I have heard from a Canon source that the 3D or whatever it is called will not be announced at Photokina but instead after the event is finished. Please note that he did not say that it will be called 3D! But a high MP is on the way.
I consider the 5DIII a smart move by Canon as a camera that is much more useful to a wider range of photographers than the D800. Just the forum chatter will have you believe everyone wants/needs 36MP and give the impression that Canon made a huge blunder.
Having been burned somewhat by the 1DIII affair, and considering the IV only a mild evolutionary AF improvement, it's the 5DIII/1DX AF that got me off the fence about the 1DX. I'm also very happy Canon intro'd it in the 5DIII first an a lot of people immediately confirmed that it was an improved and reliable system. I feel it provides a solid base for the high demands a >36MP sensor will place on future AF systems....Show more →
It wasn't a huge blunder, but it was still a blunder IMO. What's worse it seems the only reason the 5D III is 22MP is more about video than any limitations on sensor tech. The resolution of the 5D III is 5760 on the long side, which is exactly 3 x 1920, which makes for better down-sampling to HD video. The next integer multiple would have resulted in a 39.3MP sensor. I think Canon should have pushed for a sensor of around 27-30MP while still maintaining the 6fps and who cares about integer sampling, especially when the video quality of the 5D III is not noticeably better than the 5D II.
Paul Gardner wrote:
A couple of op have evidently misread or misunderstood my 16 bit statement. The 16 bit is used to increase the Tonality of the dark end of the response. Look at the bits involved, also the statement it would slowdown the frame rate is accruate, BUT I also stated that the accecptable frame for landscape shooters is 1 frame every 2 seconds. Quit trying to make a PJ camera out of a landscape camera and go buy a PJ version. Example: 1DIII as opposed to a 1DSIII. Most landscape shooters don't give a rats A** about FPS. I've seen these PJ types in action. Their cameras sound like machine guns and they spray and pray. Hopefully Canon will go to S2 size someday or better yet 70MM.
Paul...Show more →
16 bits will almost certainly not provide any improvement over 14 bits in tonality because the extra bits would not carry any useful information. They would only serve to carry random noise. I too would be happy to accept a slower frame rate if it actually had meant there would be a benefit to image quality, but 16 bits will not provide that (at least not unless some camera company has a remarkable technological breakthrough up their sleeve in sensor tech).
Heck Canon's current ADC's aren't really 14 bit, so 16 bit isn't a real option at this stage.
Also photoshop would have to be updated as it's really 15bit and Adobe like to drag their feet as much as possible.
Doesn't really matter. As long as you're working in some sort of "reasonable" gamma output space, 10-bit is more than the electronics can handle. In fact, 10 bits combined with a gamma of 1.4 is almost indistinguishable from a 14-bit signal, even from a purely technical measurement PoV.
Even at ISO50, then the photon noise will be about 0.3% at blown white, the most "noise free" signal you can ever get - and the worst possible quantization step in 10bit G1.4 is 0.15%. That means the data has an average of 2x higher resolution than the optimal measurement in any exposure region you're looking at, from pure white down to the electronic noise blackpoint. This is way more than enough, and not something to be very worried about.
And actually - the absolutely best sensor Canon makes at the moment adds about 15e- of electronic noise to the signal at base ISO (+/-2 in a 14 bit signal), giving you a best-case need for about 1:4000 or 12bits of AD accuracy.
But since you often get about 1 bit of inaccuracy even in a good AD converter, you need 13 bits to get 12 usable. And since there are no 13-bit AD converters on the market, they've chosen 14 - since they're a lot cheaper and a lot faster than 16-bit converters. 16 bits would be more than 8x more measurement resolution than what the best Canon sensor signal can provide. No need to pay for that.
I sincerely hope so, and soon.
Though, I bet Hasselblad will surprise many first.
No, nothing I know, just guessing...
I think Canon has become complacent and un-innovative, and actually willing to play "catch up".
woos wrote:
Lets face reality here, a 40mp DSLR from Canon with the same 11 stop DR is not going to cut it...they need to get the DR up, Canon didn't get where they are today by being stupid--they know this, too.
Agreed.
But let's not be too sure. Just look what happend with the 5D3. It has the same low ISO shadow noise as the 5D2. It even inherited the pesky vertical banding.
I do hope that Canon will be able to bump up the DR with their new high MP camera, but I would not be surprised if they fail to do so.
