# Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 21, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11001"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11001"></a></div>
<strong>The Big Megapixel


</strong>The rumours are starting to fly with Photokina around the corner. Below is the first spec list of a camera said to be Canon’s big megapixel entry.</p>
<p>Please remember, the “EOS-3D” name has been rumoured about since about 2005. With every major photo show, we get lots of mentions of its existence. What I do think is different now, is the “3D” name makes a bit more sense. I think this because the “5D” name is no longer the automatic “big megapixel” camera in the Canon lineup. There is room and separation between a 22mp 5D and a 40mp 3D. My other issue with the “3D” name, is the camera wouldn’t be 3D. However, add the “X” at the end and that should help alleviate any confusion with consumers (believe me, there would be).</p>
<p>Below is a spec list I received today, take it with a large grain of salt as it is a new contact. I’m still on the fence as to whether or not we’ll see another DSLR for Photokina, lots of conflicting information (<em>Thanks Canon</em>).</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS-3D X Specifications</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>46 MP</li>
<li>3.7 frame per second</li>
<li>Dual DIGIC 5+</li>
<li>ISO: (25) 50-6400 (12800)</li>
<li>AF: Same as 1DX</li>
<li>USB 3</li>
<li>CF+SD</li>
</ul>
<p>Another feature mentioned about the camera is better heat dissipation of the sensor compared to other EOS cameras. Apparently, this results in industry leading low ISO performance.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## trygved (Aug 21, 2012)

This would def hit a niche that Canon has left open.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

That would be really great oppportunity to show a new wide lens at the same time. A lot of excitement but the price tag will be even a bigger killer than this 3dx capabilities. 7900$? 4900$?


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 21, 2012)

Or they drop a new sensor into the 5D3 body, ramp up the speed of the single DIGIC 5+ processor a little and charge $4500. The 5D3 already has the same AF as the 1Dx...sort of. Of course, there's still the problem that the D800 only costs $3000.

However, I can't see them using the 3D name for anything except a 3-dimensional camera.


----------



## nikkito (Aug 21, 2012)

Will this shoot 3D?





;D


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

nikkito said:


> Will this shoot 3D?
> 
> 
> ;D



Of course!







... if you will buy two of them ;D


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 21, 2012)

Sweeeeeet!


----------



## adamfilip (Aug 21, 2012)

I really hope this rumor is true.


----------



## torger (Aug 21, 2012)

Great!

I think it will be meaningless to release a big megapixel camera if they cannot compete with the D800 concerning low ISO DR, so it is nice that this rumor indicates that they can.

Canon is already great at higher ISOs, but I think a big megapixel camera will be used for "medium format"-like applications, like well-lit studio, landscape etc where you 99% of the time shoot at base ISO and therefore the customers will expect DR close to what D800 can perform. Without great DR it will not be the "medium format killer" like the D800 has become.


----------



## SwampYankee (Aug 21, 2012)

There is a real hole in the Canon lineup at $2,000 advanced amateur level . The 60D and the 7D are both rounding 3 years and are showing their age. This thing looks like a $5,000 camera. There are plenty of $5,000 cameras I can't afford already. Maybe this is a response the the Nikon 800E but it certainly doesn't fill the advanced amateur hole in the Canon line up. I can't afford this camera, can you?


----------



## AmbientLight (Aug 21, 2012)

This may be the optimized studio/landscape offering from Canon. The specs certainly look very good. I particularly like that ISO 25 feature.

I do wonder about the name, though. What if it is called 2D or 4D instead? The 3D has been rumoured for sooooooooooooooooo long, I don't think it is necessary to really release such a camera body, unless of course it has the potential to become a legendary body in this business.


----------



## torger (Aug 21, 2012)

SwampYankee said:


> Maybe this is a response the the Nikon 800E but it certainly doesn't fill the advanced amateur hole in the Canon line up. I can't afford this camera, can you?



I just got into digital medium format, and then everything about 35mm (except super telephoto lenses) looks like a bargain . I actually hope that the camera would aim to be a professional camera (pro body etc) to put some more pressure on the medium format market.

With a 46 megapixel camera one will have to use excellent glass to make full use of it, so even if the body is $5000 the lens cost will soon be higher. Therefore I don't think it makes much sense to make a low cost high megapixel body (that's one of the things I dislike about D800, it should have been a real full-sized pro body I think). An entry-level full-frame with less megapixels would be a better amateur offer.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> (...)
> I do wonder about the name, though. What if it is called 2D or 4D instead? (...)



2D might suggest that you can shoot only with an aperture 22 or bigger ;-)


----------



## rumorzmonger (Aug 21, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> This may be the optimized studio/landscape offering from Canon. The specs certainly look very good. I particularly like that ISO 25 feature.



I would love to see even lower (useable) ISO's... perhaps down to ISO 6 like some of the Kodak DSLR's had.

The crazy-high ISO's are just a waste on landscape cameras. I'm tired of having to spend hundreds of dollars on neutral-density filters just to be able to get useable apertures and shutter speeds.


----------



## KT (Aug 21, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> That would be really great oppportunity to show a new wide lens at the same time. A lot of excitement but the price tag will be even a bigger killer than this 3dx capabilities. 7900$? 4900$?


I think the fact it can capture high-resolution images in both 3D and 46 MP at the same time leads me to suspect the price will be on the high side, but that's just my educated guess


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

KT said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > That would be really great oppportunity to show a new wide lens at the same time. A lot of excitement but the price tag will be even a bigger killer than this 3dx capabilities. 7900$? 4900$?
> ...





Canon Rumors said:


> (...)
> My other issue with the “*3D*” name, is the camera *wouldn’t be 3D*. However, add the “X” at the end and that should help alleviate any *confusion* with consumers (believe me, there would be).
> (...)



Yes Craig, you are right. Does Canon know that or they really intend to sell it in pairs?


----------



## photogaz (Aug 21, 2012)

Why not call it the 1D Xs for studio


----------



## Menace (Aug 21, 2012)

"CF and SD cards" rather than dual CF cards - does it translate into 5d size body rather than 1Dx?


----------



## JRS (Aug 21, 2012)

Finally a 3D camera from Canon! Does it record movies in 3D also?


----------



## traveller (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm sure that Canon now uses the 'EOS 3D' name as a code word for any misinformation that they intend to spread!


----------



## mitchell3417 (Aug 21, 2012)

to help with heat dissipation the camera is white, a la the t4i.


----------



## zim (Aug 21, 2012)

Now this is one rumour I do believe completely

A fabulous pro camera at a fabulous pro price, I expect way higher than 1Dx.

Have to admit though as photogaz '1DXs' does sound better, and sits better on that pyramid, just don't like 3D (so it's guaranteed to be called 3D)

And I’d be really surprised if not two CF slots.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 21, 2012)

photogaz said:


> Why not call it the 1D Xs for studio



I'm in the reusing the 1d name camp.... we have 1DC, 1DX, 1DM - for "Max" to allude at "medium" format quality at FF sized sensor.


----------



## Manlio24 (Aug 21, 2012)

I think it will have both CF and SD card slot because this way you can use eyefi card.


----------



## Chewy734 (Aug 21, 2012)

So, if the 3D is supposed to between the 5D and 1D series, that also means the price will be somewhere between $3500 and $6800. If this is supposed to compete with the D800(E), then I think Canon seriously missed its price-point.


----------



## Manlio24 (Aug 21, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> So, if the 3D is supposed to between the 5D and 1D series, that also means the price will be somewhere between $3500 and $6800. If this is supposed to compete with the D800(E), then I think Canon seriously missed its price-point.



If this is supposed to compete with medium format cameras a price between 3000$ and 6000$ is not a bad idea.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 21, 2012)

"Industry leading ISO Performance" limited to 6400 native


----------



## torger (Aug 21, 2012)

K-amps said:


> "Industry leading ISO Performance" limited to 6400 native



High MP cameras is not about high ISO performance, it is about high DR at base ISO. If your applications require high ISO they don't require high MP, and then there's 5Dmk3 and 1DX.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

torger said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > "Industry leading ISO Performance" limited to 6400 native
> ...



If it will offer 12 DR stops @ ISO 6400 then why forbid them go so far?


----------



## torger (Aug 21, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> So, if the 3D is supposed to between the 5D and 1D series, that also means the price will be somewhere between $3500 and $6800. If this is supposed to compete with the D800(E), then I think Canon seriously missed its price-point.



