead on total light gathering capacity at ISO 51200:

1DX: 5202px*3533px*163e-/px = 2,995,722,558e-
A7s: 4288px*2848px*322e-/px = 3,932,336,128e-

The A7s gathers a million more photons at ISO 51200 than the 1D X. Tht is a LOT. On top of the greater total light gathered, it also tops the 1DX in terms of dynamic range. The A7s 8.8 stops of DR at that ISO, vs. the 1D X's 6.6 stops. That is a 2.2 stop lead. 

It used to only be ISO 100 where that kind of lead was held by the Exmor camp. Now, it enjoys a lead at both low and high ISO. 

Things keep changing. They won't stop changing, and the changes are only going to accelerate. 



scyrene said:


> I've dabbled in astro work. But light pollution is by far the biggest factor holding me back - and I suspect, most UK-based folk. I'd be much better off sinking money into learning to drive and going to a remote spot, or some other way of getting my gear out to darker skies, than buying a Nikon and hacking it. A better sensor isn't gonna help if I'm limited by other factors.



LP need not be the primary issue these days. I image under light polluted skies. My trick is to use an LPR filter, in my case the Astronomik CLS. I regularly get compliments about the depth of my exposures, which is primarily due to the use of the filter. 

Software tools have also largely negated the consequences of shooting with LP. PixInsight has an amazing background extraction tool that can both flatten the field and neutralize skyfog gradients from LP (and other sources).

People shooting with Nikon DSLRs are under the same constraints as those shooting Canon DSLRs. There is no difference as far as conditions go. However, when you DO get out to dark skies, the significantly lower read noise of the Nikon cameras is vastly superior to the read noise of Canon cameras. One of the single biggest limitations with DSLRs is the saturation point at higher ISOs...that causes star clipping. With a "hacked" (it's easy...its like installing ML) Nikon, you can get less than 6e- RN at ISO 100. Most Canon cameras barely get that at ISO 400. You can shoot at ISO 100, get BETTER exposures and SNR with a Nikon, and never have to worry about clipped stars. And that's at a dark site.

And, that's just the beginning of the benefits.



scyrene said:


> Ditto wildlife. What limits me is disposition (I'm not a getting-up-before-dawn person, to get out to the best spots), and ability to travel. After that, autofocus, focal length, and high ISO quality are all far more important than anything else. A D8xx would get me more reach through cropping, but that's about it.



I would't say the D800 is the best camera for wildlife. However, what happens when Nikon, Pentax, and others start reusing the same sensor from the A7s? What happens when the competition gets 8+ stops of DR (TWO MORE STOPS) at ISO 51200 to the 1D X's 6.6 stops? (Let alone any other Canon camera, all of which get considerably less than that, and at even lower ISO settings.)

Canon had an edge for a short while...but their technology is holding them back now even on that front. It is not going to be long before Canon is trounced across the board, high and low ISO, as the competition keeps progressing, and Canon stands still (assuming they are...I'm happy to admit they haven't revealed their next sensor...things could have changed, and I hope they have.)



scyrene said:


> Image quality is massively important - but a little less noise isn't that big a deal to some of us. That's not belittling your position, nor is it wilful ignorance of reality. It's an assessment based on needs and desires. (And for example, I expose to the right as much as possible - so higher ISO quality is more important than shadow raising, because I prefer to lower the exposure in post, not the other way round).



It's not just the noise...it's the total dynamic range. If Sony keeps progressing Exmor, both at high and low ISO, as they have been for the last two years...we aren't just talking a small difference in noise. The A7s has TWICE the DR and TWICE the SNR at ISO 51200 as the 1D X. The 1DX...the crowning achievement of Canon two years ago. The A7s realizes a very significant gain at high ISO...it will (and does) have not just a little less noise...it's significantly less noise. People have already demonstrated that visually.

Canon is falling behind on all fronts. Their domain, the high ISO domain, is already being attacked, and the competition has produced superior results there as well. At the moment, the A7s has 1 2/3rds stops more DR at ISO 100, and 2 1/4 stops more DR at ISO 51200. As a wildlife and bird photographer who likes to do landscapes on occasion myself, I would LOVE to have that kind of sensor performance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Then you're obviously doing something wrong if you can produce images like that, which aren't totally destroyed by shadow noise and banding. You have to try harder...lift exposures more, use no NR, crop away 90% of your image. If all else fails, try shooting with the lens cap on.
> 
> ;D



Don't underrate shooting with the lens cap on, so many seem to do it, it must produce good results. Or underexposing by 5 stops so that you can see the noise. 

Speaking of poor exposures, I well remember the film days in the 1950's or 1940's when the box cameras with fixed f/8 lenses and fixed 1/125 shutter speeds had exposure corrected by the processing lab. In our case, the processing lab was Wrights Service Station, Grocery Store, Radio Repair, and Photo Processing. (Elmer was a great guy, I was fascinated by his technical gadgets when I was a kid). 

