March 05, 2015, 07:24:10 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23
31
Received my exchange Eos 6D yesterday. Eos Info 1.2 tells me 0 shutter releases. But you can see signs of usage (sorry for my poor English, my stroke keeps me of reminding my prior good English knowledge).  Works fine, satisfying IQ. I just had to clean the mirror (fingerprint on it)

Thanks for your advice.

Good news, pleased that it appears ok. See if you can run through a few tests to make you comfortable with the replacement body and then put this saga behind you. Good luck.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 07:09:10 PM »
Good point. My hope is that they have improved on the banding issues when lifting shadows over thr Mkiii. If they did that it would be enough for me to consider a pre-order. If not, then i'm going to most likely wait and see what the 5dmkiv is going to offer. I know it's wishful thinking but I hope Ken Rockwell's guess that the mkiv will be 36MP happens to come true.

Personally I'm in the market for a landscape camera. As such, I am not interested much in marginal reductions in banding or reductions in dark current. I can put more actual dynamic range (the ratio between maximum pixel signal and pixel read noise) to work in landscape photography. My 5D III does fine for birds and wildlife at high ISO, so I don't care about the high ISO performance of the 5Ds. I would use it pretty exclusively at ISO 100-200.

I am pretty sure I know what Canon is talking about with regards to lower noise floor. It sounds like Canon is still using their 500nm process, and measurements of Canon cameras over the years have shown that however they build their system, smaller pixels have lower read noise. The problem is that because they are still consuming so much die space with transistors and wiring thanks to their ancient 500nm process, they suffer significant losses in terms of photodiode area (i.e. photodiode pitch to actual full pixel pitch ratio is small). Photodiode area is what affects FWC...greater area, higher FWC...lower area, lower FWC.

Both read noise and FWC are directly linked to photodiode and pixel area...so they both grow or shrink together. THAT is why Canon can have lower read noise with the small 4.1 micron pixels of the 7D II, but not actually have higher dynamic range than the higher read noise of the 6.5 micron pixels of the 6D. Dynamic range is the ratio between FWC and read noise. If they both shrink and grow with each other, the ratio remains the same, DR remains the same. Increase FWC or reduce read noise, or both, and the ratio increases, and DR increases. You need the ratio, the range between read noise and signal saturation, to GROW in order to have increased DR. With more FWC at the same read noise, you can gather more light before the highlights clip...and not need to reduce exposure (not need to shift exposure down to make more room for the highlights). Similarly, with lower read noise and the same FWC, you can gather the same amount of light before the highlights clip, but the lower read noise means you don't lose as much in the shadows. Increase FWC and reduce read noise and you gain at both ends! Leave them the same, or reduce either or both, and you lose DR.

Other manufacturers have solved this problem a few ways, but one of the key improvements with other manufacturers is that they use 180nm, 130nm, 90nm or 65nm processes. Sony has used 180nm and 90nm processes, Samsung currently uses a 65nm process. That means Sony transistors take up 2.7x to 5.5x less space, and Samsungs transistors take up 7.7x less space, on the sensor die, than Canon transistors. It's basically taking a fat border of transitors from around each pixel, and replacing it with a thin, thinner, or very thin border. That leaves more area in the center of the pixel for photodiode (light sensitive photon-to-electron conversion surface area). Canon could very likely realize immediate gains if they would just drop their ancient 500nm process and move to 180nm process. That might gain them a stop right there. If they could figure out a way to flatten their read noise curve like most other manufacturers, that could gain them a stop or more.

So long as they do not do those things, however, I don't foresee Canon actually gaining on the read noise front. The day Canon releases a camera with either the same read noise and a meaninfully larger FWC, or meaningfully lower read noise and the same FWC, or higher FWC and lower read noise (doubtful in the foreseeable future) is the day we will finally see a real-world increase in dynamic range.

And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...

Fortunately (?) there may not be any significant change in Sonikon sensors in 2015 either, but there will be a 50MP body from both of them....

33
EOS Bodies / Re: DPReview Interview with Chuck Westfall of Canon USA
« on: February 09, 2015, 05:17:09 PM »
Take an underexposed image and push it 5+ stops and the 6D still looks pretty good while the 5D3 looks terrible.  When I go look at the actual measurements from DXO it says that the 5D3 is rated at 11.7 for DR and the 6D is only marginally better at 12.  Something is not right there, or there is a huge difference in whatever scale they are using between 11.7 and 12. 


And surely this is the point Canon CPS are making. Measure DR and the 5Ds will stay roughly in the same ball-park as other current sensors. But you'll be able to lift shadows better through lower read noise.

There is little more to it than that, which is why Canon have not made a big fanfare for it.

But perhaps more back to the point. Canon wants to keep Canon people using Canon. They're not rolling out anything other than iterations to sensors - no step change. For many Canon shooters, that's enough to upgrade based on all other elements. For some, it may be enough for them to change.

It it were solely about quality / DR, then we'd all be using MF bodies. It's about what you have, what it might cost you to swap and what Canon needs to expend it order to release something that will hopefully make you buy a new body, but at worst not defect.