I think it shouldn't compete directly with the D800(E). Making a prosumer body for a camera that requires top-of-the-line pro lenses to make full use of the pixels is just strange, which is what Nikon has done. I think a high MP camera should be a pro body.

Shooting high MP to its full potential is not cheap, you need expensive tripods and/or expensive lighting, and expensive lenses. When you have to buy everything of the highest quality anyway, then the body should be that too I think.


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 21, 2012)

No Eye-Control Focus????


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 21, 2012)

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.


----------



## Chewy734 (Aug 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.



Unless it costs like $5k. Which wouldn't be surprising, given Canon's recent pricing.


----------



## jouster (Aug 21, 2012)

nikkito said:


> Will this shoot 3D?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Worth pointing out every time. Unless it does, it will *not* be called 3D.


----------



## etg9 (Aug 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.



I'm a 5D3 owner and I won't be, I still think my camera is great for doing what I need to do and a new camera release isn't going to change that. I shoot at bars, clubs, and other dimly lit places frequently and the 5D3 is the best (1dx maybe withholding), way better than the D800 for that. I shoot macro and flowers and that too sometimes requires pushing the iso. 

If this body does something that I need, which I doubt, I can pick one up for the cost of a body with all of my lenses working. 

/the 5d3 isn't perfect. but the things I miss are more rarely talked about such as exposure on focus point or a better metering engine. Images that are sharper out of the camera as an option for when I don't want to do post.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 21, 2012)

This sounds a lot like the 5D HD I've been predicting for months. 

Same body, same price-point as the 5D III, but with an upsized and slightly improved 7D sensor. Take your choice: high ISO and frame rate in the 5DIII or high resolution but lower ISOs and frame rate in the 5D HD (high definition). At the same $3,500 price point as the 5DIII, it remains competitive with the D800, but doesn't undercut the 5DIII. 

The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.

As for those worried about the ability of "L" lenses to resolve 46 mp, that's the same density as the 7D sensor.


----------



## thien135 (Aug 21, 2012)

Nikon fanboys dislike this news ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.



For what reason? Unless you plan to buy another super computer for 46MP - raw file ;D


----------



## AmbientLight (Aug 21, 2012)

Given that it would accept CF+SD cards I suspect it may take a form similar to the 5D.

For me this would be a bit annoying, mirroring Nikon's design choice, but not making things any better.

I would definitely prefer a 1D form factor.


----------



## seta666 (Aug 21, 2012)

Native ISO 50, software pulled ISO 25; sounds nice!!! 
It is true that EOS 5D mkII becomes noisy if using Liveview for long periods, hope they fix this


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 21, 2012)

Why don't we transfer all of the 1DX-esque ficitcious specs from the 7D Mark II thread and transfer them to this thread? That would actually at least make SOME sense. Personally this would be more of a 1Ds Mark IV camera to me, or at least I hope


----------



## kaihp (Aug 21, 2012)

Going to medium-format type sensor will require Canon to give up on the EOS mount, which is designed for the 24 x 36 mm format.
The biggest square you can put in the same circle as a 24x36 sensor would be 30.6mm on the side, and with the same 6.9um pixel size of the 1Dx, you'd only get 8% more area and thus 8% more pixels - 19.4Mpixels.


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 21, 2012)

Being CR1, this is just someone's fantasy camera. It has no more credibility than any of us just randomly emailing the CR guy with what we'd like to see in a big megapixel camera. With the 1DX, 5DIII, T4i, and mirror less I just don't see another body being released so soon. 

There were tons of CR2's for months prior to all the previously mentioned cameras and not one for this camera, we would have heard something by now if there was a camera this big on the immediate horizon.


----------



## bkorcel (Aug 21, 2012)

I will not own this camera for a couple of reasons:

1) I dont need or want 40MP images. Good god. 22MP is enough to deal with.
2) Cost due to inflation, R&D, limited production will likely put the price tag at around 9500.00 for the body.

Now if they also added a real 3D capability to this model then it might be worth it.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 21, 2012)

Haydn1971 said:


> I'm in the reusing the 1d name camp.... we have 1DC, 1DX, 1DM - for "Max" to allude at "medium" format quality at FF sized sensor.


The "M" name is already taken, that's their mirrorless cameras (EOS-M). It'd be a nightmare for them to put out a 1DM that isn't mirror less, definitely confuse a lot of people. It would be just as bad as naming it 3D. Since they already have the legacy of the 1Ds, I'd go with that.



K-amps said:


> "Industry leading ISO Performance" limited to 6400 native


Amazingly, in quoting that, you managed to remove the word "low" from it, which makes all the difference


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 21, 2012)

unfocused said:


> The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.



... but still many will because they shelled out $3500 to get the latest gimmick on the block, and the arguably the "clean images at high iso" advantage compared to the 5d2 is minor and the 3d shows a real step forward.



Canon Rumors said:


> Another feature mentioned about the camera is better heat dissipation of the sensor compared to other EOS cameras. Apparently, this results in industry leading low ISO performance.



"Heat dissipation" is the real problem of eos iso noise (not another sensor design like Sony's)?! Since it isn't April 1st, can anyone please enlighten me or share a link with an explanation?


----------



## Ew (Aug 21, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Now if they also added a real 3D capability to this model then it might be worth it.



If they added 3D shooting, this would be more of a pull to the moving pictures folk as opposed to the stills crowd - and that segment seems to be well filled by canon's lineup. 

And the Fuji 3D camera really never picked up - maybe it was too soon??


----------



## caruser (Aug 21, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ... but still many will because they shelled out $3500 to get the latest gimmick on the block



If _that_ was their main motivation to buy a new camera then I'm not feeling with them.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Aug 21, 2012)

and where is the rumors for the 6d??


----------



## hmmm (Aug 21, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.
> ...



The Canon 3D X: the first camera with a tiny built-in fan! ;D


----------



## poias (Aug 21, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



I would be happy if it has 12 DR stops @ ISO 100, considering Canon's classic blown-out sky feature in the past.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

poias said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > torger said:
> ...



Maybe they include ready to reuse half pictures with typical sky with a smart merge option - who needs the real sky?


----------



## charlesa (Aug 21, 2012)

I think it will remain in the realm of camera rumour porn this one though. Yet again, I might be surprised come Photokina. Doubt it.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> (...)
> Now if they also added a real 3D capability to this model then it might be worth it.



Would you like two EF-mounts in a body or a converter with complex mirror system?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 21, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.
> ...



Gimmick? Let's go shoot some sports together at night, or perhaps a wedding reception of kids running around. Your advertising to the sports editor or the couple of the wedding will really be a gimmick when you have no shots to produce and I have several hundred. I owned both the 5D2 and 7D and the 5D3 is way better than those 2 combined. Hardly a gimmick. If it's a gimmick, fine, it gets me shots I couldn't get with either the 5D2 or 7D. All to their own I suppose.

On a more useful note, I doubt this camera will be released for some time. The 1DX and 5D3 are way too new.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 21, 2012)

photogaz said:


> Why not call it the 1D Xs for studio



AFAIC, they can call it the EOS Mickey Mouse if it's better than a D800E


----------



## mememe (Aug 21, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> No Eye-Control Focus????


.... NO never ever again! I say it everytime. Why ppl dont believe me?


----------



## traveller (Aug 21, 2012)

Looks like whoever sent this rumour to Craig also sent it to Keith Cooper over at Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_3d.html) along with some embellishments: 

[list type=decimal]
[*]16 bit RAW
[*]Dual DIGIC 5+
[*]"Its a new type of body,looks like a mini 1DX, it has a integrated portrait grip but its a bit thinner and significantly shorter and also lighter (no rear lcd panel)"[/list]

Sorry, but (1) and (3), as well as the heat dissipation business sound a lot like b*ll*cks to me. It's a bit soon after the launch of the 1D X and 5D MkIII to start suggesting that their technology is out of date. As for the mini integrated portrait grip, perhaps they've seen the illustrations from NL and added them on to their imaginary spec list? 

Naturally, I will be more than please if I am eating my words in a month or so...! :[/list]


----------



## lopicma (Aug 21, 2012)

It would be nice if Canon had/stuck to a naming convention like...