I have several hundred negatives taken by my parents (and me) on 620 film that I've been scanning. Trying to pull a image from film that is nearly clear is a challenge. Bring a image to life from a underexposed negative that looks like a 10 stop ND filter is equally difficult. I miss all that beautiful grain  

I still have a few boxes of those press 25 flash bulbs too. You could see spots for 15 minutes or more after one of them went off in a dimly lit room.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> At the moment, the A7s has 1 2/3rds stops more DR at ISO 100, and 2 1/4 stops more DR at ISO 51200. As a wildlife and bird photographer who likes to do landscapes on occasion myself, I would LOVE to have that kind of sensor performance.



Too bad that sensor is in such a horrible camera.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I appreciate you taking the time to respond in depth  I do use an LP filter when I do night sky work, and it has been transformational. Ditto a tracking mount. When I return to astro work, I'm gonna get a full frame filter so I can use the 5D3 - but the 50D has done sterling work in my very amateur opinion.

As far as every competitor getting an A7s sensor, so what? I like that camera, and if I had a spare couple of grand, I'd get one. But the low megapixel count means far less cropping, which is relevant to my work. And the advantages are largely at the highest ISO settings (as far as the comparisons I've seen posted online are concerned). It would be a great low-light party camera, or a good dusk/dawn video option. But autofocus capability usually trounces other image quality aspects in my experience, for birds especially. And unless Sony comes out with native super tele lenses, that rules this body out for that work. (If Nikon used the sensor, it would be more feasible).

On the subject of astro, while I've got you - I tend to shoot at high ISO, partly because I can't trust my mount to do exposures longer than, say, 2mins at 100mm. Is Nikon/Sony in the lead enough at say ISO 3200 to be worth swapping? I mean, I use an old camera as it is, and get results that please me (I'm not trying to compete with the serious astro nuts).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon is falling behind on all fronts.



Since you previously praised Canon's AF performance, a conclusion like that seems unwarranted. What you mean is 'falling behind' on sensor performance, but even there, the 3rd best golfer on the PGA tour, or even the last place golfer, is still *really damn good*. Similarly, Canon's 'fallen behind' sensors are amply good for the vast majority of photographers. 




jrista said:


> At the moment, the A7s has 1 2/3rds stops more DR at ISO 100, and 2 1/4 stops more DR at ISO 51200. As a wildlife and bird photographer who likes to do landscapes on occasion myself, I would LOVE to have that kind of sensor performance.



So would I. But...let me guess...you _also_ wish for excellent subject tracking AF, and you _also_ wish for native compatibility with excellent long lenses, and you _also_ wish for good ergonomics and UI, and you _also_ wish for true RAW files without compression...and you wish for all of that in a single camera that you can afford. 

Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with wishing for those things. Of course, as my dad used to say: "Wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first."


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> Things keep changing. They won't stop changing, and *the changes are only going to accelerate*.



Can I ask how (without an increase in bit depth)?


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> The A7s gathers a million more photons at ISO 51200 than the 1D X. Tht is a LOT. On top of the greater total light gathered, it also tops the 1DX in terms of dynamic range. The A7s 8.8 stops of DR at that ISO, vs. the 1D X's 6.6 stops. That is a 2.2 stop lead.



I find the difference in dynamic range interesting as even at ISO 200K there's only ~2/3 stop difference between the 1DX and A7S in SNR according to DxO and at ISO 50K the advantage is ~1/3 stop.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course, as my dad used to say: "Wish in one hand and..."



I just love those old Irish aphorisms.


----------



## Clownbaby (Sep 5, 2014)

I'm a long time Canon user and I don't see how people can defend Canon so much. They literally produced nothing interesting for years, Price their gear really high and really don't seem to care about their customers. Perhaps the most annoying thing to me was the change in CPS service. After two months of shelling out $500 for platinum, they change the terms of repair costs, super annoying.

Besides lack of innovation, they cripple their hardware so that they lack features. Thanks to ef mounts become more available on other cameras, I certainly won't be buying any more Canon bodies unless something really blows me away.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 6, 2014)

Clownbaby said:


> I'm a long time Canon user and I don't see how people can defend Canon so much. They literally produced nothing interesting for years, Price their gear really high and really don't seem to care about their customers. Perhaps the most annoying thing to me was the change in CPS service. After two months of shelling out $500 for platinum, they change the terms of repair costs, super annoying.
> 
> Besides lack of innovation, they cripple their hardware so that they lack features. Thanks to ef mounts become more available on other cameras, I certainly won't be buying any more Canon bodies unless something really blows me away.



Could you be specific: which features are lacking in which bodies?


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > At the moment, the A7s has 1 2/3rds stops more DR at ISO 100, and 2 1/4 stops more DR at ISO 51200. As a wildlife and bird photographer who likes to do landscapes on occasion myself, I would LOVE to have that kind of sensor performance.
> ...



Yeah, I agree. I also don't think it will stay horrible forever...at some point, Sony will start putting more effort into their bodies. Even if they don't, you have to figure other manufacturers will start using that sensor as well.


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is falling behind on all fronts.
> ...



