eosfun wrote:
I don't care too much about Sony or Nikon being better. It's true, I recognize the advantages of having a little more DR, but to me this is much more important for cameras with a smaller sensor like NEX and m 4/3 OM-D. For full frame I could live with Canon standard DR and noise performance a la 5DmkIII if it was just a 35-40MP full frame sensor. Now if Canon would hurry up with that, that would be EOSfun to me.
+1: I am sure Canon will. More interesting question is - in which way? Do they go again the - let's call it crippling route - by adding a future high MP sensor just in the 1D series and sitting it out not to add it to the 5D line? Or if they do, what else do they "cripple"? So far Canon showed good consistency giving customers only one major improvement at a time (like the AF in the 5D III but no other sensor while the predecessor 5D II had the better sensor but the old 5D AF). Next question is the price tag, here Canon definitely needs to look out for the competition and drop too ambitious expectations.
If Canon needs to cripple, I personally would compromise in the fps rate, super high ISO number stuff, or even in the video functionality (the latter is of no interest to me at all).
Will Patterson wrote:
I'm convinced at this point that it's just not possible to have a sensor with high dynamic range and also be able to get to those ultra high ISO's. I feel like Canon would have to make a camera specifically for super low ISO's and high DR. But Canon, like a smart company, wants to come out with a product that everyone will buy, not just a segment of the consumer base.
The D4 is pretty much already there...the D800/D600 less so by only a tiny bit.
I don't care about native better dynamic range (over other features) but I'd like the ability to push the shadows harder without the banding appearing. Other than that, there is nothing about the D800 that makes want it over my 5Dmk3. Nothing.
Bones74 wrote:
I don't care about native better dynamic range (over other features) but I'd like the ability to push the shadows harder without the banding appearing. Other than that, there is nothing about the D800 that makes want it over my 5Dmk3. Nothing.
If that's the case I can recommend Nik Dfine 2.0 - it's debanding feature works very well with no visible side effects.
form wrote:
Because your lenses are better than Nikon in overall function and performance. Not sharpness, but other aspects...important other stuff, like rendering and low light AF...
Even tho I dont agree on lens, I still agree on that tiny fact that Canon should do better sensors. They desperately need better APS-C and even tho FF is still performing in usable way (well what doesnt today, right..) it could and should be better.
Mainly DR of sensors is lacking, color separation degraded quite a bit lately due ISO wars too, so perhaps step back and improve colors and DR. Resolution is ok for me (maybe not for others).
Bones74 wrote:
I don't care about native better dynamic range (over other features) but I'd like the ability to push the shadows harder without the banding appearing. Other than that, there is nothing about the D800 that makes want it over my 5Dmk3. Nothing.
It sorta means you want better usable dynamic range, just other words used.
Mescalamba wrote:
Mainly DR of sensors is lacking, color separation degraded quite a bit lately due ISO wars too, so perhaps step back and improve colors and DR. Resolution is ok for me (maybe not for others).
Can someone enlighten on how I could take advantage of the difference in DR between Canon and Nikon/Sony if I take a properly exposed picture within a stop? I can see if I an underexposed a few stops and really need to push it, but that's my fault not the sensors.
Just wondering how much these differences play out in real life photography because I am only shooting with a 5D2 and other than crappy skintones I find the IQ/DR pretty incredible and forgiving.
Simple, better DR means better electronic, better electronic means less noise, richer color....hence better IQ. Beside in post, it is always better when we have a very clean RAW file to start with.
samwise wrote:
So then, the D800 has "real world difference" less noise and richer color than the 1Dx in a properly exposed image?
don't forget the pixel size differences between these two cameras. If they were both 36MP, then i say yes...D800 has better colors since it has less shadows noise than 1DX
I think the 1DX sensor is already by far the best sensor Canon's come up with, given its impressive performance from ISO400-6400 or so, files are really really impressively usable from 2500-6400.. that said, I am a little disappointed that it hasn't really improved on the 1Ds3's abilities from ISO 100 to ISO 400 after all these years.
I'd be happy with a 1DsX with the same high-ISO performance as the 1DX & more dynamic range at ISo 100... unlike a lot of landscapers who want 30+ MP, i'd honestly be super damn happy with 24MP & 6-7 FPS in a full-frame 1DsX</dream>
kaycephoto wrote:
I think the 1DX sensor is already by far the best sensor Canon's come up with, given its impressive performance from ISO400-6400 or so, files are really really impressively usable from 2500-6400.. that said, I am a little disappointed that it hasn't really improved on the 1Ds3's abilities from ISO 100 to ISO 400 after all these years.
I'd be happy with a 1DsX with the same high-ISO performance as the 1DX & more dynamic range at ISo 100... unlike a lot of landscapers who want 30+ MP, i'd honestly be super damn happy with 24MP & 6-7 FPS in a full-frame 1DsX</dream>...Show more →
yes, 1Dx is very darn close to perfect cam for sure. i wished it is about 4K now
The .18 fab sensor is in a P&S, next will be the successor to the M, or perhaps a Rebel and one or more xxD series crop bodies (including the 7D upgrade) at Photokina, maybe before but I doubt it.
At Photokina (the above plus) we'll see a FF .18 sensor teaser, it won't come out, be in anyone's hands, until the end of 2013 or more like it sometime in 2014 (maybe even as late as Photokina).
If a high MP body comes out before the above it will be the 40+ MP beast talked/rumored of and it will still be the .25 fab and everyone will wrinkle their collective foreheads, complain about it's lack of perfect "Sony" like DR, and it's $7-10K price tag, cause it's gonna be a 1D pro body; hard disk and cloud storage companies will smile as will Intel, corporations will be happy, we'll be going WTF, but many will buy it anyway...corps will smile and enjoy the profits...those short hair grabbing a$$holes
I could be talkin out me arse, need to polish my crystal ball
I am pretty happy with my 5DII and starting to consider the 5DIII (wishing for 1DX... but price is out of reach... put the money twords a 400II and shoot my old 5DII ). Sure I would like more DR, MP and ISO 100 performance... but I am not really needing that stuff. I would like ISO 12800 with equal performance to ISO 3200 on my 5DII raw files.
samwise wrote:
Can someone enlighten on how I could take advantage of the difference in DR between Canon and Nikon/Sony if I take a properly exposed picture within a stop? I can see if I an underexposed a few stops and really need to push it, but that's my fault not the sensors.
How does one properly expose an image for scene that has 'x' stops of dynamic range but the camera's sensor can only render 'x-4' stops, assuming they can't use multiple exposures and the brightest areas can't easily be accommodated with a GND?
I dont see alot of difference between a .25 and .18 fab personally... unless it's canon's own scanner/steppers are the issue. Not like they need 20 top of line ASMLs to do .18.
). Sure I would like more DR, MP and ISO 100 performance... but I am not really needing that stuff. I would like ISO 12800 with equal performance to ISO 3200 on my 5DII raw files.