1D thru 5D = full frame "pro" model
6D thru 9D = crop frame "pro - semi-pro" 
10D thru 90D = crop
100D thru 2000D = entry level

This is how it looks now anyway, so if the 3D is a crop sensor, you can chuck this nomenclature out the window.


----------



## AdurianJ (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm calling BS on this.

I just don't see canon releasing a body above the 5D that has 3.7 FPS, there's no way especially since the camera has dual Digic 5+ CPU's.


----------



## tg (Aug 21, 2012)

traveller said:


> Looks like whoever sent this rumour to Craig also sent it to Keith Cooper over at Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_3d.html) along with some embellishments:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]16 bit RAW
> ...






traveller said:


> Sorry, but (1) and (3), as well as the heat dissipation business sound a lot like b*ll*cks to me. It's a bit soon after the launch of the 1D X and 5D MkIII to start suggesting that their technology is out of date. As for the mini integrated portrait grip, perhaps they've seen the illustrations from NL and added them on to their imaginary spec list?
> 
> Naturally, I will be more than please if I am eating my words in a month or so...! :[/list]




I think the lack of people talking about bit depth is surprising, I think it should be the main thing to consider, more so than mp. I'd much rather have 16bit version of 5dmkiii than a 14bit higher mp camera. It's the main aspect I'm considering investing in medium format.

I think it's not talked about much because it just won't happen for another generation of canon pro bodies,probably... but like you, I would be more than happy to be wrong!


----------



## distant.star (Aug 21, 2012)

.
This is why I like this site -- I learn so much.

Now, I know if I want a really stunning low ISO image, I'll put the body in the freezer for a couple of hours before I shoot. No more hot sensors for me!!


----------



## DzPhotography (Aug 21, 2012)

Not really my cup of tea, as I need high ISO performance more than resolution...


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

distant.star said:


> .
> This is why I like this site -- I learn so much.
> 
> Now, I know if I want a really stunning low ISO image, I'll put the body in the freezer for a couple of hours before I shoot. No more hot sensors for me!!



Or change your back LCD to Peltier cooler.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 21, 2012)

If the price of 3D X is below 5K, I think I will get one. I take photos for my family, ISO 3200 is good enough for me. High MP will be great for the future when you play the photos on your TV. In 5-10 years, UHDTV will be ready, and you need 30MP(for 4K) to 122MP(for 8K) for your UHDTV.


----------



## jsbraby (Aug 21, 2012)

mememe said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > No Eye-Control Focus????
> ...



Eye control focus is/was the devil. I bought the A2 instead of the A2e to avoid it, and happily turned it off on my EOS-3. Maybe it works for some users, but between my eyes, glasses and the eye control system, my EOS-3 it got the AF point I wanted maybe one time in ten; manually setting the AF point got it right all the time.


----------



## jsbraby (Aug 21, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> If the price of 3D X is below 5K, I think I will get one. I take photos for my family, ISO 3200 is good enough for me. High MP will be great for the future when you play the photos on your TV. In 5-10 years, UHDTV will be ready, and you need 30MP(for 4K) to 122MP(for 8K) for your UHDTV.



How do you figure that? 4k resolution is 4096 x 2340 (unless you mean QuadHD, then it's 3840x2160) requiring at most 10 megapixels, and UHD 8k is 7680 × 4320 for about 33.2 megapixels. I regularly mix Canon DSLR stills with 4k RED footage, and have to downsize or crop the stills.


----------



## Pyrenees (Aug 21, 2012)

hmmm said:


> The Canon 3D X: the first camera with a tiny built-in fan! ;D



Bahahahahahaha !!!!!!


----------



## JR (Aug 21, 2012)

Personally I love these specs and I would get such a camera. Having played around with a D800 a bit I could really dig a high MP camera with Canon with great ISO 100 performance (aka industry leading DR) to complement the 1DX.

I hope they make it happen. Not sure how such a camera could be priced below $4k though...


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 21, 2012)

jsbraby said:


> How do you figure that? 4k resolution is 4096 x 2340 (unless you mean QuadHD, then it's 3840x2160) requiring at most 10 megapixels, and UHD 8k is 7680 × 4320 for about 33.2 megapixels. I regularly mix Canon DSLR stills with 4k RED footage, and have to downsize or crop the stills.



You are right. 33MP is for 8K not 4K. I just got bad memory.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 21, 2012)

JR said:


> I hope they make it happen. Not sure how such a camera could be priced below $4k though...



We are talking about Canon camera not Nikon camera, right? We all Canon users will pay only premium price for its camera. I hope the price would be below 5K.


----------



## Arkarch (Aug 21, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> What if it is called 2D or 4D instead?



If 4D, it better be capturing smell or splashing water at me or something.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 21, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.
> ...


I bought a D800, and my fairly powerful PC could not handle editing of the raw files without taking excessive time to render the images. NR or other enhancements were painful. I edited a 500 image shoot, and that was enough for me. I've looked into the latest computers, but there is no major processing power improvements from my first generation i7 to the third one. I need 5X or 10X better for a 40mp raw file that opens to a 200+ MB file once in a editor.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Someone could make some money if would implement RAW manipulation in GPU of the graphics card. Nikon could be the first one


----------



## art_d (Aug 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I don't think CPU power is the issue, more likely you'll get imporvements from more memory.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Aug 21, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> What if it is called 2D or 4D instead?



Ah yes, the famed 35: Double D. Looks great, feels good in your hand... a flash would make this extremely popular.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Aug 21, 2012)

traveller said:


> Its a new type of body,looks like a mini 1DX



I would love it if it had the same body size as the Canon T90, that camera was the perfect size! Bigger than the 5D3, but smaller than a 1D X.


----------



## art_d (Aug 21, 2012)

tg said:


> I think the lack of people talking about bit depth is surprising, I think it should be the main thing to consider, more so than mp. I'd much rather have 16bit version of 5dmkiii than a 14bit higher mp camera. It's the main aspect I'm considering investing in medium format.


There is much debate about the "16-bit myth." From what I've read on the matter, I don't believe that a 16-bit camera would produce any tangible improvement over a 14-bit camera, because those extra bits are not actually doing anything useful, just quantizing noise.


----------



## JR (Aug 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Sorry to ear that! I have the latest Intel i7 six core processor and works fine with the D800 files. They are a bit longer to process then the 1DX file, but not noticably. If you use Lighroom, did you optimze its settings to leverage the full power of your computer (like your RAM, etc...). I know Adobe have some article on that on their website...


----------



## bkorcel (Aug 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I agree there comes a practical level of data that most people can work with and 40MP is too much for post...for most people. It better have good in camera processing....and what's this? Still a CF and SD combo??? Going to take time to write that image to an SD card!


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 21, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.
> ...



I feel canon should have waited a bit longer on releasing the 5D3 with a better sensor, speaking for the 3500$ price its placed for.


----------



## tg (Aug 21, 2012)

art_d said:


> tg said:
> 
> 
> > I think the lack of people talking about bit depth is surprising, I think it should be the main thing to consider, more so than mp. I'd much rather have 16bit version of 5dmkiii than a 14bit higher mp camera. It's the main aspect I'm considering investing in medium format.
> ...




I don't mean to say the difference is enormous, and it comes down to it being a small/modest development, but I have seen many examples of medium format 16 bit sensors delivering beautiful, more natural skin tone renditions due to the ability to capture more colors; I've noticed for a while dslrs often have a somewhat, and sorry for maybe not describing this appropriately, but, plastic tonal renditions from light to dark especially over skin tones (the range of tone seems flatter, local, less subtle variations). 
Much like every iteration of cameras today, once you have that little bit more/better/broader range of information/techinik, you are happy to have it and will notice the difference the more you use it.


----------



## Fishnose (Aug 21, 2012)

nikkito said:


> Will this shoot 3D?
> 
> 
> ;D




Of course!! 

If it's called the 3D, it has to.....
Can you imagine all the returned cameras, and all the struggles sales people will have every day trying to explain to customers that it's NOT 3D.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 21, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.
> ...



I doubt this. For me at least, it is a clear difference between wants and needs vs benefits (IE Income potential). For me right now, the mk3 kicks major wedding ass. This new megapixel beast would be nice to have for shooting wedding formals, outdoors in bright light. But necessary? No. If your a studio guy, yeah, this camera makes sense. Landscape guys, you bet this makes sense. But for the kind of work I'm doing, its more of a want than a need.