Sure I do. Aside from the AF thing, I could attach the A7s to my Canon lenses with an adapter. I'm not a big fan of mirrorless, but again...technology in cameras is progressing on all fronts. EVFs won't stand still either. The successor to the A7s could be a great camera all around. Sony has also demonstrated much improved subject tracking...who knows exactly how it compares to Canon's today, although once you realize the difference (and Sony's tracking system DOES have a feature that I don't think Canon or Nikon have), it seems really impressive...but, again...Sony AF technology won't just stand still.

As for wishing vs. shitting...I'm doing neither. I'm watching. I don't need to wish...it won't be all that long before Sony's currently lacking bodies and new AF system become better bodies and better AF system. Canon moves so slowly compared to the rest of the industry...by the time the next high performance Canon DSLR hits the streets, there could have been two more generations of Sony and Nikon cameras. 

No need for wishing...just watch, and see improvements occur generation over generation on the competitors cameras. At some point, one of them has to end up good enough that there is absolutely no reason not to pick one up...and it'll likely outperform a Canon camera completely on the sensor IQ front, and perform well enough on other fronts (i.e. AF). If it's mirrorless and you can get an adapter...well...then you have kick-ass lenses paired with a better sensor and a decent AF system.

It's just a matter of time, now. Unless, of course, Canon has actually done something really intriguing on the sensor front with the 7D II, or ends up doing something radical with the 5D IV sensor. Things can still change...I hope they do...but the world ain't gonna wait for Canon.


----------



## Clownbaby (Sep 6, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Clownbaby said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a long time Canon user and I don't see how people can defend Canon so much. They literally produced nothing interesting for years, Price their gear really high and really don't seem to care about their customers. Perhaps the most annoying thing to me was the change in CPS service. After two months of shelling out $500 for platinum, they change the terms of repair costs, super annoying.
> ...



On the 5diii which is still more expensive than better newer cameras but compared to d800
Worse IQ 
Less sharp
Worse color
Less dr
True 1080p


My c100 lacks a ton that its competitors have, too much to list


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 6, 2014)

Clownbaby said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Could you be specific: which features are lacking in which bodies?
> ...



So why did you buy a 5D3 and C100? Or why don't you sell them and buy a competing product?


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 6, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Speaking of poor exposures, I well remember the film days in the 1950's or 1940's when the box cameras with fixed f/8 lenses and fixed 1/125 shutter speeds had exposure corrected by the processing lab. In our case, the processing lab was Wrights Service Station, Grocery Store, Radio Repair, and Photo Processing. (Elmer was a great guy, I was fascinated by his technical gadgets when I was a kid).


Are you sure the shutter speed was that fast? Just eyeballing my first camera (a Brownie Hawkeye) and my mother's camera that I used before that (forget which model that was...it was sort of neat, had two "f/ stops", not marked as such....one for sunny and one for cloudy) I would have pegged the shutter at close to 1/50th. But I could be wrong. If I remember the film we used was about ASA 80. The first rolls I used were orthochromatic then later they were panchromatic. Does that sound right to you?


----------



## Clownbaby (Sep 6, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Clownbaby said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


I admit going canon was a mistake but I have a lot of canon glass. I've thought about it but that would just end up costing money to sell my bodies at a loss before I planned to replace them but going forward is different. It's not like they're terrible but I just don't feel like I'm getting a good value out of being a Canon customer.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It's the differences in IQ that I'm referring to. Features are a dime a dozen. ...
> ...



oh come now neuro, we all know what clients and buyers want...that is of course to pixel peep! that is why I am gonna change what I show to clients from now on. Instead of showing them an image, I will take an extremely small crop of a corner of the image.

I mean, the evidence is clear, see below...the first 2 are tiny crops of the bottom left and right corner...I mean who would want to buy that---it's so shadowy...I know...if only i had an exmor......don't even look at the 3rd, i mean, the 2 super crops should be enough to tell the story right?


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

scyrene said:


> As far as every competitor getting an A7s sensor, so what? I like that camera, and if I had a spare couple of grand, I'd get one. But the low megapixel count means far less cropping, which is relevant to my work. And the advantages are largely at the highest ISO settings (as far as the comparisons I've seen posted online are concerned). It would be a great low-light party camera, or a good dusk/dawn video option. But autofocus capability usually trounces other image quality aspects in my experience, for birds especially. And unless Sony comes out with native super tele lenses, that rules this body out for that work. (If Nikon used the sensor, it would be more feasible).



Who's to say A7s level performance won't be the norm with the next round of APS-C or high res FF releases? I am still a firm believer that total sensor area and Q.E. are the primary factors that affect noise. In the case of the A7s...it's clear that they are doing some rather intense noise reduction in the BionzX chip as well (much like the DIGIC 6 does). All three of those factors, IMO, are more important than pixel size in the long run. So I see no reason you couldn't have that level of ISO performance in a sensor with smaller pixels.

