Tentacle wrote:
Current sensors have about 8 stops dynamic range, give or take some. In theory, you need 8-bit to cover that range. It has 4 bit depth extra for numerical space, so 16 times the extra level accuracy. That's all one needs for an 8-stop DR sensor. Moving to 16-bit would only have any real use if the sensor actually puts out 10 to 12 stops of DR. Now, that would be very nice, but you can't expect a resolution bump (which means smaller photo sites) and expect such a hike in DR.
The 5D has been measured at 10.5 bits of dynamic range.
Hmmmm. You guys have a more detailed knowledge of these matters than I do, but I have seen some suggestions that the 16-bit capture in the Leica DMR (and M8?) contributes to the better ability of those cameras to capture extended dynamic range and color information. I don't know whether it's true, but I wondered whether Canon might be working on something in this direction.
DynoMoHum wrote:
Well... you could increase the size of the sensor... and increase the pixel count and not nessasarally come up with smaller photo sites.
I guess the question is... are there ANY signs that Canon has any ability to improve DR at this point in time?
Ability, sure, with R&D budget is something like 3 billion dollars. It depends on priorities and how it links with other technology. In color film the market moved away from high dynamic range to gain other benefits, so it's hard to argue that it's a big need.
htbyron wrote:
Hmmmm. You guys have a more detailed knowledge of these matters than I do, but I have seen some suggestions that the 16-bit capture in the Leica DMR (and M8?) contributes to the better ability of those cameras to capture extended dynamic range and color information. I don't know whether it's true, but I wondered whether Canon might be working on something in this direction.
I believe it's mostly due to the latest CCD sensor designs.
CMOS is like a shark - it keeps moving or dies.Larger chips and/or more functionality.
Otherwise CCD refinement wins.
dcmiller wrote:
CMOS is like a shark - it keeps moving or dies.Larger chips and/or more functionality. Otherwise CCD refinement wins.
That is nonsense.
Canon's CMOS is refined as it moves from sensor to sensor. The 5D sensor is not larger than the 1DsII. It has better noise control than the 1DsII and better even than the 20D.
DynoMoHum wrote:
are there ANY signs that Canon has any ability to improve DR at this point in time?
dcmiller wrote:
Ability, sure, with R&D budget is something like 3 billion dollars. It depends on priorities and how it links with other technology. In color film the market moved away from high dynamic range to gain other benefits, so it's hard to argue that it's a big need.
This is digital, not color film.
With color film, especially slide film, you get two bites at the problem, both essentially blind. First you make the shot without seeing any results for hours or days. Second you process the film in a one-size fits all bath, possibly with an option or two if you are willing to pay a 50% surcharge (push one stop). Since there is little chance to manipulate saturation and contrast, film manufacturers worked on optimizing those aspects, as well as advancing film speed.
The other important thing to note about film is that the response curve tails off smoothly at the ends. Thus the dynamic range is perceived as greater than it actually is, because tones at the extreme ends are compressed. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/billb6/response-film.gif
So it makes a lot of sense for sensor manufacturers to increase dynamic range, since both weak and strong photographers are constantly bumping into its limitations by shooting in contrasty light and scenes with great dynamic range.
This is digital, not film. There is a great need to increase dynamic range.
The 5D has been measured at 10.5 bits of dynamic range.
Yes, the lowest-quality DR is 10.5 stops, with a full stop of noise. Most photographers will not allow so much noise and go for 0.5 stop noise, or 0.25 stop noise. Critical users might even go to 0.1 stop noise.
At medium/high quality (imatest figures) 0.25 stop noise, the DR of a 5D is around 9 stops, depending on the RAW converter software. With a 12-bit data logging, that's still 8 times more numerical accuracy than needed.
Tentacle wrote:
One thing is clear: The need for a 30D successor is so completely evident that the likelyhood of a 40D approaches fact so much that it makes no difference. So, 40D this year, with a 5-nines certainty.
The K10D, the D80 and the D200 take chunks out of the 30D sales. The sensor is still from the 20D, so that's 30 months old now. The question then becomes: will Canon play catch-up, just rope-a-dope and bump to 10 Mpixel, but do nothing special? Or will it pull something special out of the hat?
But I'm repeating myself here, I think Sorry 'bout that ...Show more →
I agree 100%.
Canon already knows the results of ONLY some cosmetics maneuver (30D). The middle segment in this moment is drifting away from the Canon side. The entry level also, where they were the kings with the 350D. They did react with the 400D. The lost of body market share also implies the lost of a part of the lens market share too !!