Oh, and btw...the mk2 would never pull down usable images at ISO 12,800 ...and thats more than just a gimmick!


----------



## Fishnose (Aug 21, 2012)

thien135 said:


> Nikon fanboys dislike this news ;D



This camera will cost twice as much as a D800, so I doubt it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 21, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Post of the day right here. Finally someone with some good sense.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 21, 2012)

This is a total studio camera. From what I see, Canon did everything right. Dual Digic 5 to handle that massive data. Top end ISO limited to 6400 to improve dynamic range. I also think the SD/CF combo is smart too. Shooting tethered is a pain and Eye-Fi cards is a cheap way to transfer data off. Yes it would be relatively slow, but if you're in the studio you aren't shooting rapid-fire style. Data transfers should be fine. I think it will be called the 1DXs personally.

Editing these files... You will definitely need the fastest machine you can get X2. People already complain about the D800 files. But again, you shouldn't need to edit many files if you're in the studio.

Price I think will be $5000 - $5500 and for the designated user, I think is very reasonable. I think it's going to dust the Nikon D800, but should NOT be direct competition due to the price difference.

For the full-time pro, I think this camera is a huge home-run. I'd consider picking up this camera in a couple of years unless Canon comes out with a medium format camera....


----------



## preppyak (Aug 21, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Is this just a defensive rumor started by Canon to stop people from defecting to Nikon and buying the D800?


I doubt that. Anyone who wanted to defect would have already, since they've had several months to consider it. The D800 is real, a Canon variant isn't, for someone who needs the MP, they've moved already. Especially since there was no indication Canon was gonna match the D800 in price.



RGomezPhotos said:


> Price I think will be $5000 - $5500 and for the designated user, I think is very reasonable. I think it's going to dust the Nikon D800, but should NOT be direct competition due to the price difference.
> 
> For the full-time pro, I think this camera is a huge home-run. I'd consider picking up this camera in a couple of years unless Canon comes out with a medium format camera....


Yep, these I can see being about right. And I think Nikon actually made a mistake pricing the D800 so low. There are quite a few people that switched because it was affordable to do so, only to realize they didn't need or want 36MP, and now they are changing back. I've seen it a bunch for wedding/pj types, where the hassle of the extra storage and extra processing isn't worth it


----------



## traveller (Aug 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



They had three and a half years, how much longer did they need? ;D 

Besides, these high megapixel camera rumours must be false - Canon has stopped developing new sensors as with the current generation, they have attained perfection!


----------



## art_d (Aug 21, 2012)

tg said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > tg said:
> ...


I think you've misinterpreted. I'm not saying medium format sensors don't deliver better images. But they don't do so because of a 16 bit data pipe. 

Sure MF sensors produce smoother color transitions, because of the quality of the sensor itself. MF cameras can't make use of the full 16 bits anymore than DSLRs....those 2 extra bits, even in MF sensors, are not doing anything useful. Those bits are not really delivering actual information, all the data in those 2 bits is just noise. (The only tangible thing that happens is the size of the raw files increases.) 

The upshot of this is that it doesn't matter if you change a DSLR sensor from 14 bit to 16 bit. That change will not make a DSLR-sized sensor behave like a MF sensor.


----------



## mjbehnke (Aug 21, 2012)

JMHO - Since there was no mention of any video features, maybe to keep costs down, this will be a Photo Only Camera??? Good for Landscape and Portrait type work, than it really won't see much video work. 

Thoughts?

Matthew


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 21, 2012)

Past experience with Canon suggests, no such thing as a 6D, or 4D or any even number for a single digit camera. Won't say it can't happen, just its out of place in their corporate thinking.

The film line had the EOS-1 line, then the EOS-5 (A2/A2e), then the EOS-7 (Elan), then the EOS-3. That has been their pecking order as far as numbers, and sequence go.

As you recall, the "1" was top dog, even without having all the latest greatest features in every feature category.

The "5" line brought eye control and fast (for its time) 5fps shooting. The "7" line had superior focus, and the EOS-3 had all the bells and whistles, but wasn't quite pro-level in build.

I expect the same to be true of the EOS 3D. Higher pixel count... sure. I'd expect something more though. Maybe something like integrated GPS and/or integrated WiFi, and/or integrated wireless flash triggering. Canon's way as been to include some "nifty" stuff on the number 3 in the lineup. I would be surprised if they disappoint this time around.

As the EOS-5DmkII sells off, and along with competition, probably more price drops - OR - instead of a 6D, you'll see a 5Ds or 5Di or something like that in the name. Its Canon's way. So, if there's an "entry level" full frame, expect it to have a 5 in its name, with some other suffix after it.

I see an EOS-3 selling in the sub $4500 league to start, getting sub $4000 rather quickly thereafter.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

CharlieB said:


> (...)
> Maybe something like integrated GPS and/or integrated WiFi, and/or integrated wireless flash triggering. Canon's way as been to include some "nifty" stuff on the number 3 in the lineup. I would be surprised if they disappoint this time around.
> (..)



Obviously. They will put a fan as someone suggested before


----------



## KitsVancouver (Aug 21, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.
> ...



Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 21, 2012)

KitsVancouver said:


> Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.


I also don't see a problem here. However, I guess many people here are PRO and making money by photos. They need to process couple hundred photos daily. The view points are very different.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 21, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> KitsVancouver said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.
> ...



I try to imagine a post processing when trying to make a timelapse based on full size RAWs


----------



## preppyak (Aug 21, 2012)

KitsVancouver said:


> Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be?


Well, for the D800, a 14 bit uncompressed RAW file is 75mb according to Nikon. And that is off a 36MP sensor. A 45+ MP sensor, you're probably looking at 100+mb for a RAW file, which is about quadruple what the current file size is. That adds up very quickly when you are shooting 100's of images at a time.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2012)

46MP and 3.7fps would leave performance on the table judging by what dual digic 5+ 1DX can push, if it did what it could it should drive 46MP at 4.7fps

(myself, I'd rather it 36MP and 6fps, especially since I doubt it will remotely do low iso shadows close to the D800 and thus still won't be as good of a landscape camera as the D800 so may as well not try to beat the D800 MP but simply tie them and then stomp all over it with better AF and 6fps FF 36MP vs 4fps 36MP FF/5fps 25MP/6fps 16MP of the D800 (and 46MP really, really gets piggish with the hard drive space). But i'm sure canon will try to push MP in this one like mad. I kinda of see sticking with my 5D3 since 3.7fps would be way to slow if it didn't have D800 ISO100-performance and it would seem like only a half way done landscape cam, all the MP but none of the DR (and none of the speed) and the dual digic also means little chance for magic lantern for it for video and since canon cripples the junk out of video on non C-class cameras ML is kind of important sadly, but then again this is speculating on speculation on speculation. ;D But I'd rather wait for a 6fps+ , 36MP+ with good DR body (hopefully the 5D4, possibly the D900) before getting another one than a 46MP+, avg DR, slow fps body)

(at least just cut a couple MP off and get it from 4.7 to a true 5fps)

(of course they could give it an APS-C crop mode to help save storage space for distance limited wildlife shots and also drive that at greater fps, nikon gets a ton more out of their bodies by doing stuff like that, but knowing Canon, since Nikon does that, they never will, no matter how much sense it would make)


EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! ;D


----------



## preppyak (Aug 21, 2012)

mjbehnke said:


> JMHO - Since there was no mention of any video features, maybe to keep costs down, this will be a Photo Only Camera??? Good for Landscape and Portrait type work, than it really won't see much video work.
> 
> Thoughts?


Video costs Canon very little to implement. Seeing as Magic Lantern made the 50D a camera capable of recording video, I can tell you that the implementation is fairly cheap software. It may not be amazing video, but its video. If you would be fine with the camera not having Live View, then sure, they could possibly leave video out and save some money. Otherwise, once the tech is there, the choice to not record video is just silly and saves them nothing. But it does cost them buyers (a bunch might but the video-enabled D800 instead), and that means a higher price on the camera. Chances are Canon would have to charge 20-30% more for a video-less camera, which is why you will probably not ever see one


----------



## art_d (Aug 22, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> KitsVancouver said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.
> ...


Don't forget that "hundreds of photos daily" is not the way all pros shoot. Just a couple of weeks ago I shot an interior design job where over the course of four hours I depressed the shutter maybe 30-40 times, and delivered around 15 processed shots. For the type of slow deliberate shooting I do, I'd take larger files without hestitation. 