For now, if you need cropping ability, then pixel size is probably a key factor. Doesn't mean that A7s level performance will stay only in sensors with bigger pixels forever.  (Or even necessarily for all that long.)



scyrene said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to respond in depth  I do use an LP filter when I do night sky work, and it has been transformational. Ditto a tracking mount. When I return to astro work, I'm gonna get a full frame filter so I can use the 5D3 - but the 50D has done sterling work in my very amateur opinion.
> 
> On the subject of astro, while I've got you - I tend to shoot at high ISO, partly because I can't trust my mount to do exposures longer than, say, 2mins at 100mm. Is Nikon/Sony in the lead enough at say ISO 3200 to be worth swapping? I mean, I use an old camera as it is, and get results that please me (I'm not trying to compete with the serious astro nuts).



Astro is a very different beast. SNR, DR, and RN levels are all important. In astro, final signal strength or signal power is critical. For best results, you need to find the sweet spot that maximizes them all. I'd say before getting a different camera, start guiding your mount. More reliable tracking will probably do more for you than a better sensor, at least to start. I think that the A7s could certainly do better at high ISO than any current Canon sensor. It would certainly allow for the use of higher ISO settings...but I'm not sure that will really buy you much in the end. The key benefit of the increased DR of the A7s is simply a lower chance of clipping stars. In the long run, even with an A7s, guiding is going to allow you to expose for twice as long or longer than your current 2 minute exposures. (And, at 100mm, I would say even with a mount's periodic error, you should be able to expose for four minutes easily...unless the mount has some seriously wicked PE!)

In general ISO 3200, IMO, is rather high for astro unless your doing ultra wide field work (i.e. 16mm milky way imaging). For anything DSO related, you should be using the lowest ISO you can get away with and still have the minimal or nearly minimal read noise. That will maximize your DR and SNR, limiting the chance that stars will clip, maximizing your ability to increase the total signal power, and usually at no _cost _to your actual REAL exposure.

First, exposure. Exposure really has nothing to do with ISO. Exposure is purely a matter of total light quantity gathered. That's light volume over time...aperture and shutter. Once the camera's read noise reaches a floor, then increasing ISO any further is not actually going to change anything. Well, it will change something...it will put a ceiling on how long you can expose for...which will directly impact your signal power and SNR, which will limit your ability to expose dimmer details above the noise floor. (And when detail is buried in the noise floor, ultimately it doesn't matter how many subs you take...you can use averaging to improve SNR, but no amount of averaging can improve signal power, and THAT is really what brings out the fainter details.) 

In the case of the 50D, you reach a read noise floor around 3.3e- by ISO 800. Technically speaking, the sensor is "ISO-less" from that point on. At ISO 400 RN is 5.5e-, and at ISO 200 it's 9.5e-. You could probably get away with ISO 400...even high end CCD cameras rarely get down to the 5e- RN level, many are at 7-8e- and some are over 10e-.

So, for best astro results with a Canon like the 50D (or pretty much any current Canon APS-C), you want to shoot at ISO 400. You might take a small hit to read noise, however you'll gain considerably on the dynamic range front. That will allow for much longer exposures before you clip your stars...which means it shouldn't be difficult to shift the whole histogram more to the right a little bit, and separate the lowest color channel away from the left-hand edge of the histogram (which is all you really need to do to get the signal above the read noise floor.) 

When it comes to the 5D III, I shoot at ISO 800 and 400. ISO 800 has good DR (more than any Canon APS-C at ISO 400), and 6.1e- RN which is still pretty good...but the larger pixels have a tendency to undersample shorter lenses/telescopes and therefor it's rather easy to clip stars. ISO 1600 is where it drops to the RN floor, but at half the dynamic range...so it's even worse for clipping stars...I usually have to considerably shorten my exposure times, which completely negates any benefit the lower read noise might have offered. I rarely shoot at ISO 1600 unless it's a REALLY faint object (and those are usually too small to really be resolved usefully by such a large sensor with large pixels...so I basically never use ISO 1600). ISO 400 has a ton of dynamic range (relatively speaking), but 10.1e- RN. I usually expose for a little bit longer than one stop more than at ISO 800 to get ISO 400 shots above the read noise floor, and I am usually safe from clipping my stars. 

I've found that ISO 400 is generally a pretty good ISO setting to use, on all Canon cameras, despite the higher read noise...especially when I need to expose for a long time (over four or five minutes), or am imaging a really bright target (Orion Nebula, Andromeda). ISO 800 is great for areas of fewer stars and dimmer targets...or areas where there may be lots of stars, but smaller ones, and dimmer nebula.

When it comes to a Nikon camera using the black-point hack, the game has totally changed. Read noise is ridiculously low at ISO 100, it tops out at around 6e- at most (it's usually less than that). At ISO 200 it's still closer to 3e-. There is little reason not to consider the D800 with the hack as a true linear sensor, and just use ISO 100 for everything unless you need to use really short exposures or are imaging a particularly dim target. Then, you probably only need to bump up to ISO 200. With all the dynamic range these sensors have, you can practically expose forever. Most people who haven't spent $8000 or more on a mount are unlikely to be exposing for much longer than 10 minutes anyway, and at ISO 100 on a hacked D800, you can easily expose for 10 minutes and still not even risk clip your stars. The linearity of a hacked D800 is much better than any Canon camera for astro work. The read noise is lower. The dark current is considerably lower (you could do away with dark frames if you use dithering). It would be the closest thing to having something like a QSI690 CCD camera ($3500-4200), with the primary drawback being that the D800 isn't cooled (which reduces dark current to ludicrously low levels).


