The color accuracy of the 1Dx actually isn't all that great. It's nothing compared to the 1Ds Mark III.
Yeah, that would be expected, given the weaker CFA relative to the 1Ds III. I wonder what Canon is doing to remedy that issue...
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.
The color accuracy of the 1Dx actually isn't all that great. It's nothing compared to the 1Ds Mark III.
It will sell because it is an all purpose imaging unit. In the case of a new 7D, the properties of a crop sensor that are attractive for still photographers in certain applications are just as attractive to videographers taking video instead of stills. A video centric 7D will be more attractive to sport and wildlife videographers than a 5D would, for the exact same reasons as stills.
In the modern era a camera needs to be able to perform both types of imaging well to really succeed as a general purpose imaging device (which is how the average owner would use it).
The concepts of consumer/prosumer cameras being dedicated still or video cameras is an outdated idea that properly belongs in the past.
Speculation. As much as people like to use DSLRs for video, video is still the secondary purpose of this kind of camera. I don't think Canon is focusing solely on improving the video capabilities of the 7D II...especially because it's an APS-C camera. It is simply incapable of the same kind of thin DOF cinematic look and feel that the 5D II became famous for due to it's cropped sensor. I don't think the 7D II will be a particularly popular video DSLR. It might be somewhat popular, especially if it has some enhanced video features, but it isn't going to be the cinematic DSLR powerhouse that gave so many movies and TV shows reason to use it for professional prime time/big screen productions.
Which is the reason why the GH3 and GH4 were total failures in sales
No one would ever buy a camera like that....oh, wait....they do....how can that be? Very weird, there must be something wrong with those customers.
Every time you split a photodiode, each resulting smaller photodiode is less sensitive to light...it has a smaller area.
When you split a photodiode in two, you get LESS than half the light in each half. There is an amount of waste real-estate around the edges of a cell. To illustrate with a simple example, let's say the manufacturing process has a resolution of 1 unit and a pixel is 10x10 units square. You have a waste area of 1 unit around the outside of the photodiode so you end up with an 8x8 photodiode and 64% of the surface area used to gather light. By splitting the photodiode, you end up with 2 3x8 photodiodes, or 48% of the surface area used to collect light.
Yes, you can use microlenses to counter this, but perfection (which can never be achieved) would get you back to even with the single photodiode.
The bad timing of the release of 5D III was actually caused by the bad timing of the
release of 1D X. It was delayed after Nikon introduced the new D4. Canon managed
to use the extra time to adjust the sensor tech to match the Nikon performance.
The Nikon D800 forced Canon to accelerate the process of perfecting and releasing
the 5D III before they actually were ready to launch their next sensor.
The big problem was that we all (including Canon) predicted and expected the 5D III to
be the best ever video filming DSLR camera. With the heritage from 5D II the demand
for better inner quality in the filming department kind of forced the developers to go for
a sensor with less moire. Exactly how this is done is something I haven´t read or heard
about anywhere. But I suggest the inside software had to be designed to deal with much
softer images from the sensor and apply a radical up sharpening. This would explain why
the lo ISO performance is worse than expected. Readers here will surely share their opinion
on this. Please add comments.
My point is that I feel Canon does not want to make the same mistake again. They will
release the next tech when they are certain the 4K video standard is on pair with what
the other companies will be able to deliver in the next years to come. And they will have
to make the sensor output sharp and noise free for stills as well. Expect the 7D II to
be 20 megapixel with 4K video at 60p. That would be a well balanced step forward at
this moment I think.
The new sensor has to be able to read out a huge amount of data or pre process
it on chip before entering the processor.
I predict the suggested quad pixel tech to be used in a way no one has talked about here.
This tech allows not only for fast live AF, but also for reducing the sensor noise by using
the well known multi exposure technique. Instead of taking four separate images and sandwiching together for lower visible noise, Canon will be able to make one exposure with four separate channels of the same pixel read. This makes it possible to get a much better ISO performance. The potential for reducing and minimizing artifacts is huge, I would say.
And not only can you compare differences between four reads of the same pixel.
You can compare the adjacent pixel reads or all pixels on the sensor and identify
noise introduced by the power supply much easier. Four separate reads of the
single pixel allow you to step into the zero time domain where the processor will
have the optimum working space for computing errors in signal transfer.
It will be a matter of computing power to take the full advantage of the quad pixel
tech and I guess this is why we are waiting for Canon to present the next generation
of DSLR sensors. If they get it right I think we will se images and video with much
less noise and improved color fidelity.
Another question is if Canon would prefer to introduce the next generation of sensor
I suggest on the 7DII or not. I suppose a demand for higher frame rates on this model
makes things more complicated.
The possibilities are just as overwhelming as the challenges. Canon will most likely
make sure they use the new sensor tech to the full extent before releasing it.
This is my guess. What do you think?
So yeah, when everyone has a 4K monitor on their desks, can you imagine the level of pixel peeping that will go on?