And I would add that digital medium format photographers have been processing large file sizes for years.

It's all about what tool is right for the type of work you do.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 22, 2012)

With the specs listed, I really wonder if Canon started this project years ago with the development of the 7D...

Canon APS-C sensor: 22.2mm x 14.8mm
35mm Full Frame: 36mm x 24mm

Just going by the sensor dimensions, the 18 megapixel sensor on the 7D is equal to a 47.3 MP sensor when expanded to full frame 35mm. The leaked numbers of a 46MP sensor are just too close for coincidence.

My curiosity is piqued.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 22, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> With the specs listed, I really wonder if Canon started this project years ago with the development of the 7D...
> 
> Canon APS-C sensor: 22.2mm x 14.8mm
> 35mm Full Frame: 36mm x 24mm
> ...


if it also gets the low iso noise of the 18mp sensor there are going to be ALOT of tears


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> if it also gets the low iso noise of the 18mp sensor there are going to be ALOT of tears



I probably should've been more clear in my first post; I don't think this body will be remotely close to the 7D. In fact, I don't think it's going to be in the same universe.

I just think that Canon had this sensor/body in the works for quite some time. The 7D was years in development itself, and just based on the MP count, it looks like that research has progressed to bring us the 3DX.

I'm glad Canon cut the ISO at 6400, and has a native ISO 50 with an expandable 25. This is clearly a studio unit (perhaps some solid landscape applications as well) that will have some killer low ISO performance.

I just hope it's real!


----------



## nicku (Aug 22, 2012)

Canon is obliged to meet the challenge imposed by Nikon D800. I believe this camera will appear. The price tag will be around ( in my opinion) $4499 - 4990.

Regarding the lens potential on a such big MP sensor.... 7D has the same amount of pixels /square cm, and the quality lens meet those demands.


----------



## Ew (Aug 22, 2012)

A body like this would definitely yield a new UWA, and perhaps a TSE update ?


----------



## funkboy (Aug 22, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> All investigations that I have seen suggests that current 14-bit cameras tend to be noise-limited (photon/electronics noise is large enough that the quantization noise (error) is dwarfed), and that the 15th and 15th bit of 16 bit raw files contain only random noise. Random noise needs not be recorded, it can be recreated in your computer at any time at much lower cost.



Agreed. Medium format cameras have 16-bit ADCs & RAW because (historically) their pixels are so much larger & thus capture enough photons to warrant the additional bit depth.

BUT, an additional two bits on DSLRs would lessen the need for exposure to the right.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 22, 2012)

art_d said:


> There is much debate about the "16-bit myth." From what I've read on the matter, I don't believe that a 16-bit camera would produce any tangible improvement over a 14-bit camera, because those extra bits are not actually doing anything useful, just quantizing noise.



Certainly the case on Canon's bodies to date. Only about 12b of good data there. Maybe 12.5 to 13 on the 1Dx


----------



## Aglet (Aug 22, 2012)

funkboy said:


> BUT, an additional two bits on DSLRs would lessen the need for exposure to the right.



not unless the noise levels went down by an equivalent 2 bits or more
unlikely


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 22, 2012)

You had me until:

'Another feature mentioned about the camera is better heat dissipation of the sensor compared to other EOS cameras. Apparently, this results in industry leading low ISO performance.'


----------



## Aglet (Aug 22, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> I'm glad Canon cut the ISO at 6400, and has a native ISO 50 with an expandable 25. This is clearly a studio unit (perhaps some solid landscape applications as well) that will have some killer low ISO performance.
> 
> I just hope it's real!



I hope it's REAL too!
But Canon has to make some serious improvements in their hardware to reduce the (patterned) read noise that is the bane of their current technology.
Without a significant reduction in read-noise, the lower ISO settings will be useful for wider apertures, or slower shutter speeds, but without a commensurate improvement in DR or need for extra digitizing bits.

DR should increase by about the same amount as ISO decreases (stop-per-stop) but if you look at Canon's measured DR curves, they're pretty flat from ISO 800 down. E.G. The 5D3's DR is only moving about 1 stop despite 4 stops worth of ISO change.

Recent SoNikon's DR curves behave as they should, DR increasing equivalent to the decrease in ISO.
If Canon can fix this, for a new high-MP body, they'll please a lot of their current customers who've been hoping for such an improvement for years!

And I also hope that, if they DO accomplish this, we aren't hosed 10x as much $ as such DR technology can be had from competitor's products for as little as $500 in a consumer crop body.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 22, 2012)

Aglet said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > BUT, an additional two bits on DSLRs would lessen the need for exposure to the right.
> ...



There are a few main arguments for doing ETTR:


Maximize the dynamic range of the exposure (i.e. use the full range of the camera's DR)
Maximize the SNR by capturing as many photons as possible
Minimize the effects of quantization by trying to get as much of the image as possible into the exposure stops with the most tonal values available

16-bit ADC & RAW will increase the number of tonal values available in each EV (the third point above) by a factor of four vs. 14-bit.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Aug 22, 2012)

i think this will be the inside of the 3Dx


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 22, 2012)

funkboy said:


> Maximize the SNR by capturing as many photons as possible



... unless you have to raise iso to get an ok shutter speed when overexposing, so often anti-ettr by underexposing and/or lower iso might give you a higher snr


----------



## NotABunny (Aug 22, 2012)

This will obviously be called 0DX :


----------



## tg (Aug 22, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> tg said:
> 
> 
> > I think the lack of people talking about bit depth is surprising, I think it should be the main thing to consider, more so than mp. I'd much rather have 16bit version of 5dmkiii than a 14bit higher mp camera. It's the main aspect I'm considering investing in medium format.
> ...



My point, as I hoped others would notice: there is a real, tangible, visible difference in MF files vs dslr files when it comes to colour. (think transitions/gradations/subtleties in skin tone) It's not necessarily 'more' ,like mega pixels, but rather higher sensitivities... and yes, of course there's factors that allow this, like larger pixels and great lenses, but that's what I'm saying I'd love to have in my dslr... larger pixels (the 1Dx has large pixels) with higher colour sensitivity. And I'd be fine if that meant a loss in hi iso and speed. 

And the idea that few people understand all the tech behind it, I agree. I am one of them, trying to learn more. But I'm definitely not convinced that the progression to 16 bit is a bad idea. It needs to be implemented properly, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became something we all understood a bit better in the coming year or two...


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 22, 2012)

nicku said:


> Canon is obliged to meet the challenge imposed by Nikon D800. I believe this camera will appear. The price tag will be around ( in my opinion) $4499 - 4990.



Based on the 5D2, 5D3 and 1DX pricing, I agree that the price will likely be in the $3,995 ballpark, if not breaking $4k entirely, as you suggest. 

However, this really puts Canon in a pickle if it's running next to the D800. They'll have to make significant improvements over the D800 to justify the pricing, and market it in a class of its own, since anyone can be off and running at 36MP for only $2,995 right now.



tg said:


> My point, as I hoped others would notice: there is a real, tangible, visible difference in MF files vs dslr files when it comes to colour. (think transitions/gradations/subtleties in skin tone) It's not necessarily 'more' ,like mega pixels, but rather higher sensitivities...



There was a D800 vs. Hasselblad video review done by some NYC commercial photographers that got into this issue. But this was really their only primary complaint. If you're not a $20,000/wk fashion photographer, or selling your photos to Christian Dior for the next 50' banner ad in Times Square, it's hard to justify the investment in a Hasselblad H back. That said, what you get for 3 grand in a D800 is still mind blowing as far as I'm concerned. If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.


----------



## tg (Aug 22, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.



If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point... 

I get the feeling some are obsessed with matching Nikon and their mega pixels and not worried about the conversation of how a photo can look... however minute the change can be. 
I hear it time and again, when you have MF quality, the difference is there. When you have a dslr, most will try to appease themselves and insist MF, for some tech/scientific/'I read somewhere' reason, is not worth it and not even advantageous anymore. 
I'm very happy with the 5dmkiii, very happy... it's much better than I thought it would be over the 5dmkii. But, there's always room for improvement, usually in aspects very difficult to make better, unlike MP which is where all the attention gets placed. 
You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 22, 2012)

tg said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.
> ...