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> ...
> Astro is a very different beast. SNR, DR, and RN levels are all important. In astro, final signal strength or signal power is critical. For best results, you need to find the sweet spot that maximizes them all.
> ...
> 
> ...



Jumping into the debate here, after seeing something that tickled my interest. I've cut wildly in your response, Jon, but it's mostly since what I want to ask about is the usage of "full-stop ISO". Perhaps I should've started a new topic about it, but lets see if it gets to be interesting enough to deserve a thread of its own.

When I first started to use a digital camera, it was the EOS 50D, and rather soon it showed some ugly noise while I shot at all the regular ISO-stops. Looked for answers in magazines all over the place, and googled like crazy, and after a while the answers seemed to say: *If you want low amounts of noise from a Canon sensor stay away from the regular ISOs.*
So, have you noticed anything similar while shooting deep into the star-filled skyes? Or is your specialty so much different than regular shooting?

In my experience what gives me the cleanest results out of any Canon dSLR (I can always mess things up later in post...  ) is to shoot at ISO 160, then ISO 320, followed by ISO 800.

I leave it at this for now - I'm in a hurry, it's early morning over on this continent, and I have to leave for the day to drive a shitload of miles. Will peek in tonight to see if this leads anywhere, and if anyone else has been curious about the odd-ISO usage.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 6, 2014)

I want something better jrista!
Canon will not get my money for the Cameras they produce over the last couple of years.

70% of the time i shoot Portraits, the rest Landscapes. 
I am happy with my old 5D MK2. 
I looked long at the 5D III and it´s not worth it for me.

But IF Canon had produced a D800 equivalent i had bought it. 
Do i need it... no. 
Do members here need a 1 DX for a FLICKR account and cat or child photos?
I doubt it.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 6, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I mean, the evidence is clear, see below...the first 2 are tiny crops of the bottom left and right corner...I mean who would want to buy that---it's so shadowy...I know...if only i had an exmor......don't even look at the 3rd, i mean, the 2 super crops should be enough to tell the story right?



I would not buy it because it´s overprocessed.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> Who's to say A7s level performance won't be the norm with the next round of APS-C or high res FF releases? I am still a firm believer that total sensor area and Q.E. are the primary factors that affect noise. In the case of the A7s...it's clear that they are doing some rather intense noise reduction in the BionzX chip as well (much like the DIGIC 6 does). All three of those factors, IMO, are more important than pixel size in the long run. So I see no reason you couldn't have that level of ISO performance in a sensor with smaller pixels.
> 
> For now, if you need cropping ability, then pixel size is probably a key factor. Doesn't mean that A7s level performance will stay only in sensors with bigger pixels forever.  (Or even necessarily for all that long.)



Why all the optimism for other brands but not this one? I imagine all cameras will get more capable as time goes on. But it seems rather optimistic that e.g. Sony will produce the perfect device for your needs. 



jrista said:


> Astro is a very different beast. SNR, DR, and RN levels are all important. In astro, final signal strength or signal power is critical. For best results, you need to find the sweet spot that maximizes them all. I'd say before getting a different camera, start guiding your mount. More reliable tracking will probably do more for you than a better sensor, at least to start. I think that the A7s could certainly do better at high ISO than any current Canon sensor. It would certainly allow for the use of higher ISO settings...but I'm not sure that will really buy you much in the end. The key benefit of the increased DR of the A7s is simply a lower chance of clipping stars. In the long run, even with an A7s, guiding is going to allow you to expose for twice as long or longer than your current 2 minute exposures. (And, at 100mm, I would say even with a mount's periodic error, you should be able to expose for four minutes easily...unless the mount has some seriously wicked PE!)
> 
> In general ISO 3200, IMO, is rather high for astro unless your doing ultra wide field work (i.e. 16mm milky way imaging). For anything DSO related, you should be using the lowest ISO you can get away with and still have the minimal or nearly minimal read noise. That will maximize your DR and SNR, limiting the chance that stars will clip, maximizing your ability to increase the total signal power, and usually at no _cost _to your actual REAL exposure.



Thanks for the detailed reply.

I shot at the exposures that seemed right at the time. I have to admit, it's more of an intuitive thing, rather than working out the principles in advance. My expectations are still low, by your standards I guess, but I still find it fun


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Who's to say A7s level performance won't be the norm with the next round of APS-C or high res FF releases? I am still a firm believer that total sensor area and Q.E. are the primary factors that affect noise. In the case of the A7s...it's clear that they are doing some rather intense noise reduction in the BionzX chip as well (much like the DIGIC 6 does). All three of those factors, IMO, are more important than pixel size in the long run. So I see no reason you couldn't have that level of ISO performance in a sensor with smaller pixels.
> ...



