February 28, 2015, 10:15:46 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 333
61
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 06:56:43 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.

62
EOS-M / Re: Poll: Would you have bought the M3? (North America)
« on: February 09, 2015, 06:37:10 PM »
No. No DPAF.


Ditto. BIG mistake on Canon's part. I don't understand why they can't build a mirrorless camera that appeals to US customers. There are clearly those here who want one, the only reason they aren't buying Canon is because Canon's offerings pale in comparison to the competitors alternatives. All they have to do is build a competitive model with competitive features, and I'm sure millions of US customers would gobble them up. DPAF is one of Canon's most competitive features right now...and rather "essential" on a mirrorless camera. Mind boggling that they did not include it.
+1
no DPAF? WTF!
Video frame rate max's out at 30FPS on 1080p? Even my GoPro does 1080P at 120FPS.... and it also does 4K video....KNOCK! KNOCK!.... HELLO?... ANYONE HOME?

HEY CANON! Here is a tip for you.... people buying big DSLR's are primarily interested in still image quality. People buying tiny cameras are interested in convenience. You want to sell a lot of a small camera? Put a touchscreen and WiFi interface onto it that can let you log onto a hotspot, and put an app on it to let you connect to email or facebook. Then stand back and watch it sell....


+1


I'm more confused by Canon's EOS-M decisions than anything else Canon does. Truly confusing tactics...

63
EOS-M / Re: Poll: Would you have bought the M3? (North America)
« on: February 09, 2015, 06:08:54 PM »
No. No DPAF.


Ditto. BIG mistake on Canon's part. I don't understand why they can't build a mirrorless camera that appeals to US customers. There are clearly those here who want one, the only reason they aren't buying Canon is because Canon's offerings pale in comparison to the competitors alternatives. All they have to do is build a competitive model with competitive features, and I'm sure millions of US customers would gobble them up. DPAF is one of Canon's most competitive features right now...and rather "essential" on a mirrorless camera. Mind boggling that they did not include it.

64
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 05:55:06 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..

That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.


The difference here is that BMW was protecting a MORE EXPENSIVE car model. The 5Ds is more expensive than the 5D III, by quite a margin given actual street prices. It makes no logical sense for Canon not to upsell the better, improved 5Ds as much as possible, despite potentially slightly different markets. Canon should be trying to sell the $3700 part as much as humanly possible over a $2500-$2800 (street prices) part. For a lot of potential Canon customers, more REAL dynamic range (none of this "lower noise floor" without any word on FWC crap) is something GREATLY desired. Canon could bag a significant number of sales before the thing even hits the streets just by stating that they actually improved dynamic range by two stops, instead of pussyfooting around the issue.

65
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 05:11:28 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..

+1 on this.


I don't know that I believe that either. Why would you undersell the newer, better, more advanced, and more expensive device by claiming it is "equivalent" to an older and soon to be replaced model? The 5D IV is just around the corner, at worst Canon MIGHT lose some sales of the 5D III. They are already going to lose those sales because of the 5Ds/R announcement, and the rumors about teh 5D IV being just around the corner are going to cost more of those sales. Far more, I think, than Canon SELLING their newer cameras by stating they have significantly lower read noise/noise.


I think we also need to be clear here. In the Burnhill interview, he said there was a lower "noise floor", which is not the same thing as "lower read noise". Read noise is just one of many sources of noise. The 7D II also has a lower noise floor, but that is primarily because the dark current was reduced so much at room temperature. The 5Ds is bound to gain those same improvements from the 7D II. Additionally, the way Canon builds sensors, smaller pixels have lower absolute read noise (i.e. 12.5e- for the 7D II, but 25e- for the 6D...however both have similar DR), but they also have lower FWC. Lower read noise with a correspondingly lower FWC does NOT improve DR.


You need the ability to create a stronger signal relative to the noise in order to have more DR. That can only happen with a higher FWC paired with lower read noise. Otherwise...your still going to have the same old problem, where if you have a scene with high DR, you have to underexpose the shadows to preserve the highlights (which completely nullifies any "lower noise floor" argument.)

66
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 04:46:30 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....

I agree...

What are we doing here...mincing the word "equivalent"? What does equivalent mean but "equivalent": "equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc."? If there is a lower read noise floor, then it can't be equivalent, it would be "lower"...in value, amount, level, etc. Also, I'm curious what the alternative to "traditional" measurement paradigms there are...do Canon sensors somehow require a different way of measuring their signal and noise levels to be competitive? If so, why? Would that not render special tests for Canon cameras oranges in comparison to all the other apples out there? What happens when the 5Ds ends up having the same read noise levels via "traditional measurements"?


Too many conflicting statements by people at this point. Too bad we have to wait months before anyone can actually get their hands on one to do any testing, and probably months longer for the major testing outlets to perform their tests and provide some useful information. :\

67
EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 02:25:08 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.

68
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DP Review of New Canon 5Ds
« on: February 06, 2015, 03:16:02 AM »
I suspect that Sony has some key patents that makes it extremely difficult for any other player to compete on DR.