If they do make a super high MP camera, I'm not going to buy. I'll keep my 5D Mark III and 1DX because they take the images I need. I don't need anymore. Good post.


----------



## Marine03 (Aug 22, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is obliged to meet the challenge imposed by Nikon D800. I believe this camera will appear. The price tag will be around ( in my opinion) $4499 - 4990.
> ...



Having just watched that video I know I'm not a pixel peeper or maybe im not overly critical, but seriously the Hasselbad IMO is a waste of money, is it 20K better of a camera or is the pic 20K times better, no way! Now from the pro point of view they had to defend the Hasselbad because they own a 20K cam and get paid big bucks so they need to basically tell clients look, no one on the street shoots with this its SOOO good. But serisouly look at a magazine for print tell me that a 1D3 or D800 etc isn't good enough for like 90% of work.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 22, 2012)

tg said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.
> ...



TG, I do get your point, and appreciate the "quality" improvements a Hasselblad offers over a 35mm camera. To me, and for the work I do in photography, a MF camera simply has no real world practical application (especially at the $30k price tag). That said, I think you're trying to compare cameras that are designed for totally different user groups, totally different markets and totally different applications. 

So while I understand there's "room for improvement", somehow wishing your dSLR to be a MF camera doesn't seem like a valid point to be making. At least in my opinion.


----------



## art_d (Aug 22, 2012)

tg said:


> And the idea that few people understand all the tech behind it, I agree. I am one of them, trying to learn more. But I'm definitely not convinced that the progression to 16 bit is a bad idea. It needs to be implemented properly, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became something we all understood a bit better in the coming year or two...


Going to 16 bit wouldn't hurt anything in the imaging process. It just isn't going to help anything. It's not going to record better color transitions, just extra random noise. All it would do is make RAW files larger, because the files would now contain extra information on the random noise which previously was not being recorded. Larger files without any actual benefit to images is not something we should be asking for.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 22, 2012)

art_d said:


> tg said:
> 
> 
> > And the idea that few people understand all the tech behind it, I agree. I am one of them, trying to learn more. But I'm definitely not convinced that the progression to 16 bit is a bad idea. It needs to be implemented properly, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became something we all understood a bit better in the coming year or two...
> ...



Why are you so sure it will record just extra noise but no more useful information?


----------



## AmbientLight (Aug 22, 2012)

I believe that the point about random noise coming in applies only if you compare a high quality, high MP sensor with a low quality, high MP sensor assuming of course that lens quality is similar. The question is of course left in the open, from where this high quality sensor may come from?

To me the answer is obvious:
On one side you have some small companies trying to survive in a specialized market niche, while on the other hand you have big corporations with disproportionate amounts of money to invest in R&D out to annihilate annoying niche market competitors. I have seen this situation in other lines of business and the end result is rather easy to predict.


----------



## art_d (Aug 22, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > tg said:
> ...


People have studied this issue. See the following technical explanation related to noise and bit depth: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Also, see this rather lengthy discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0

In short, represntatives from a medium format digital back dealer essentially concede that when the term "16 bit" is applied to MF sensors, it is done so as marketing shorthand in order to convey to potential customers that the MF sensor will have better tonal qualities compared to DSLRs of equal megapixels, even though the actual reasons for those better tonal qualities lie elsewhere. This may be fine for MFDB buyers since they are not being misled and their camers do produce better tonal qualities. However the problem which has resulted from this seemingly innocent bit of marketing is that some people have been led to think that if you make DSLR sensors 16 bit they will produce the tonal qualities of MF.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2012)

Manlio24 said:


> Chewy734 said:
> 
> 
> > So, if the 3D is supposed to between the 5D and 1D series, that also means the price will be somewhere between $3500 and $6800. If this is supposed to compete with the D800(E), then I think Canon seriously missed its price-point.
> ...



So you would pay thousands more to get from 36MP to 46MP while giving up the high DR at low ISO of a D800?

EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.



Not if it has the same old DR (i.e. not close to low ISO Nikon or MF), much slower fps, no chance for magic lantern, costs a lot more. You'd get better reach and detail but give up a lot since Canon won't give it cropped modes with speed or stay at a more reasonable 36MP to keep some speed and doesn't seem to have the sensor tech to deliver top quality low ISO pixels. I'd rather keep the 5D3 and wait for a 5D4 or D900 myself.
Of course, who knows, maybe they finally spring their miracle new sensor with this or it does have fast crops modes or better fps (46MP dual digic should go 4.7fps not 3.7fps and it could hit 6fps if they cut MP down a little).


EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Being CR1, this is just someone's fantasy camera. It has no more credibility than any of us just randomly emailing the CR guy with what we'd like to see in a big megapixel camera. With the 1DX, 5DIII, T4i, and mirror less I just don't see another body being released so soon.
> 
> There were tons of CR2's for months prior to all the previously mentioned cameras and not one for this camera, we would have heard something by now if there was a camera this big on the immediate horizon.



true enough, surely someone is sitting somewhere laughing at the 9, 10, 30, 100 pages being written on his random rumor submission. ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2012)

tg said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.
> ...



I've never used MF (well not in digital) or even looked at any test data from them but they might be using very tight color filters, perhaps, that make them less color-blind so they can distinguish more subtle shading differences in color and may have better DR at low ISO.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 22, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> thien135 said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon fanboys dislike this news ;D
> ...



You've made reference to poor DR in two posts now, regarding a possible 3DX sensor's performance. First, a huge caveat - we're all arguing about a presently fictitious/rumored camera body - so claiming the status quo will remain, or that Canon will make some giant leap is in the realm of pure speculation. That said, I'm going to speculate... 

The key thing I draw from the "leaked specs" is the point about it having improved heat dissipation for "industry leading low ISO performance." This is supported by the leaked specs capping ISO at 6400, with ISO 50 being native, expandable to ISO 25. As a result, I would anticipate significantly improved noise and DR over existing sensors. Otherwise, Canon would be dead in the water with a 46 MP camera that is essentially a 5D3 with double the resolution. Not much to gain there, and no one would dump the money on it. But hammer home some sick new low ISO performance, and it could be a hot item. I think this will be an offering on an entirely new level ... something we haven't seen yet from Canon.

As I've stated before, I just hope it's real.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > thien135 said:
> ...



OOPS my bad, I was so used to Canon being behind at low ISO and doing very well at high ISO that I read the 'specs' too quickly and thought it said industry leading HIGH ISO but you are entirely correct about everything. I agree with all you say above.

Well, first off these specs are probably just from some random person making stuff up, but whatever, yeah between ISO50 standard and "industry leading low ISO" and all you are correct, if we take the rumor at heart at does hint at superb low ISO so ignore all my posts above, oops.

If it had industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP that WOULD be a total landscape and studio beast! ;D
In that case the 3.7fps for FF mode wouldn't be so bad at this point in time.

Once again ignore my series of dumb posts earlier in the thread. 

(Although it would still be awesome if Canon gave it a crop mode at more fps, ala D800, because then it could be a total wildlife shooting camera beast as well as just a landscape/studio beast.)


----------



## Caps18 (Aug 22, 2012)

Canon just wants to get me to give them my money. It looks like it would be really good. 

If it was medium format, it would be very tempting. But I would have to save up for 2 more years probably... It will be interesting if there is a megapixel 'war' and a pixel quality 'war' at the same time.

I also need to get at least 5 years of life out of my current camera.


----------



## Cali_PH (Aug 22, 2012)

As a landscape guy that's recently gotten into printing stuff 24"x36" and possibly larger, this interests me. Sure, I realize people can print large With lower mp's but if this rumor is true there'd be increases in low iso perfornance and DR, good stuff for landscape.

Many Canonites had dismissed the D800 simply because it had 'too many mp's,' would slow down pp, files take up too much space etc. All valid considerations, but I'm guessing more than a few of those people would suddenly consider this Canon


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 22, 2012)

art_d said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > art_d said:
> ...



I've read this article from Chicago some time ago and thanks - I've read it again  It's hard not to agree with it's contents written by prof Martinec (the more that I've got just a master and engineer degrees in computer science, not a professor ) but let me point to some circumstances:

1. Examples showing no difference between the original image and image with clipped 2 bits don't make sense in this discussion - there it was to indicate no difference on screen while viewing, we are talking about the useful information used later for image manipulation. If we intend to get one picture 14 bits deep and another 16 bits deep, convert them directly to 8bits jpegs and display on a screen, then most probably we won't see too much difference, I'd say - no difference. But if you'd like to manipulate it in PS, then depending on how much you want to manipulate, you'll see the difference sooner or later.