I think Tom Hogan is correct in that matter.

Everyone has to decide whether current DR with lower read noise is enough for them given the other things the 5Ds brings and the Canon ecosystem. If not, sit this one out. But please, don't expect any step changes in the 5d IV or 1Dx II. Not happening...

My only disappointment in the announcement is that nothing ships till June, rather than April. YMMD.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 04:41:42 PM »
I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully.  Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users.  So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors.  I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

I think they're being selective in their words as there are people who want more DR. There are many who are happy with the DR of Canon sensors. There are others who might not be happy, but when all other things are considered, there is insufficient elsewhere for them to change....

Tom Hogan calls it correctly. This year, Sony & Nikon will iterate their bodies to 50MP. Reading between the lines, the DR for the new sensor will be inline with the current. Not bad, 18% increase in density, same DR. Similarly for Canon to match broadly the 5D III DR with the higher density in the 5Ds sensor. Not bad either. 

Until any of the camera manufacturers can figure out how to entice back some smartphone users, then they're going to hope that their market does not shrink too much, and keep their relative % share the same. So no great step-changes in 2015, the Japanese want to protect their shareholders - no great expenditure other than perhaps Sony - but I think that is more of where they are selling sensors which is attracting them, and not the camera market per-se. Sensors in the automotive business seems to be the next market Sony & others will go after....

What will be interesting, is if Sony continues to make lots of money from sensors, but not so much from cameras and lenses, will they become more and more the sensor manufacturer, and focus less on the camera side - or will the camera side stay as effectively marketing for their sensors?

35
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 04:30:30 PM »
Actually a CPS guy DID say there was more ability to pull shadows at low ISO....

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/interview-about-the-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-with-mike-burnhill/

Yes, I did agree that.

Quote
And then we had the bit from Northlight that seems to (on the surface) substantiate this:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Again.... What has been said regarding low ISO DR is as of yet, inconclusive.

Northlight entry is from a contact. Not from his own testing.

So, blazing new 50MP sensor, with substantial reduction in read noise at low-iso, thus increasing it's suitability for landscape photographers. Canon mention lots about 50MP in all locations. Only 1 guy from CPA knows about the low-iso read noise changes? Rest of Canon globally ? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing. :D

Either Canon doesn't think this is something worth telling all their people (Chuck didnt know as we've seen) and their potential customers, they've made a bit of a snafu (not unheard of), or wont result in any noticeable difference.

I'd be happy if they've improved it, but I can't marry up the lack of information about it - from the CPN site in Europe, through other sites. Happy to be wrong, but sorry, I just don't buy it. It's a version of the 7D II sensor, which for many will be all they need....

36
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 04:06:08 PM »
Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.

No that isn't what he said.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24992.msg493653#msg493653

If there was a significant difference in it, why isn't Canon highlighting it ? Sorry Privatebydesign, I think you're looking for something that is not there. Nothing else in the literature marks a significant improvement, and I don't understand why a single CPS person would be the one to release such information? If there is better handling of noise at low ISO, why wouldn't there be comments about it?

Sorry, I would be happy if I am wrong, but no information to date really supports that bar one interview comment....

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Could the 5Ds (R) be using the 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor?
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:37:16 PM »
I would think they would have flaunted a totally new technology,  ground-breaking sensor, if it were the case...

+1

There's another thread about the 2 stops. I don't buy it based on what Chuck Westfall said on DPReview. He works for Canon and he was quite direct. I'm really sorry for those that need that 13-14 stops of DR, but Canon decided for whatever reason not to include it.

And personally, i take that to mean their 5D IV and ID x II will not be a significant advance in the DR side as for whatever reason Canon isn't releasing a sensor with that tech. Whether that is because the perceived threat from the D8xx / A7xx has not made a significant impact to Canon's bottom line (ie everyone is losing, and Canon appear relatively in-step % wise), or whether it is because they cant technically or wont invest financially, I have no idea.

Bottom line, no step-changes to Canon sensor design in anything released this year.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:29:39 PM »
I'm happy to be wrong come June, but I concur with the view that Chuck would not be sitting in an interview with DPReview going, DR broadly inline with 5D3 and high ISO noise broadly inline 7D II if there was a significant difference in low-end ISO. He would be going we've traded ISO range against improved DR in the <ISO 400 range and espousing it.

This sensor is a "version" of the 7D II, and for many people, that's what they want and it suits their photography - even landscape / studio work. Sure they might want more in terms of DR or ISO range, but right now, does Canon sit and not deliver something, or deliver as good as they can? As a business, deliver something which a good % of your userbase will buy rather than wait till you can (either technically or financially). Some won't, some will go for MF, some to Nikon, some to Sony and maybe some to other brands. But others will conclude the 5Ds suits their needs.

Point in fact, there's a article on Outdoor Photographer (Have Camera, Have Lens, Will Travel). He's a pro photographer, who took a 40D and a single lens traveling the world for 21 months.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/have-camera-have-lens-will-travel.html

Not everyone needs the 14 stops of DR. If that's more important, in balance, to other elements of the system then ok, you need to change.


