March 06, 2015, 09:27:42 AM

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 - Ivar

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
EOS Bodies / Re: DIGIC 5 has landed
« on: September 15, 2011, 10:09:05 AM »
If Canon hasn't changed the idea of sharing DIGIC processor across the cameras I think most capabilities are hidden. I bet the story would be much different for SLRs.

By the way, the new Powershots are shy, not much flexibility in video. Wait till the next version for better one, if mobiles haven't trumped already those tiny sensors in compacts. 

Let's see some new features Digic 5 brings.

From dpreview's sx40 hands on preview:

"The new DIGIC 5 image processor offers even more advanced noise reduction technology, giving up to 75% less noise2 at all ISO levels and producing more natural, blur-free results without needing to use a tripod or the flash. New Multi-area White Balance can make images look more natural by detecting situations where there are two different light sources and then applying area-specific white balance correction. For example, when shooting a casual portrait with flash inside a room lit with tungsten lighting, the camera will apply tungsten white balance on the background and flash white balance on the face, ensuring both the subject and the background keep their natural colours. "

"The new DIGIC 5 processor takes the high-speed shooting capabilities of the 12.1MP CMOS sensor to a new level, enabling photographers to capture every moment in stunning detail and quality. Photographers shooting fast-paced action can choose between shooting full resolution photos continuously to card capacity at 2.4 shots/sec., or with the new High-speed Burst HQ mode, a high-speed sequence of up to 8 full resolution shots can be captured at 10.3 shots/sec.

Alternatively, experiment with Super Slow Motion Movie – shooting VGA resolution video at 120fps (or QVGA resolution at 240fps) and playing it back at a fraction of the real speed3 - to add dramatic flair or analyse a goal or golf swing. For even greater support when shooting after dark without a tripod, Handheld Night Scene captures a high-speed sequence of shots, combining the image data to produce one well-exposed shot with minimal blur.

EOS Bodies / DIGIC 5 has landed
« on: September 15, 2011, 09:44:40 AM »
First step towards upcoming SLR-s!

5D3 is unlikely to ship before the end of 2012 at the very earliest.

I think it is too dramatically phrased, I would say it is the latest, not earliest.

What makes timing estimates more complex is competition, even from Canon viewpoint (meaning even they have no precise idea but rather estimates). They most certainly have some sort of answer ready when forced by the competition.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV & 24-70 II in 2 Weeks?
« on: August 17, 2011, 02:38:54 AM »
If an 1Ds IV is imminent, there won't be any 5Diii till Q1 2012. So it won't cut into 1Ds IV sales. The pro and the enthusiasts will be extremely happy and everyone else will get a "post-christmas" gift by February. Or could the wait extend even until June?

So 2012 could be a great year too: 5Diii in February, 7Dii in fall (?) And: 1D 5 in early 2013 (?)

All the guestimates seem to be reasonable except the 1D5 IMHO. If Nikon releases the D4 anytime soon, the 1D5 will follow. The 1D4 is not even now a clear leader in the competition. Hopefully the follow up is not about the last minut expanded software choices but real hardware capabilities, this time.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Breakdown of Rumors
« on: August 15, 2011, 06:21:36 AM »
To me it looks like you are describing the upcoming 1D Mk5. Add the DIGIC V and you get the necessary fps too (maybe not 10fps on full res but pretty close to that).

The 1D is also the most believable candidate to be announced next by Canon - just because of Nikon D4.

Not too long to wait to confirm this.

If it is indeed true that the 40+mp sensor was rejected for noise, would it not make sense for Canon to consider extrapolation of a tried and tested density? If you consider that at 4896x3264 on a 519 square millimetre chip the 1D Mk4 has a density of 30794 per square millimetre, which is significantly higher than the 24336 on the 5D2 and 1Ds Mk3. Then there is an opportunity to use this wafer at 36 x 24 to provide a 26.6mp FF sensor.  As this would have 1.66 x the pixels of the 1D Mk4, then the existing dual Digic IV providing 10FPS could even using current algorithm manage to process 6 FPS.