2. The long part of the article regarding noise is based on real values measured in real devices like 1d3 or 40d and compared to other devices. The read noise in sensor plays an important part. How about changing it a little in next generation of sensors? I mean - what if? What if in a new sensor some other technology would be used? Let's assume they would find a method to read each pixel's value not once after exposing it to light but could introduce sampling with frequency let's say 1MHz, which could eliminate some read noise and improve DR? I'm not saying that such sampling would help but I indicate, that some conclusions might not be same true in such a new type of sensor. So what if those additional bits were not just to record more noise?

3. I don't think that 16bit RAWs would make my photos any better than 14bit RAWs because in most cases I wouldn't know what to do with this. At the same time I think that guys at Adobe could know 

4. I think that everyone here has heard that there was a world market for no more than 5 computers and that 640KB of computer memory was enough  So why not 32 bit RAWs?

BTW: In the era of [email protected] and [email protected] if I would say to my professor that in 20 years there will be processors working at 2.4GHz and a graphics memory would utilize 7GHz clock it would be the best joke he'd hear that week. In one cycle of 2Ghz clock light (or other electromagnetic wave) travels like 15cm in vacuum...


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Aug 23, 2012)

SwampYankee said:


> There is a real hole in the Canon lineup at $2,000 advanced amateur level . The 60D and the 7D are both rounding 3 years and are showing their age. This thing looks like a $5,000 camera. There are plenty of $5,000 cameras I can't afford already. Maybe this is a response the the Nikon 800E but it certainly doesn't fill the advanced amateur hole in the Canon line up. I can't afford this camera, can you?






The D800 is NOT a Medium Format killer, it is merely an imitation and possibly an introduction, but Medium Format cameras have much larger sensors than 35mm and perform on a level not capable even by the D800. The only camera that comes close is the Leica S2.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 23, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> To me the answer is obvious:
> On one side you have some small companies trying to survive in a specialized market niche, while on the other hand you have big corporations with disproportionate amounts of money to invest in R&D out to annihilate annoying niche market competitors. I have seen this situation in other lines of business and the end result is rather easy to predict.



so why does it take Canon _this_ long to start producing a camera with serious DR? (assuming they can and will from this latest rumor)

After all, they’ve been solidly kicked by the D90, D5100, D7000, D800, D4 and a few Pentax bodies along the way since the K10D thru K5, some of those, I believe, still used a CCD sensor and managed to deliver better DR and color range. They've certainly had a few years to show they could catch up.
If they intended to annihilate the competition, they’re certainly taking their sweet time about it.

Still, however baseless this rumor may be, I hope Canon can pull a rabbit out of their hat here - and allow us to take a picture of the deep dark black felt lining inside that hat without all the attendant red-channel noise we’re accustomed to seeing from their current cameras.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.
> ...



Yes, 5D3 owners will be burned. :-X


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 23, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Burned? Why? Just b/c a better camera comes out doesn't make the one I have worse does it? I'm a 5D3 owner and I don't want a 46 MP camera. I don't want a 36 MP camera. I want a 22 MP camera with a great AF system. There's a reason I kept my 5D Mark III and sold my 1Ds Mark III.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 23, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Canon could have done better.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 23, 2012)

I agree, the 5D Mark III could have had better DR. That's the shortcoming I see and can understand. Historically though, the 1Ds line has had that, and we sort of lost that with the 1DX and again I'll say, the 1DX doesn't replace the 1Ds3 at all.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 23, 2012)

Cali_PH said:


> Many Canonites had dismissed the D800 simply because it had 'too many mp's,' would slow down pp, files take up too much space etc. All valid considerations, but I'm guessing more than a few of those people would suddenly consider this Canon


LOL. I was also thinking how come those people not complaining this high MP camera.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 23, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > Maximize the SNR by capturing as many photons as possible
> ...



That would sort of defeat the point of messing with it, now wouldn't it .

But in fact if you play around with it & pixel peep I think you'll find that up to about ISO800 or ISO1600 (depending on the camera of course, for modern Canons it's usually around 800 for crop & 1600 for FF) it's actually beneficial to do what you're saying i.e. boost the ISO to get better sensitivity for ETTR. Until the camera starts doing more linear amplification (which causes DR to drop above those ISOs), capturing more photons is better.

more in-depth discussion here


----------



## Bosman (Aug 23, 2012)

The 1Dx is the merged 1D series. Here is what i think a big mp Canon should look like. It would be similar to Hasselblad and others in the big mp range. Change it from an EOS C300 to EOS D1 or 100. Dumbing down the cinema aspects for magazine shooter styling and mp size. I can almost hear the buzz of reasons why this wouldn't happen, lol. I like to dream.


----------



## zim (Aug 23, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The 1Dx is the merged 1D series. Here is what i think a big mp Canon should look like. It would be similar to Hasselblad and others in the big mp range. Change it from an EOS C300 to EOS D1 or 100. Dumbing down the cinema aspects for magazine shooter styling and mp size. I can almost hear the buzz of reasons why this wouldn't happen, lol. I like to dream.



Actually that's a great design idea!


----------



## Bosman (Aug 23, 2012)

zim said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > The 1Dx is the merged 1D series. Here is what i think a big mp Canon should look like. It would be similar to Hasselblad and others in the big mp range. Change it from an EOS C300 to EOS D1 or 100. Dumbing down the cinema aspects for magazine shooter styling and mp size. I can almost hear the buzz of reasons why this wouldn't happen, lol. I like to dream.
> ...


I will savor this moment. 8)


----------



## NY Wedding Photographer (Aug 23, 2012)

Would love it if it comes out in october


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Cali_PH said:
> 
> 
> > Many Canonites had dismissed the D800 simply because it had 'too many mp's,' would slow down pp, files take up too much space etc. All valid considerations, but I'm guessing more than a few of those people would suddenly consider this Canon
> ...



As someone who see's the d800 as more of a want than a need, I view this rumored spec list in the same vein. Would it be awesome, sure, but unless the type of work I do were to change a lot, it would make no sense to shift to bigger mp's. 

And why would I complain, or anyone else that works in lots of low light situations? Whats there to complain about. It's not like Canon is pulling the 5d3 and the 1dx from the shelves and issuing recalls so we have to own this MP beast. This new camera will fill a needed niche, one that is very vifferent than lets way the niche for hte mk3 and 1dx (which are actually in different niche's as well, not that the 1dx wouldn't be an amazing camera for weddings, but, it is more of a sports body). So 1dx is sports and superior low light machine. 3D (or whatever they call it is the studio/landscape shooter beast, and the 5dmk3 is the wedding/event shooters tool of choice. Why would we complain? It actually makes sense, and, it finally gets all the big mp fans to stop complaining about how the 5d3 sucks and is a gimmick and is over priced (all things I don't agree with)


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 23, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> (...)
> It actually makes sense, and, it finally gets all the big mp fans to stop complaining about how the 5d3 sucks and is a gimmick and is over priced (all things I don't agree with)



I see a lot of posts: "That's only 46MP but I need 52 in my work. And it costs 500$ too much."


----------



## pakosouthpark (Aug 23, 2012)

NY Wedding Photographer said:


> Would love it if it comes out in october



no way that would happen on earth..!


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > (...)
> ...


 ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 23, 2012)

tron said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Or...But it sucks past ISO 3200...lol


----------



## Aglet (Aug 23, 2012)

funkboy said:


> But in fact if you play around with it & pixel peep I think you'll find that up to about ISO800 or ISO1600 (depending on the camera of course, for modern Canons it's usually around 800 for crop & 1600 for FF) it's actually beneficial to do what you're saying i.e. boost the ISO to get better sensitivity for ETTR. Until the camera starts doing more linear amplification (which causes DR to drop above those ISOs), capturing more photons is better.