That's a fair question, although I think I've answered it many times before. I've been watching...and waiting on...Canon for many years now. I didn't like their read noise in my first camera, the 450D. That was like 2008 timeframe...a LONG time ago now as far as DSLR cycles go. 

I never liked the read noise of the 5D II, and the rumors that were coming out before the 5D III release indicated it would probably be 28mp with improved DR. So, I skipped the 5D II, and waited.

I got the 7D, then the 5D III...both STILL have Canon's signature nasty read noise.

I've been waiting for the 7D II for years...and the rumors now, although they could be dead wrong for sure...indicate that it is likely the 7D II won't even get a newly designed sensor. 

Here I am, around six years later...still waiting for Canon to do something about their read noise. I've been defending Canon's high ISO performance for years as well...however, it seems even that stronghold is being toppled by...again, Sony technology. Canon has long had excellent ergonomics, perfect button placement, they have one of the best AF system on the market (although that is another territory that is in a close race between them an Nikon & Sony). When you get right down to it, though...fundamentally...all the other features of a camera are tools that assist the photographer in getting light focused on the sensor so the SENSOR can create a photograph. High ISO, low ISO, doesn't matter where you live...other companies (particularly Sony) are getting better IQ out of their sensors...and the support technology that helps photographers get that light focused on their sensors is also improving (very quickly, thanks to shorter iterations than Canon uses). 

After a point, you just give up waiting and hoping for a company to do something they have demonstrated, time and time and time again, that they simply have no interest in addressing. I don't know if it's simply that they don't have the ABILITY to do anything about their sensor technology (i.e. they would need to build a new billion-dollar fab, and simply cannot afford the investment?), or that they don't have the DESIRE to do anything about their sensor technology (too comfortable in their dominant position?) Either way...nothing's been done. 

The 7D II may change that. If it hits the streets with a REAL stop or two of more DR...then I might have more hope in Canon again. Early rumors about pending Canon releases tend to be wrong, sometimes wildly (28mp high DR 5D III?), but the late rumors tend to be much closer to reality. We haven't had a CR3 yet, but I think the chances of the 7D II being radically different than the current rumored specs is lower than chances of the 7D II being pretty darn close to the current rumored specs.

So...I have no faith in Canon to do anything about their read noise. It's been many years and nothing has been done about it. Therefor, I have no reason to think that Canon will suddenly, overnight, become a leader in that area again.



scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Astro is a very different beast. SNR, DR, and RN levels are all important. In astro, final signal strength or signal power is critical. For best results, you need to find the sweet spot that maximizes them all. I'd say before getting a different camera, start guiding your mount. More reliable tracking will probably do more for you than a better sensor, at least to start. I think that the A7s could certainly do better at high ISO than any current Canon sensor. It would certainly allow for the use of higher ISO settings...but I'm not sure that will really buy you much in the end. The key benefit of the increased DR of the A7s is simply a lower chance of clipping stars. In the long run, even with an A7s, guiding is going to allow you to expose for twice as long or longer than your current 2 minute exposures. (And, at 100mm, I would say even with a mount's periodic error, you should be able to expose for four minutes easily...unless the mount has some seriously wicked PE!)
> ...



I think you will find that shooting at ISO 400 and shooting at ISO 3200 does not really result in any major difference in what you've actually exposed. The key difference is whether the stars get clipped or not. You would need to stretch the image more manually...but ISO 3200 is really just doing most of that stretching for you (and, probably not doing it as well). 

Astrophotography is a highly manual form of photography. You take dozens or even hundreds of light frames, along with dark, flat, and bias frames for calibration. You calibrate then integrate (stack) to reduce noise. At that point, you want as linear a signal as you can get, as a LOT of the processing to clean up the image, deconvolve, reduce stars, and denoise, should generally be done in linear space before you stretch (basically...you want to maximize your dynamic range as much as humanly possible before stretching). The image your working with at this point usually looks nearly pitch black (unless you have really deep exposures...which you can usually only get at over five minutes, or up to 20 minutes with narrow band filters).

After maximizing SNR and deconvolving, then you stretch, and the image, almost in all it's final beauty, is finally revealed.

Canon sensors have long had a fairly linear signal. Even Canon, like most manufacturers, seems to do a minimal amount of "signal cooking", so the signals are not completely linear like a CCD. Nikon cameras have long had a black point that simply clipped any negative signal below it, turning it all to black. With the black point hack, Nikon cameras behave much more like Canon cameras...they have more noise in the negative signal below the black point, and all the information there, after you calibrate and integrate, is recoverable. It seems that once you hack the black point, Nikon cameras with Exmor and Toshiba sensors are even more linear than Canon cameras...so all the edits you perform in linear space before stretching (stretching uses non-linear curves to lift shadows without affecting highlights...since the star centroids might be very close to white) are more effective. 