A 26.6 mp 1Ds Mk4 with around 6318 x 4212 and 6fps might not satisfy the mega-pixel hungry wishing to beat Nikon into submission, but it would provide a sensible step up using a combination of available technology without having to push the price point through the roof.   It would also leave the 'blue sky' development bods to work on the 46mp for the 1Ds Mk5 etc.   I might be way off, but with 30 years of running R&D it would certainly be a step I would consider. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III, 1D Mark V & 1Ds Mark IV Tidbits
« on: August 05, 2011, 05:47:36 PM »
If a camera has N megapixels, the camera with the same technology but N + X megapixels is NEVER worse than the camera with N megapixels; it can only be better. Noise, detail, everything related to IQ.

It is the size of sensor which matters.

EOS Bodies / Re: Even Nikon has announced its FF successors.
« on: August 04, 2011, 03:00:18 PM »
One can only hope the trumping is nowhere near à la adding additional numerical ISO figure without checking if it is going to be useful and up to one's standards.

There has been talk of Canon testing multiple different versions of the 5D mk 3 though so perhaps there waiting to see what Nikon go with before picking one?

I was referring to the 1D Mk4, and looking at the result they didn't have plan B.

EOS Bodies / Re: Even Nikon has announced its FF successors.
« on: August 04, 2011, 03:28:08 AM »
Nikon has already announced its successors of its D700 and D3s, and they will be releasing it on the 24th August.

That's probably what Canon has been waiting for!  Wait for your competitor to announce their new product, so that you can trump them days/weeks later.  ;)

One can only hope the trumping is nowhere near à la adding additional numerical ISO figure without checking if it is going to be useful and up to one's standards.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV/1D Mark V Spec List [CR1]
« on: August 03, 2011, 03:46:11 PM »
What concerns 32MP then no way it is the 1Ds (it had been, if released a year ago). 9fps for the same amount of MPs sounds however quite impressive, though I highly doubt Canon would let any spec lower than the predecessor. So-so specs to me, cr1 sounds correct.

EOS Bodies / Re: Even Nikon has announced its FF successors.
« on: August 03, 2011, 10:28:46 AM »
While it is only a rumor, it makes quite sense - Nikon has 4 years development cycle (the D3s was 2 years mid-life modest update) and as I understand the press conferences for announcements are confirmed though no idea about the content. For Canon, we have no such dates, even rumored. Hopefully it will be not a catch up game this time.

As the supposed Nikon D4 is a direct competitor to the 1D MK4, I deduct that this is the body which Canon is going to update first despite the long lifetime of the 1Ds Mk3.

I personally have feeling that the Nikon D3s mid-life modest update didn't have less output than full-cycle 1D Mk4 (and this is what it makes a bit pale), the latter even looking more like a catch up by forced ISO specs, clearly not to be meant there without the sake of the competition.

EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 29, 2011, 10:15:39 AM »
Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?
"Same Technology", I am assuming you mean same pixel density.  The picture quality (noise) per pixel is identical regardless of the acyual sensor size. The FF will have more pixel than the APS-H and hence better picture quality. Hydyn1971 is half right about the comparision of APS-C ans APS-H with the same pixel density.  besides a widen angle with the same lens, The APS-H will also have a higher resolution  and hence better opicture quality.

There are quite many variables currently, we need to use ceteris paribus principle ie fix some variables to understand each other.

Let's define couple of situations:
1) Let's suppose the same density PLUS the same technology used as a different technology with the same density can give quite a lot of variations in image quality:
   1a) a camera with a cropped sensor
   1b) a FF camera

2) Let the density vary meaning both, the crop camera and the FF will have N megapixels, again using the same technology.:
   2a) a camera with a cropped sensor
   2b) a FF camera

Now some thoughts:
3. For the first two cameras, 1a and 1b, yes, no problems to understand the benefits of a larger sensor IQ wise as it just records more data on a bigger surface (some characteristics may however degrade, for example fps when being constrained by the data processing capability ie MPs per second).
4. For the second case, let's suppose that for a given print at least 300ppi is available, I claim that ISO-wise the camera 2b is much better on paper.

The fear for APS-H advocates seems to be:
5. by being under data processing constraint, the crop camera, having the same number of megapixels, would end up with higher density thus better "reach"
6. FF is more expensive

In my opinion, at certain level of density in combination with high ISO (meaning fine detail is being lost), the benefit is questionable (look at the compact small sensor cameras, the density for SLR-s is going towards that). This is why I think it is time to change to FF in order to provide competitive IQ.