I would say yes for two reasons.
First, we can expect the sensor to have better quantum efficiency and lower read noise.... but expect the change to be a few percent better... something that can be noticed in a laboratory but will probably be invisible to even the most dedicated pixel peeper.
Second, we can expect a better AF system. I think this is where the real differences will come from... more accurate focus give less blur and a higher keeper rate.... I'd love to see a camera that could AFMA itself.... As I am fond of saying, nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture
ISO 3200 as clean as 1DX in 6400 (the most important).
I could see them updating the existing 45p AF system of the earlier 1D's and integrating it here, but I had read an article earlier regarding the future of DPAP that suggested that we would be seeing significant improvements in that technology. IF that is the case for this rumored camera, it wouldn't be that far fetched to see a camera with high FPS as an optical view finder would not necessarily be needed anymore. I do not have a 70D, but can someone comment on using live view to track moving people? I would think it would be a sports photographer's dream to use live view, touch the screen on the player they want to track, then let the camera keep them in focus as they play while clicking away.
I'm probably speaking crazy talk, but I think that would be awesome.
It's been rumored before on multiple occasions, so I also expect the 7D II to have a lot of video feature enhancements. The video on the 7D is pretty lackluster. I don't quite know if the new video features will be 7DC level, but they should be of a higher level of quality and capability than any other models except the 5D III, and still maybe better than that.
Yep I suspect it's going to marketed with video features, however still photography wise...I don't see these marginal upgrades such as +1-2 fps (from 8fps) being upgrade worthy though?
It's a prosumer ergonomic design+materials (solid top component over entire plastic) + the AF system that are the sell over the xxD and rebel lines.
If I recall, the main selling point of the 7D when it was released was it's superior redesigned AF system and FPS over the XXD. Here was a solution to those in the prosumer segment that couldn't afford a 1D series to afford a better AF system and were complaining about the old 9 point AF system. It was definitely a more action/sports/wildlife kinda camera. Right now, I would say Canon's AF offerings are on-par - so really is a 7d mark II even needed?
My question is what "big" photography related improvements could they do to an already fine piece of equipment
I don't want to sound cynical, but I hope the 7DII isn't just a 70D with the 'top end' ergonomics, just as the xxD line had up until the 60 and 70D combined a rebel interface with the larger body.
A little faster, gain a proper rear wheel + joystick, maybe lose the pop up flash.....
so are they already in the hands of some sport photographers?
i guess so... canon don´t give them new cameras a few days before the world cup and expect pros to use them for making their living.
but still no specs?
not a single source who has something solid to say?
even the NSA has more leaks...
That's the classic rubbish line about the 3rd party. You can just as easily get a dud Canon or Nikon. You could make a fuss with the exact numbers but unless there is something inherently wrong with the design then "in practice" it is not particularly more likely than the other.
It is not just a question of a good or bad design, although any designer of volume products worth his or her salt will try to minimize the sensitivity of the design to manufacturing variations. The extent to which the manufacturers are able to optimize their process control will play a big part in how likely you are to end up with a dud.
A company which maintains tight control over the materials, assembly equipment, manufacturing processes and externally sourced components will be able to minimize the percentage of out of tolerance products coming off the line. By controlling their test processes they can also ensure that most of the duds get rejected. This is what the science of process control is all about, and big companies like Canon take this very seriously. Not only does it improve the quality of their products, allowing them to charge higher prices, it also saves them money in failures and rework.
Even if two companies share a design, the quality from one may be very different from the other. An example which was quoted in a marketing class I took many years ago featured a gearbox that was built by both Mazda and Ford, who had (and I think still have) significant design sharing agreements. According to the class, Mazda's quality metrics were 8 times better than Ford's for the manufacture of an identical product. (I'm not bashing Ford by the way - this example is several decades out of date, so has little relevance today.) I don't have any hard data to compare Canon's quality with Tamron's, but I would disagree that the quality of the design trumps the manufacturing methods used to build it.
I recall that once upon a time Leica was kinda trashing Canon, saying yeah they may have great theoretical MTF charts for many designs, but look at the designs, no way they can get a decent enough number of copies come close to the ideal chart build, their designs for a number of lenses require way too fine tolerances, especially for Canon who doesn't test each piece and lens individually.
$3499....same IQ as 200-400mm
There will be a lot of 200-400f/4 Lenses going cheap if this was the case
I think the 3.5k price Tag is pretty well ballpark though, the Nikon 80-400f/4.5 is selling for around 2.7k so you can safely bet the Canon will be close to 1k more expensive, be worth it as well if they can maintain a constant f/4.
Would work perfectly on the 1DMK IV.
The 70-200F4IS has about the same IQ as the 70-200F2.8IS
The 24-70F4IS has almost the same IQ as the 24-70F2.8
So a 100-400F5.6 (no internal teleconverter) could very well have the same IQ as the 200-400F4....
But however you slice it, it will not be inexpensive.