Anyway, this is generally what my images look like when I start (in a program called PixInsight):







This is the linear mode of a stack of 116 light frames calibrated with 30 flat frames and 200 bias frames. This is a "screen stretch" that shows the image signal buried deep within the black shadows:






LOT of information buried WAY deep in those shadows.  At this point, with 116 frames stacked, my random noise has been lowered quite a bit, however the averaging actually tends to enhance Canon's banding, so you will probably notice a bit of that in the subsequent closeups here. 

This is a 100% crop of Elephant Trunk, before any NR has been applied:






This is the same crop, after TGVDenoise has been applied:






TGV stands for Total Generalized Variation, a highly effective means of normalizing differences between adjacent samples of a signal. It effectively wipes out, completely, high frequency noise (as you can see). This leaves behind a bit of blotchiness, however it's easier to clean that up in non-linear, post-stretched space. I usually do quite a bit more work in linear before stretching, but just to show what a couple applications of noise reduction algorithms can do, here is the Elephant Trunk after stretching and an application of ACDNR:






ACDNR is applied with a mask to protect the higher SNR areas, primarily relegating the NR to lower SNR areas. ACDNR stands for Adaptive Contrast-Driven Noise reduction. It's great for reducing mid-frequency noise that often looks like "blotchiness", and is quite effective at reducing red-dominated color noise. This is the mask I used with it:






Finally, here is the image after a little bit more stretching and curves:






Don't be afraid of shooting at a lower ISO. Once you calibrate (which uses darks, biases, and flats to subtract out as much read noise as possible, and flatten the field to remove vignetting and dust spots) and stack (which averages together a bunch of frames to reduce random noise...the reduction is basically the SQRT(frameCountStacked)...so, stack 25 frames, you reduce noise by a factor of 5x, stack 100 frames, you reduce noise by a factor of 10x), you have a LOT of usable information buried in what will initially appear to be total, pitch black pixels. They aren't black, though...the SNR of a properly calibrated stack of images is far higher than any single frame that you may be used to using for regular terrestrial photography. 

You might notice the larger stars in the image above look a bit bloated and very white. I shot that image at ISO 800 (elephant trunk is a very dim DSO)...so my stars actually clipped. I was having trouble getting 600s exposures without having problems with my stars getting egg-shaped (tracking considerations...discussion for another day), so I didn't really have any option but to use ISO 800 and use 300s exposures. But...it goes to show you how valuable dynamic range is when it comes to astrophotography...it is super easy to clip stars. I probably could have gotten away with ISO 400 and 360-420 second exposures...but it would have taken a little more experimentation to make sure the red channel exposed above the RN floor...and I had a very short window of opportunity between storms here in Colorado to get the number of sub frames I needed. Those are the kinds of considerations you should make when your in a pinch...otherwise...I pretty much use ISO 400 for the majority of my astro work.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2014)

jrista said:


> That's a fair question, although I think I've answered it many times before. I've been watching...and waiting on...Canon for many years now. I didn't like their read noise in my first camera, the 450D. That was like 2008 timeframe...a LONG time ago now as far as DSLR cycles go.
> 
> I never liked the read noise of the 5D II, and the rumors that were coming out before the 5D III release indicated it would probably be 28mp with improved DR. So, I skipped the 5D II, and waited.
> 
> I got the 7D, then the 5D III...both STILL have Canon's signature nasty read noise.



I suppose I'm just a lot more laid back about it all. I started with a 300D. Upgrading to a 50D was amazing. Going from that to a 5DIII was even more amazing. I don't feel like I'm limited by the camera body yet. If and when I upgrade, it may or may not be to a Canon body (although as with many others, it's easier to stick with them because of the lenses I have). But I'm sure my next camera will be even better, although I suspect the difference won't be as big. But I don't feel any anger or frustration with any given company. I look at th products on offer and choose what fits my needs and budget.

As for read noise, I guess I'm a lot less discerning - your work must be a lot more technical. There are limitations in every area, but that's life. I work with what I've got.



jrista said:


> Astrophotography is a highly manual form of photography. You take dozens or even hundreds of light frames, along with dark, flat, and bias frames for calibration. You calibrate then integrate (stack) to reduce noise. At that point, you want as linear a signal as you can get, as a LOT of the processing to clean up the image, deconvolve, reduce stars, and denoise, should generally be done in linear space before you stretch (basically...you want to maximize your dynamic range as much as humanly possible before stretching). The image your working with at this point usually looks nearly pitch black (unless you have really deep exposures...which you can usually only get at over five minutes, or up to 20 minutes with narrow band filters).
> 
> After maximizing SNR and deconvolving, then you stretch, and the image, almost in all it's final beauty, is finally revealed.