In the other way, Canon, as an autosufficient manufacturer (I mean, they have their own laboratory & research - the technology developed by themselves: Sensors, Processors DIGI III, Lenses, ...) is going some age in the future, they have stated that they already have a substitute for each model. So, if they donīt present now new models is due to technical release problems.
And this is going to cost them a big piece of the pie !!!
They know & itīs their anniversary; so letīs wait that they make a big splash !!
I find it still really funny, how people think a 5D replacment should come before the 1Ds update. This doesn't make sense at all. WHY ? Because the 5D is nice and doesn't need any improvments, even if the 40D would get 12MP you still get FF with the 5d.
Now if they bumb up the 5D to WHAT ? 14 MP ... that's kind of a joke, needs nobody. to 16MP , Canon thinks: YES fantastic idea so we don't have to sell anymore our expensive 1Ds camera for half a year because we have now the new 5D...
Looking at 6-8 months of market share (# bodies sold for a month or quarter) is misleading.
Canon ruled when the original Rebel D was introduced in late 2003. They held the lead from late 2003 to mid 2006. Thats a lot of installed user base who are buying lenses, flashes and etc. That huge 2 1/2 year lead will not suddenly vanish just cause they were outsold for a few months, especially since the lost body sales were split between 2 other companies, Nikon and Pentax.
With the release of a (hopefully) spectacular 30D replacement, sales will be up again. If they were to re-release the 350D & 18-55 as a $500 kit, Nikon and Pentax would loose some monthly marketshare.
"Canon already knows the results of ONLY some cosmetics maneuver (30D). The middle segment in this moment is drifting away from the Canon side. The entry level also, where they were the kings with the 350D. They did react with the 400D. The lost of body market share also implies the lost of a part of the lens market share too !!"
"And this is going to cost them a big piece of the pie !!!"
The goal when marketing isn't necessarily to produce a product that competes with every single product made by a competitor.
The idea is to hit the sweet spots of the market segments that you wish to compete in. Canon is doing so by producing bodies at five separate and spread out levels. The idea isn't to adjust every single tech spec. in order to cover all bodies that may fit somewhere between their five bodies. Particularly, not boost MP in order to compete with a D200 that sells for ~60% more.
The bit issue has two parts: the bit resolution of the sensor and the bit resolution of the file you work with. If the file you work with after transfer from the camera has more bit resolution than the sensor had you can alter the data (e.g. adjust color, levels, etc.) with less aliasing.
darknite wrote:
Looking at 6-8 months of market share (# bodies sold for a month or quarter) is misleading.
Canon ruled when the original Rebel D was introduced in late 2003. They held the lead from late 2003 to mid 2006. Thats a lot of installed user base who are buying lenses, flashes and etc. That huge 2 1/2 year lead will not suddenly vanish just cause they were outsold for a few months, especially since the lost body sales were split between 2 other companies, Nikon and Pentax.
With the release of a (hopefully) spectacular 30D replacement, sales will be up again. If they were to re-release the 350D & 18-55 as a $500 kit, Nikon and Pentax would loose some monthly marketshare.
"Canon already knows the results of ONLY some cosmetics maneuver (30D). The middle segment in this moment is drifting away from the Canon side. The entry level also, where they were the kings with the 350D. They did react with the 400D. The lost of body market share also implies the lost of a part of the lens market share too !!"
"And this is going to cost them a big piece of the pie !!!"...Show more →
Please take it from Nikon - us Pentax users haven't got a lot of market share to loose!
That's the first time I've heard Pentax targeted - progress indeed!
Regards,
DaveMart
I don't think Pentax share will go down unless Canon does a $400 kit. The K100D has a ton of goodwill and clout. After all, who among the people that remember film has never used a K1000? Not many. The Pentax low profile lenses are some of the coolest lenses out there. No one else has anything to compare.
darknite wrote:
After all, who among the people that remember film has never used a K1000?
I never touched a Pentax nor did any of my high school photo friends back in the '70s. Mostly low end Canon (Ftb) or Nikon (Nikkormat) with some Minolta and Olympus shooters as I recall. Pentax was relatively uncommon - at least in our downmarket segment.
Interesting, becuase the Pentax SP500 followed by the Pentax SP1000 (precursers of the K1000) were the largest selling cameras of the 70's.
vachss wrote:
I never touched a Pentax nor did any of my high school photo friends back in the '70s. Mostly low end Canon (Ftb) or Nikon (Nikkormat) with some Minolta and Olympus shooters as I recall. Pentax was relatively uncommon - at least in our downmarket segment.