Unfortunately, Canon's performance curves are "normal" when it comes to signal to noise ratio from base ISO up. SNR decreases proportionally with increase in ISO.
So ETTR at mid ISO doesn't have much of a loss of DR but SNR drops noticeably. Still, an effective method.. of sorts. I'd prefer an uncompromised camera.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 23, 2012)

Aglet said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > But in fact if you play around with it & pixel peep I think you'll find that up to about ISO800 or ISO1600 (depending on the camera of course, for modern Canons it's usually around 800 for crop & 1600 for FF) it's actually beneficial to do what you're saying i.e. boost the ISO to get better sensitivity for ETTR. Until the camera starts doing more linear amplification (which causes DR to drop above those ISOs), capturing more photons is better.
> ...



aglet, I've been reading your posts a bit now. Can you post some of your D800 Photos here?


----------



## Skulker (Aug 23, 2012)

Aglet said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > But in fact if you play around with it & pixel peep I think you'll find that up to about ISO800 or ISO1600 (depending on the camera of course, for modern Canons it's usually around 800 for crop & 1600 for FF) it's actually beneficial to do what you're saying i.e. boost the ISO to get better sensitivity for ETTR. Until the camera starts doing more linear amplification (which causes DR to drop above those ISOs), capturing more photons is better.
> ...



If by normal you mean about the same as Nikon I would agree with you. (why do I get the sneaky feeling you may not agree with me ;D ;D ;D ;D)

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-1dx-1091200/review/page:5#articleContent

I expect some people will "pixel peep" at the graphs and say "mines better at XYZ" but I think any reasonable person would say those are all great camera's


----------



## art_d (Aug 23, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> art_d said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...


I think the thing to keep in mind is that as far as we know, right now there are no cameras used in traditional photography that in any practical way actually make use of the full 16 bits (I believe there are scientific cameras that do, but that's a different story!). The belief that simply introducing 16 bit parts into a DSLR would make it perform like a MFDB is just not true.

Now, if Canon is on the verge of a technological breakthrough where they've actually managed to actually fill a full 16 bits with useful information, I think such a camera would quite literally mean the demise of the medium format digital back market. But, I remain sketpical of that


----------



## Aglet (Aug 24, 2012)

Skulker said:


> If by normal you mean about the same as Nikon I would agree with you. (why do I get the sneaky feeling you may not agree with me ;D ;D ;D ;D)



I have to agree, from what I see published on some web sites testing these cameras, the SNR of all the top line cameras is pretty similar across their ISO range.

In an apparently stunning turn, the D800's SNR is even lower than that of the 5D2.
If you compare the curves on DxOmark's website tho, the results are different than the techradar site supposedly using DxO testing software. Big difference in DR results. So who's doing it properly? Neither completely explains their methodology to anyone's satisfaction.

That same article sparked some lively debate before about the merit and validity of DxO's testing.
It only tells me that anyone can buy DxO's testing software and rig but do they really apply it properly?

I'll take DxO's testing on their site, thank you. They build the stuff, they otta know how to use it properly and consistently. There the Canon's have an edge in SNR, tho I still don't know how they're testing it, the specifics.

But I'll take the worse reported SNR of the D800 over the low ISO noise of any Canon product to date because it's less visible. MUCH less visible. And any bloke with access to both cameras can determine that quite readily with little more than Photoshop and ACR (or Lightroom) and a lenscap.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 24, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> aglet, I've been reading your posts a bit now. Can you post some of your D800 Photos here?


I was saving some good examples to post on my web site but, considering how laggard I've been updating it this summer, i could maybe post a little something here.
Altho, _really_, the most impressive is the inside of a black lens cap, shot at 1/200s, f/16, in a dark room and pushed 4 stops in post. 

Anything specific you'd like to see? I haven't been able to get out and shoot much with it, despite intents.

I've got an ISO 3200 close-up of and ant I took when I first got it and was playing around with it in the back yard.
It's kind of impressive considering very little NR was used.

I took a few colorful, post-storm, sunset-silhouette shots at Lesser Slave Lake AB last month. They were done with a D800 and ancient 20mm lens at ISO 400 but that doesn't really showcase its abilities. Even Canon bodies can shoot great sunsets and I proceeded to shoot dozens more of them with my 60D after taking a few shots with the 800, all of them more impressive than those I shot with the D800.

I DO have a landscape of sorts tho, where extreme shadow pushing in post yields a nice HDR type effect covering a Dynamic Range from sunlit cumulus clouds to the texture of charcoal in shade. With ZERO NR applied and no noise visible in the pushed shadows. Similar shot from my 60D is already on this site in the HDR gallery, near the bottom of page 2 -
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8065.15

The other one with the charcoal is a bit more extreme. I intend to prep that one for a poster.

2 images posted in response to RLPhoto removed August 26th.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 24, 2012)

NY Wedding Photographer said:


> Would love it if it comes out in october



unlikely in a Potatokina year...


----------



## funkboy (Aug 24, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I'd prefer an uncompromised camera.



I'd really prefer if ANY camera company added a metering mode that figured out how to get the maximum quantity of photons into eachphotosite while avoiding color channel blowout for us so we didn't have to do it manually by screwing around with histograms & tricking the camera into making it happen.

Regarding SNR, to quote Reichmann:



> Why?
> 
> Well, there is the story of Willy Sutton the famous American bank robber. When he was finally arrested, he was ask, "Willy, why do you rob banks?" Willy answered, "Because that's where they keep the money."
> 
> ...


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 24, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > aglet, I've been reading your posts a bit now. Can you post some of your D800 Photos here?
> ...



While these are interesting, They don't showcase anything that couldn't be done on a d30.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 24, 2012)

funkboy said:


> I'd really prefer if ANY camera company added a metering mode that figured out how to get the maximum quantity of photons into eachphotosite while avoiding color channel blowout..



Canon's color matrix metering, starting in the 7D I think, I find works much better than the previous metering systems when it comes to tricky compositions with lots of color. I find I don't often have to compensate at all, many times, and when I do, it's considerably less than I had to with the previous, non-color reading metering systems. Force of habit often has me adjusting -2/3 EV which I end up putting back in as +2/3 in post.

Having an _ETTR until one color channel starts to clip option_ in the metering menu would be a nice touch. I requested this from the Magic Lantern guys but don't know if it ever showed up.


----------



## Skulker (Aug 24, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > If by normal you mean about the same as Nikon I would agree with you. (why do I get the sneaky feeling you may not agree with me ;D ;D ;D ;D)
> ...



Well I didn't expect that!!!! :-*



Aglet said:


> But I'll take the worse reported SNR of the D800 over the low ISO noise of any Canon product to date because it's less visible. MUCH less visible. And any bloke with access to both cameras can determine that quite readily with little more than Photoshop and ACR (or Lightroom) and a lenscap.



Ahh that's more like it! ;D ;D Of course I could be countering with pointing out the 1Dx noise and DR at mid ISO's advantages, where I take most of my wildlife shots.

No offence intended - From my point of view I think we are all really lucky that current cameras are so good! I did consider a change to Nikon for the low light performance and the 200-400 lens. I'm please I stuck with Canon as they have now caught up on the low light issue. I would love the new Canon lens with the built in converted, realistically I'm not going to spend that much.

Happy shooting.


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 25, 2012)

Meh. Unless this supposed 3D packs at least 47 megapixels, Canon shouldn't even bother with a high MP body.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> While these are interesting, They don't showcase anything that couldn't be done on a d30.


HA!
Nice try. ;D

That's _only_ +2 EV and 63% fill light on Adobe ACR 6.7
Either of those settings alone can show up banding noise in dark areas in some low ISO canon raw files. (I'm discovering there's sometimes more to it than that tho, can vary with Canon shutter speed)
Addenda: I can actually drag fill light to 100 to start to blow out the sand in the LR corner and it only shows a little chroma noise that could be removed with basic NR and still show plenty of detail.

I'd LOVE it if my 5D2 came out this clean at those settings.

check my tech blog for the dark noise comparison if you want to see impressive lens caps shots. 

2 samples at ISO 3200 from D800 removed August 26th.


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Aug 25, 2012)

I think it would be named 1D S 
There is the 1D X and 1D C and then the 1D S


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 25, 2012)

Timothy_Bruce said:


> I think it would be named 1D S
> There is the 1D X and 1D C and then the 1D S



Luckily there is no 1D S (nor 1Ds) yet, so there will be no confusion


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 25, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > While these are interesting, They don't showcase anything that couldn't be done on a d30.
> ...



Yep, I could do that shot w/ the D30, excluding the ISO 3200 and the 36MP. 8)


----------