The mount I use is a budget model, designed for cameras. It's not great, but it still improved what I could achieve massively. Maybe 4 mins is possible, although there are so many aircraft and satellites that I have to discard more frames the longer they are. I've done the whole flats, lights, darks, bias, etc. I actually do it entirely manually, stacking and aligning by hand, because the stacking software (as I think I've mentioned) tends to be PCs-only. It's quite therapeutic actually 

But tbh it doesn't bother me that other manufacturers are coming up with better solutions for this. Astro work will always be a minor pursuit for me. The number of days when it's not cloudy, or too windy, or too humid, and I'm in a location with low enough light pollution to do useful work, are very few indeed. So it's not worth me spending tonnes of money on it. If I did, I'd probably go down the route of a dedicated astro camera, either a modified DSLR or a CCD, but that's way too expensive for something I do every few months. I'll never be able to compete with you astro enthusiasts, especially mountain dwellers 

As for blowing stars... I don't see the problem. I think it looks okay. Maybe I'm missing something (unless the subject is the stars themselves, like in globular clusters, then I guess you expose for them).


----------



## jrista (Sep 6, 2014)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > That's a fair question, although I think I've answered it many times before. I've been watching...and waiting on...Canon for many years now. I didn't like their read noise in my first camera, the 450D. That was like 2008 timeframe...a LONG time ago now as far as DSLR cycles go.
> ...



Blown stars can completely dominate an image. There are star reduction routines, but once stars start to clip (which is pretty much guaranteed at ISO 3200 unless your on the A7s), then they "bloat". Stars should generally only be about 3 pixels in size except for the largest, and the largest should look more like gaussian spots rather than solid white discs. 

Again, it may just be the technical side of things...although I've been learning the in's and out's of astro processing from guys who are as technical as I am, and they care about minutia that I can't even recognize yet (some of thee really good ones can tell which color channel is bloating, even...some NB imagers will often tell you when they see your OIII channel bloating, which is creating a halo around your otherwise perfect Ha stars. ) 

Anyway, maybe it is just the difference in expectations...I don't like to fight against my hardware. I'll be dropping $4000+ on a CCD camera so I can stop fighting with the noise in my DSLRs. I do have quite a bit of lens lockin when it comes to regular photography...which is the large part of why I want Canon to improve their sensors. Now not just at low ISO...but at high ISO as well. I want that ~9 stops of DR at ISO 51200 (that is just frickin phenomenal)...it all just means I have more room within which to work, and I wouldn't have to worry as much about technical minutia like...am I going to clip my highlights if I ETTR, am I going to have noisy shadows, etc.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 7, 2014)

From a consumers point of view it´s complete bollocks to defend technology that is worse than competing technology.

Even when you don´t need the improvements.
I don´t need 100 crosstype AF points and 10 FPS.
But i would never say it´s useless or create workarounds to show you can shot great images with worse technology too.



You don´t buy a Hamburger that tastes worse than another, right?
You don´t tell other Hamburger fans he is as good as the other because both offer the same carbs, vitamins, proteins etc.
You buy the Burger that tastes delicious. 

So people should stop making excuses for Canon.
Canon still makes good cameras, but the sensors are not up to the competition in some cases. If you are affected by these cases doesn´t matter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> From a consumers point of view it´s complete bollocks to defend technology that is worse than competing technology.
> 
> You don´t buy a Hamburger that tastes worse than another, right?
> You don´t tell other Hamburger fans he is as good as the other because both offer the same carbs, vitamins, proteins etc.
> ...



That is a faulty analogy, you don't buy a hamburger if you want chicken; if your primary need is sensor output get one of the Exmor cameras, if you want Canon lenses, and they have many unique and class leading lenses, flashes (and nobody else makes a factory radio flash system) etc etc then a Canon IS the better buy.

For the billionth time, Canon does not hold the lead in sensor output especially at low iso, *but* it does have many other system advantages over competitors systems, and for many keen amateurs, semi pros, and pros those system advantages are bigger factors than the sensor differences. The low end is dominated by price and market share and everybody agrees Canon has been leader there for many years.


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That is a faulty analogy, you don't buy a hamburger if you want chicken; if your primary need is sensor output get one of the Exmor cameras, if you want Canon lenses, and they have many unique and class leading lenses, flashes (and nobody else makes a factory radio flash system) etc etc then a Canon IS the better buy.



What you are talking about is a menu.
I am talking about a single Hamburger (only the sensors)




> For the billionth time, Canon does not hold the lead in sensor output especially at low iso, *but* it does have many other system advantages over competitors systems....



I did say that didn´t i?



ULFULFSEN said:


> Canon still makes good cameras, but the sensors are not up to the competition


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is a faulty analogy, you don't buy a hamburger if you want chicken; if your primary need is sensor output get one of the Exmor cameras, if you want Canon lenses, and they have many unique and class leading lenses, flashes (and nobody else makes a factory radio flash system) etc etc then a Canon IS the better buy.
> ...



But if everything else on the menu is more appealing than a hamburger, it doesn't matter how "good" it is.

Look, people banging on about how bad/far behind Canon sensors are, and they are, seem to miss the point that for the vast amount of the time they are still more than good enough to actually achieve what you need. 

Even if the burger is the best burger in the world if only need a single one, why would you order a triple burger?

Other factors are far more important to most people most of the time than more DR and more MP, and that is a fact supported by sales data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Look, people banging on about how bad/far behind Canon sensors are, and they are, seem to miss the point that for the vast amount of the time they are still more than good enough to actually achieve what you need.



^^ THIS ^^


----------

