fraga wrote:
If it's APS-H, then it's bad news, at least in my humble opinion.
Very disapointed with my 50d IQ performance in bad light/indoors...
My former 1DMIII was a dream in this regard.
Why is it bad news? Just because 50D doesn't have a good reputation for good IQ, doesn't mean it's because of the MP. For all we know, it could've been caused by the new gapless microlens technology.
Besides, 50D uses APS-C sensor which is smaller than APS-H. If 12MP on APS-C 450D can be excellent, I don't see why 15MP on an APS-H sensor can't be great as well.
"If you want full frame for your landscape and portrait work, Canon provides a superb 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III"
Sigh, I certainly hope this isn't the official Canon thinking, that is that they see sports/action cams and landscape/still/portrait cams as separate beasts and that they have no intention of producing a relatively affordable FF camera that is adept at all aspects of photography, from action to stills to portraits (I'm curious about the features to be included on the 60D as well, that may give a good indication of the direction Canon's going to take when it comes to competing with Nikon and Sony). If that's the case, I really may have to move on or at least go to 2 systems for a while. I won't buy another APS-H cam and I've been waiting since the original 5D for a 3D type cam. I'll wait a bit longer but when next Spring rolls around (if not before) I'm upgrading my 5D + 1D2n (was supposed to upgrade to the 5D2 but I wasn't willing to keep living with a slow frame rate and AF not too suitable for action and the uncertain low ISO file quality). At this rate tho, I'll be very interested in an A900 replacement from Sony and whatever Nikon has out there. Too bad. Canon seems not to be interested in taking my money, even in this bad economy.
Canon, it's simple, produce a FF 3D or something very close. If you don't, my next cam and lens purchases will likely not be Canon.
n0b0 wrote:
Why is it bad news? Just because 50D doesn't have a good reputation for good IQ, doesn't mean it's because of the MP. For all we know, it could've been caused by the new gapless microlens technology.
Besides, 50D uses APS-C sensor which is smaller than APS-H. If 12MP on APS-C 450D can be excellent, I don't see why 15MP on an APS-H sensor can't be great as well.
fraga wrote:
Very disapointed with my 50d IQ performance in bad light/indoors...
My former 1DMIII was a dream in this regard.
Luis, no point in sweating over that.......my 40D files are also noisier than I expected. However, those two new cameras, i.e., 40D and 50D, have an improved and zippy AF, reliable peripheral AF points, soft sounding shutter/mirror, fairly decent AWB, accurate metering, very good ergonomics, and they are priced reasonably for the features they've got. In addition, 50D has a prodigeous pixel density of the imaging sensor.
All in all, that sounds to me like a winning formula for cameras in any price range.
I hope 1DMk IV will be worth its money too, whenever it gets announced.
No hurry here though. If the camera does its core functions consistently well, and I don't consider video, geo-tagging and wireless file transfer to be "core functions" , and if it's priced reasonably, I'll take a look, once sufficient positive users' feedback is accumulated.
fraga wrote:
If it's APS-H, then it's bad news, at least in my humble opinion.
Very disapointed with my 50d IQ performance in bad light/indoors...
Do you realize the Nikon D300s/D90/D5000 sensor OUTperforms the 1D3 according to DXOMark? In fact, the difference in dynamic range across ALL ISOs is rather shocking. A 12 MP Nikon APS-C sensor is equivalent to 18 MP APS-H sensor in terms of pixel density.
So, the issue here is whether Canon has the technological ability to match Nikon's brilliant sensor performance. Canon sensor quality has been lagging Nikon for a while now. Many ignorant reviewers blame this on high pixel density when that is NOT the issue. Just look at D3X vs D3.
DxoMark's tests are flawed. Look at the 20d and 30d; same sensor yet there is a big difference. Then look at the 5d classic compared to the rest of canon's lineup. Sorry, their tests are meaningless.
thw2 wrote:
Do you realize the Nikon D300s/D90/D5000 sensor OUTperforms the 1D3 according to DXOMark? In fact, the difference in dynamic range across ALL ISOs is rather shocking. A 12 MP Nikon APS-C sensor is equivalent to 18 MP APS-H sensor in terms of pixel density.