But let's not be too sure. Just look what happend with the 5D3. It has the same low ISO shadow noise as the 5D2. It even inherited the pesky vertical banding.
I do hope that Canon will be able to bump up the DR with their new high MP camera, but I would not be surprised if they fail to do so.
+1: Unlikely that Canon will give us the whole package what could be needed at once.
I don't need more megapixels. I need cleaner megapixels. My 1DsIII is enough pixels for nearly any application. I want less noise, better DR and better low light performance.
Jeffrey wrote:
I don't need more megapixels. I need cleaner megapixels. My 1DsIII is enough pixels for nearly any application. I want less noise, better DR and better low light performance.
I want some more MP to get more reach but yeah even more than that I want BETTER pixels. As far as low light, sadly they are getting close to as good as they can get with this sort of tech but for bright light low iso DR they can get wayyyyy better on the Canon side, that is where I'd like to see them focus.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It wasn't a huge blunder, but it was still a blunder IMO. What's worse it seems the only reason the 5D III is 22MP is more about video than any limitations on sensor tech. The resolution of the 5D III is 5760 on the long side, which is exactly 3 x 1920, which makes for better down-sampling to HD video. The next integer multiple would have resulted in a 39.3MP sensor. I think Canon should have pushed for a sensor of around 27-30MP while still maintaining the 6fps and who cares about integer sampling, especially when the video quality of the 5D III is not noticeably better than the 5D II....Show more →
The ironic thing is that after all the push to make it 22MP for perfect video, some are saying that the 1DX actually has a better more detailed image while still being free from artifacts (have not personally verified this myself though) and they didn't take advantage of the special sensor as they could have. Where is the 2x2 C100/C300 block based 1.6x non-line skipped cropped mode it could have had? Why not give it a better codec? Why no focusing aids while shooting (canon press themselves, ironically enough, explained why the 5D would need it while they were trying to explain away why they left it out of the 1C)? Why no exposure peaking zebras to help?
Although perhaps they would not have been able to bump the MP much higher and still retained 6fps without going to dual-digic (of course seeing how the 7D does dual-digi, not sure dual for 5D3 would'be been so crazy a thought, although it woul dhave prevented ML which would have made the 5D3 permanently crippled for video)).
Anyway the 5D3 is close to what I had hoped and expected other than I had really thought that after such a long delay for digic that they might be able to do a real time complex scale of the sensor as large as 28-30MP and I had hoped 28-30MP while still having quality aliasing free video and 6fps and much better low ISO DR. That would've delivered much better video than what the 5D3 does.
But it's certainly possible that that sort of readout from the chip isn't yet realistically possible for video I suppose. So maybe what they did makes sense, it's hard to know.
Well other than the DR, which was a mega disappointment (and not having put in some more basics in the video firmware to make it more usable, once again hint hint focusing aids while shooting for one and the nice high quality 1.6x crop mode video at the least). And it's actually a trace worse than the 5D2! (even if to an utterly meaningless degree worse, but when many had hoped for an utter minimum of 1.5 stops and hopefully much more, yikes).
At least we can count on it having top AF. It was a really great thing that they finally broke down and gave us their full on effort in a nice compact body size camera when it came to AF. Quite a wonderful thing.
Since it was mentioned here before - now we see more and more fast price drops for the current 5D III. If demand would be as high as some here suspect for this camera, prices wouldn't drop as fast. The next gen (5D IV or whatever the new model will be named) is on the rise....
retrofocus wrote:
Since it was mentioned here before - now we see more and more fast price drops for the current 5D III. If demand would be as high as some here suspect for this camera, prices wouldn't drop as fast. The next gen (5D IV or whatever the new model will be named) is on the rise....
If production weren't as high, prices wouldn't drop so fast, if they are in fact dropping other than spot sales here and there.
I suspect there is high demand and high production.
Rickuz wrote:
But let's not be too sure. Just look what happend with the 5D3. It has the same low ISO shadow noise as the 5D2. It even inherited the pesky vertical banding.
Monito wrote:
If production weren't as high, prices wouldn't drop so fast, if they are in fact dropping other than spot sales here and there.
I suspect there is high demand and high production.
High demand and high production would only let prices drop if there would be a surplus of cameras in the market. Even in this case Canon would have misjudged the number of people going for this camera model. But demand will surely rise now since body prices tend to drop to the $2700 mark and maybe even lower soon.
Monito wrote:
I suspect there is high demand and high production.
Economics 101: prices fall when supply outstrips demand, regardless of supply/demand levels.