Basically every other player IS competing on tttmnbso*, except Canon. Toshiba? Over 13 stops. Samsung? Over 13 stops. Aptina? They have sensor tech that can do a whopping 20 stops! Canon? Over 11 stops.

69
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 Specifications
« on: February 06, 2015, 02:10:38 AM »
Truly don't understand the lack of DPAF. The one single camera in Canon's new lineup that actually, literally NEEDED it didn't get it. Strange. Very strange.


Hybrid AF has never performed, which could very well relegate this to DOA. Especially compared to the alternatives.

70
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DP Review of New Canon 5Ds
« on: February 06, 2015, 01:56:27 AM »
It answered the main question I had -- have they fixed the DR issue, and the answer is --- no. Well, that's going to disappoint people.


Yup. I'm disappointed. Not surprised, though. Nothing has changed, nothing is new, and that's pretty much that. :P


Certainly is an impressive pixel count, though... I could put the 5DsR to use in astro, especially if this camera has the low dark current of the 7D II. Not sure about 5fps for action...I wonder why they did not speed up readout with the 1.3x and 1.6x crop cameras. That...now that would have really intrigued me. If I could have gotten 7fps at 1.6x and 6fps at 1.3x, I'd have been all over this camera for my birds and wildlife...ALL OVER IT.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Press Release
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:40:03 PM »
No mentions of expanded DR and such, so I'm sure the usual suspects will begin complaining about that.  I was hoping for built-in GPS, but otherwise, all looks great to me.  I wonder if the body will be the same as the 5DIII - it would be nice if I didn't have to buy a new L-plate.

Actually they did mention a new sensor design type and wide dynamic range so it seems to hint at good things. It remains to be seen of course though.


As far as I know, Canon has been calling their sensors "wide dynamic range" for a very long time:


http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/35mm.html

Quote
Canon's CMOS sensors feature large size and high resolution*1 (Up to approximately 22.3 million pixels with a 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor), excellent sensitivity (low noise), and a wide dynamic range.

Nothing new here, as far as I can tell. I'll believe the camera has more dynamic range when it's been demonstrated through actual testing to have more dynamic range. Been burned by Canon on that front (heh, same as you, saw "wide dynamic range" used in one of Canon's 1D X pages back when it was first announced) too many times to trus they have done anything on that front.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Press Release
« on: February 05, 2015, 03:24:39 PM »
No mentions of expanded DR and such, so I'm sure the usual suspects will begin complaining about that.  I was hoping for built-in GPS, but otherwise, all looks great to me.  I wonder if the body will be the same as the 5DIII - it would be nice if I didn't have to buy a new L-plate.


No mention of tttmnbso*, but they did mention the noise reduction of the DIGIC 6. Given the performance of the 7D II, which did not really gain much on the RN front (half an electron relative to the 70D), I suspect there will be less banding and lower dark current, but I don't expect the read noise to change much from the 6D.


With a lower frame rate, the ADC units could operate at a lower frequency. That could help reduce read noise...but I don't know in absolute certainty that the ADC units (I guess 12 of them in the 5Ds series?) are where the bulk of the RN comes from. I assume so, but it remains to be seen if a lower frame rate helps much on that front or not.


At the very least, we should have lower dark current, which should improve high ISO performance. Not sure it will do much for low ISO performance, especially in the sub-second exposure time range. Less pattern noise as well, which would be good. But tttmnbso*, I still don't hope for much. I'm waiting for tests.

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Euro Pricing for EOS 5DS, 5DS R & EF 11-24 f/4L Revealed
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:31:08 PM »
That's about what I expected. I'm actually a little surprised about the price of the R version, it's lower than I expected.

74
EOS-M / Re: EOS M3 24 MP Sensor?
« on: February 03, 2015, 06:31:33 PM »
I don't really understand peoples objection to Canon using a Sony sensor. If its the best product at a suitable price point why not.
Apple use thousands of parts made & designed by other companies such as Arm Processors in iPhones, iPads etc.


It's not an objection. At least, not from me. It's just not a likelihood. It's not in Canon's M.O. and I don't think they are at a point yet where they would be "forced" to rely on Sony for sensors. I actually think Canon would fight tooth and nail to the bitter end before they actually used another companies sensors in their larger form factor cameras. In multiple interviews Canon has beamed with pride over their fully integrated in-house product model for the high end of their imaging business (DSLRs, Video cameras, Photographic Printers.)

75
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:47:09 PM »
If you take the ~10% they spend on R&D each year, that's about 4.5 million dollars. If  you figure Canon distributes those funds around their business units by size, then about 1.7 million is spent on R&D on the consumer equipment business...most of that likely goes to photography equipment, and most of that probably goes to lens R&D, and a solid chunk probably goes to AF and metering R&D. Who knows how much goes to sensor R&D...but Canon isn't even a blip on the radar as far as sensor innovation goes.

1.7 million on R&D for an entire division of a major corporation seems way too low.


Sorry, I used the wrong unit. It's 1.7 billion. That's a lot, however Sony has accumulated tens of billions in debt the last few years, the majority of which was invested into their sensor division.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 333