So, the issue here is whether Canon has the technological ability to match Nikon's brilliant sensor performance. Canon sensor quality has been lagging Nikon for a while now. Many ignorant reviewers blame this on high pixel density when that is NOT the issue. Just look at D3X vs D3.
Do you remember though when Nikon had the D1X D2X D100 D200... Canon's 1D, 1Ds 20D & 30Ds out performed them in terms of noise. Now Nikon holds that title with the D3 & D700. Honestly things will come around for Canon. I mean, it isn't like Canon's cameras are unusable by any means
Aug 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
akclimber wrote:
"If you want full frame for your landscape and portrait work, Canon provides a superb 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III"
Sigh, I certainly hope this isn't the official Canon thinking, that is that they see sports/action cams and landscape/still/portrait cams as separate beasts and that they have no intention of producing a relatively affordable FF camera that is adept at all aspects of photography, from action to stills to portraits (I'm curious about the features to be included on the 60D as well, that may give a good indication of the direction Canon's going to take when it comes to competing with Nikon and Sony). If that's the case, I really may have to move on or at least go to 2 systems for a while. I won't buy another APS-H cam and I've been waiting since the original 5D for a 3D type cam. I'll wait a bit longer but when next Spring rolls around (if not before) I'm upgrading my 5D + 1D2n (was supposed to upgrade to the 5D2 but I wasn't willing to keep living with a slow frame rate and AF not too suitable for action and the uncertain low ISO file quality). At this rate tho, I'll be very interested in an A900 replacement from Sony and whatever Nikon has out there. Too bad. Canon seems not to be interested in taking my money, even in this bad economy.
Canon, it's simple, produce a FF 3D or something very close. If you don't, my next cam and lens purchases will likely not be Canon.
IMO, the 3D type cam just isn't possible yet because of computing limitations. There is still only so much data you can push through a camera and that wasn't an issue with the EOS 3. Is the D700 a 3D type camera? Not in my opinion. I have a good friend who has one and he loves it. I borrowed it, and it is a great camera, but he still keeps his D2X for wildlife and action. For that type of shooting the D2X is just a whole lot better and the D700 really isn't suited very well for it. The closest thing to cameras that can do everything are the 1Ds MKIII and the D3X, and it is their greater pixel density that allows them to do so. Neither of them shoot at close to the speed of the 1D or D3, however, and there is a reason for this--only so much data can be pushed through the system. With this limitation, in my view the APS-H is a reasonable compromise. You still get decent pixel density and a high frame rate. If they made it full frame like the D3 and D700, then you lose on either density or frame rate. Things will improve, however, computing power should grow by the next generation of cameras (i.e., the MK V's) that should allow a 21 megapixel FF camera that can shoot 10 fps. That is when I expect Canon to shift the 1D to full frame.
thw2 wrote:
Do you realize the Nikon D300s/D90/D5000 sensor OUTperforms the 1D3 according to DXOMark? In fact, the difference in dynamic range across ALL ISOs is rather shocking. A 12 MP Nikon APS-C sensor is equivalent to 18 MP APS-H sensor in terms of pixel density.
So, the issue here is whether Canon has the technological ability to match Nikon's brilliant sensor performance. Canon sensor quality has been lagging Nikon for a while now. Many ignorant reviewers blame this on high pixel density when that is NOT the issue. Just look at D3X vs D3.
I believe it is the general consensus here in FM that the DXOMark ratings are not all that accurate, or that at least some of their ratings do not translate well to real life shooting.
Several examples of this have been posted here several times before.
But for argument's sake, let's admit they are accurate.
And let's admit that, like you said, Nikon's sensor technology is more advanced than canon's.
So they are able to stick more pixels on a smaller sensor and still get better IQ than canon.
Great.
But I don't shoot nikon.
I shoot canon.
So given the same tecnhology (canon) and all other variables, putting more pixels on a sensor without making it larger will have a tendency to make the final images more noisy.
You are comparing canon to nikon.
I was comparing canon to canon.