I also, let's be dramatic, hate lenses acting as being handicapped. It is a big deal for example 24-105 not acting like one. After all, the world is not composed of tele lenses only.

EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 04:08:14 PM »
The 1.3 crop isn't the same mp as the full frame, the pixel size is about 10% smaller, 5.7 vs 6.4, there isn't a current 1.3 crop that gives the same mp as a current full frame.  Because there are less pixels, there is less processing time required for each frame.  The 1.3 crop currently has about 25% less data to deal with, thus is faster, the pixel size is similar size, so you aren't actually losing that much except frame size.

Absolutely true. With disagreement only in the very last sentence after the last comma. This is where the potential is not yet used by Canon.

If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend £10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.

Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?

EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 02:59:14 PM »
I haven't argued what you stated - if it is possible to process only x megapixels at 10fps, then you would rather have all "the pixels" in a denser form though in a smaller sensor area.

The question is, if there is more processing power (file, data, megapixels etc as you wish), whether it makes sense to make a FF 27MP camera or make a 1.3x 27MP camera (mechanically the ability is already there, it is only about the data)

I believe currently, that with today's technology, the pixel density doesn't matter for high ISO, but the size of the light capture area does - more pixels might not contribute to the higher ISO, but the overall quality is never less than bigger pixels at the same sensor area, for both at the same size print. This is the basis for the choice - would you like to have a better ISO or more magnification, being under the data processing constraint?

Ivar, I'm not gonna get into a tit-for-tat cut and paste exercise, it's clear you disagree with my point of view.  You simply ain't gonna get the same framerates with full frame as a crop frame, the files are smaller with a crop, which is why there will always be a market for a high end crop body.

If the Nikon range is so good, maybe you need to sell your Canon kit and swap to the dark side ;-)

EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 10:43:58 AM »
Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?

Because Nikon gets all the benefits of having the advantage for more light. They can stuff easily more pixels, for Canon at this smaller sensor area not that much. Sports cameras are about ISO, isn't it?

As for the imaginable FF 1D price, it would still be closer to the current 1D line trend, Nikon cameras are quite good, the competition cannot be ignored.

EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 08:40:09 AM »
Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light.
As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.

Quote from: Haydn1971
Simple really...   Take a look at the current camera body specs.

While the numbers are the same, the Nikon D3s looks better to me. If the 1D mk4 would have been a FF body, it had performed better for sure (=more light better image for the same technology). If you meant a comparison between the 1D & 1Ds then they are optimized for different purposes thus being different technology.

Quote from: Haydn1971
To answer your second part, a 16mp frame will be saved to a memory device quicker than a 21mp frame - it's about 75 % of the size, the 16mp frame will also be processed quicker than the 21mp frame for a given picture process engine.  Mixing in the Digic 4 process engine over the Digic 3 of the FF camera, is why the current 1.3x 1D has a frame rate roughly twice the speed of the current 1Ds.

This is what I said, the only limiter at least for 10fps was data and nothing else, sensor size doesn't matter.

Quote from: Haydn1971
With regard to the first point about ISO, again, read the specs, the newer 1D has a much greater performance in terms of ISO than the full frame sensor in the 1Ds or the later 5D.  I'm not a image sensor expert, I design roads for a living, but it seems plausible that the 1.3 crop sensor in the 1D has been optimised to provide better ISO performance than the then current full frame technology.  Should full frame technology be released in the next 12 months that match the 1.3 crop, I'm pretty sure the techniques will be deployed in the next 1.3 crop sensor to great affect.

As said, the technology is different. Apples to apples would be ISO optimized cameras, and there the Nikon D3s performs better.

Quote from: Haydn1971
Canon wouldn't be selling a £4k1.3 crop product if there wasn't demand for it's benefits, similarly they wouldn't by selling the £6k full frame product if everyone wanted the 5D instead.  Each camera has it's own advantages, it seems more implausible to imagine a gap between a 5D Mk3 at say £2.5k and a replacement 1Ds at a launch price of say £7-8k, the 1D sites slap bang in the middle. 

I didn't argue about the demand, I said Canon is having a bigger margin what concerns the cropper.

Quote from: Haydn1971
Sticking my neck out, I'd suggest that there is as much chance of the 1.3 crop disappearing as a 1.6 crop 1Dx in the future or a 3D appearing.

For me, for the former the probability is at least 2x higher if not more.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11