39
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5Ds & EOS 5Ds R Image & Video Samples
« on: February 07, 2015, 03:03:54 PM »
I appreciate they've not made a massive leap like Sony did, but if they have improved the sensor quality by matching the DR of the current 5D III then if the same tech was used on the lower-res 5D III would it not increase the DR of that sensor? Not massive jump agreed.

The comparisons with a MF sensor from an outcome perspective are fair, especially as Canon are marketing it as a competitor. But for most people it is quality at a price point. And a $3.6K vs $8.6K excluding lens is surely like comparing the Audi to a Porsche? If money is no object, a Pentax is better. But then so is a Phase One.

Ultimately Canon did their research and produced the best possible with their resources. None of us know why the off-chip ADC is still there, nor the 180nm or 500nm process.

In reflection, what were the chances that Canon were going to produce a step-change in the 5Ds having just launched the 7D II?

I would be surprised if a A7r II has a step-change increase in DR over the A7r. If it matches it, given the higher resolution, will people be disappointed?

40
EOS-M / Re: Official: Canon EOS M3 and It's Not Coming To North America
« on: February 06, 2015, 06:00:26 PM »
I'd offer to export to you guys in NA, but the price from the UK would be exorbitant, and importing from HK sellers is likely to be far more cost effective....

Warranty is a consideration. It's never stopped me purchasing from USA or Canada, and I doubt it will in future... If you guys could just lower the dollar price please  :D

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: February 06, 2015, 09:03:11 AM »
Chuck Westfall has insisted that the 5DS sensor is designed and manufactured in-house, but what is interesting is the fact that it doesn’t feature Dual-pixel AF (and neither do the 750D, 760D nor EOS-M3).

I understood that DPAF is part of the core design of the sensor, you can’t just remove it from or add it to the front of existing sensors. Thus, assuming that these new sensors don’t simply have DPAF disabled (why would you do that -especially if you are going to add HCAF, like on the 750/760D?), they are of a fundamentally different design to the 7D MkII.

Maybe Canon has decided that DPAF is a dead end.

I never understood the hoopla over DPAF, it seems the best thing it did was gave limited AF in Live View, so what?

I would have thought simplifying production would be better than not having the feature even if of limited benefit for the target users of the 5Ds. I guess DPAF adds to costs, and removing it provides better margin.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: February 06, 2015, 03:31:36 AM »
"The 5Ds has the same dynamic range as 5D III. While some will complain that the closest Nikon-equivalent body has more dynamic range (and more is better), I haven't had an issue with the 5D II's DR. When I can't retain both shadows and highlights in an image, that scene generally needs very significantly more DR and exposure bracketing with HDR handles those instances nicely."

same noise as the 7D MK II according to Chuck. And indeed nothing about the CFA.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: February 06, 2015, 03:30:53 AM »
So why don't we hear much (or do we and I'm just not very observant) about the same issues with APS-C sensors?

Where were you when the 7D came out, and many people upgrading from the 10 MP 40D complained that their old camera was sharper...until they learned to use a higher shutter speed?

Using one - I used to have one before I bought a 2nd hand mk IV, never had the problem...

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: February 06, 2015, 03:29:28 AM »
Thank you. So why don't we hear much (or do we and I'm just not very observant) about the same issues with APS-C sensors?
Because you get a much tighter framing, here everybody expects to need higher shutter speeds or a tripod.
People keep quoting the 1/f rule of thumb, 1/400s for 400mm and so on. With crop cameras people understood that the focal length has to be the apparent FL to keep the validity so you needed 1/640 under otherwise similar circumstances. Now with the higher res sensor you get the original framing of the lens back, but still require the faster shutter speed from the crop camera - it's the same pixel pitch after all, just with more picture along the borders. That raise from 1/400 to 1/640 would be the one way to get sharp pictures, the other would involve better technique, to get similar improvements at the old shutter speed.
(nota bene: the rule of thumb is just that; between higher resolution and IS it's even less set in stone then in analouge times)

thank you

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:25:14 PM »
If it is only the high resolution sensors, could please someone explain, in simple terms, why this is.

It's about pixels per image height. If you take a picture of, lets say, an animal in the zoo you could either use  ff/300/4mm or APS-C/200/2.8mm, you'll get basically the same result. The same amount of shake will cause the same details to vanish.
But if you use a higher res ff sensor you should be able to resolve smaller details - those have already been destroyed when you're applying the same standards as before.

Thanks for replying, and sorry, but I'm not quite clear. I get the point about different lenses / different focal lengths. But if my high res sensor has the same pixel density as it's APS brethren, does it apply equally to both (as in the caution required) ?

Off to bed, so won't be able to read any response for a few hours :)

It applies to both equally if you look at the pixel level, or 1.6 times more on the crop camera if you keep final size constant.

Thank you. So why don't we hear much (or do we and I'm just not very observant) about the same issues with APS-C sensors?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23