If Canon follows their 3 year 1Dx cycle, then the 1D4 (or whatever it will be called) won't be available until early 2010. However, who knows when an "announcement" will come. Anyone have any history on how far in advance previous 1D announcements have been? If around six months prior to release, then I would agree that we'll hear something very soon.
And speaking of rumors, Canon's xxD 1 year cycle would mean an imminent 60D announcement/release. The 5D2 hasn't been out long enough for an upgrade, and with all the great reviews I'm sure Canon won't touch that model for some time. And the consumer line already had it's turn.
So I would think if there is any announcements it will be for the xxD line and (hopefully) a couple of new lenses.
And while we're on the 1Dx topic, I wouldn't be surprised if the 1D4 retains the APS-H sensor. A FF sensor has a shallower DOF, and with the 1Dx being a sports/action body, it would make sense to retain the smaller sensor.
Steve Spencer wrote:
IMO, the 3D type cam just isn't possible yet because of computing limitations. There is still only so much data you can push through a camera and that wasn't an issue with the EOS 3. .... Things will improve, however, computing power should grow by the next generation of cameras (i.e., the MK V's) that should allow a 21 megapixel FF camera that can shoot 10 fps. That is when I expect Canon to shift the 1D to full frame.
I wouldn't disagree with this, but why couldn't they have made the 5DmkII 6fps in sRAW? Most times when I need high fps I don't need 21mp. This would have been a nice compromise.
michael49 wrote:
I wouldn't disagree with this, but why couldn't they have made the 5DmkII 6fps in sRAW? Most times when I need high fps I don't need 21mp. This would have been a nice compromise.
That doesn't save you any compute or bandwith. The processing engine would still have to work with the 21mp file, demosaic it and it downsample it for an sRAW.
What would save compute would be a cropped frame i.e. 1.3x crop at 13mp with 6 FPS. This would however require the processing engine to be able to read only portions of the sensor data, reducing bandwith and processing time, thereby increasing FPS.
thedigitalbean wrote:
That doesn't save you any compute or bandwith. The processing engine would still have to work with the 21mp file, demosaic it and it downsample it for an sRAW.
What would save compute would be a cropped frame i.e. 1.3x crop at 13mp with 6 FPS. This would however require the processing engine to be able to read only portions of the sensor data, reducing bandwith and processing time, thereby increasing FPS.
Really? - could there be no "setting" to allow the sensor to record less data to begin with in order to increase fps?
fraga wrote:
And what about sensor size?
If it's FF, then it's fine.
If it's APS-H, then it's bad news, at least in my humble opinion.
Very disapointed with my 50d IQ performance in bad light/indoors...
My former 1DMIII was a dream in this regard.
You do understand that there is a difference between 15/16mp in an APS-C sensor and 15/16mp in a APS-H sensor, right? The ability to go with 15/16mp in a 1.3x sensor and still have good ISO3200-6400 is there. You've got to keep in mind that Canon is constantly working to differentiate product performance in bodies...they are not going to release an xxD body with ISO performance that stands up to more expensive models. Just look at the 50D's ISO performance and the 5DII's AF performance...Its what they do.
M Vers wrote:
You've got to keep in mind that Canon is constantly working to differentiate product performance in bodies...they are not going to release an xxD body with ISO performance that stands up to more expensive models. Just look at the 50D's ISO performance and the 5DII's AF performance...Its what they do.
But this only makes Nikon and other systems look more appealing when you are seeking the mid-upper priced models, where the D700 does have the good AF system, excellent ISO performance, and full frame at a comparatively affordable price. Nikon makes good all-around models, and it's working for them; why wouldn't it work for Canon?
fraga wrote:
If it does indeed remain APS-H, I just hope they dont up the megapixels to the 15-16 range, which is, unfortunately, quite likely.
Why do you hope they don't up the Mp. I would assume that R&D is ongoing that allows Canon to increase Mp while controlling the sideeffects (noise, etc).
You could have made the same request when the 1Ds was released in FF with 11Mp.
, and if it's priced reasonably, I'll take a look, once sufficient positive users' feedback is accumulated.