August 27, 2014, 03:13:55 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 25
106
The question is why has Canon not released a 36MP'ish FF camera when both Nikon and Sony have done it.

It's a business decision.

So, if according to you, the ability of the processor(s) to handle the data is not the issue, then what is the excuse? Crummy lenses without the resolving power? No. Slow SD and CF cards? No. Inability to actually make such sensors? No. What then?

Their market analysis, likely.


To those chucking Moore's Law around ... yes, possibly the DiG!C architecture can handle the data, but at what cost in terms of power consumption and thermal management? Both these factors can negatively impact on the actual use of the chips ... which leads to the same conclusion.

As has been noted multiple times, canon already churns through 18MPx2 @ 12-14FPS in a two year old body. Clearly processing a 36MP image is NOT beyond their past architecture, so assuming that it's beyond their future architecture is pretty ridiculous.

Canon is very calculating. They won't bring a high dollar camera to the market until a) their infrastructure (lenses, primarily, and I suspect they're there now) is ready, and b) the market can support the investment.

107
What about video?
The 1Dc (same processors as the 1Dx) does 4K video at 24p and 25p
4k = 4096 x 2160 = 8.84mp at 25 frames per second…

Obviously the setup of dual DiG!C 5+ processors with an additional DiG!C 4 clapping hands is sufficient regarding the 1DX and 1DC cameras. That is not the issue. The issue in question is whether this setup is sufficient for what the future brings ...

Why is that the question? I still can't quite get why you are evidently assuming that digic5+ is the best core canon can make. The issue in question is whether what the future brings is sufficient for what the future brings, not whether what they released 2 years ago is.

I never said or implied DIGIC 5+ is the best they can make

I was replying to Sella ;)

108
Who says they aren't?

I think the noise (haha) over a stop or two of additional shadow recovery is fairly inconsequential to canon.

Would it be cool for them to bring in 24-bit ADC? Yah sure, but at the end of the day, most people look at screens with maybe 8 stops of DR, or prints with less. When the recording device is already capturing significantly more range than the end product is capable of displaying, photographers still need to employ methods to compress the DR of a scene, either before it hits the film/sensor (nd filters, lighting techniques, etc), or before it hits the print (exposure stacking, etc).

Having more information to work with when we enter post would be welcome, but the number of instances in which someone wants to show the words on a newspaper under a picnic table in broad daylight as well as the details of the clouds in the sky above it are pretty rare.

That said, I also welcome DR improvements because of what it means for noise.

109
What about video?
The 1Dc (same processors as the 1Dx) does 4K video at 24p and 25p
4k = 4096 x 2160 = 8.84mp at 25 frames per second…

Obviously the setup of dual DiG!C 5+ processors with an additional DiG!C 4 clapping hands is sufficient regarding the 1DX and 1DC cameras. That is not the issue. The issue in question is whether this setup is sufficient for what the future brings ...

Why is that the question? I still can't quite get why you are evidently assuming that digic5+ is the best core canon can make. The issue in question is whether what the future brings is sufficient for what the future brings, not whether what they released 2 years ago is.

110
If they release a digic 6+ with the same kind of performance gains the 5+ saw, it will be very capable.

True, and then I would have been proven wrong. So that is why I am very interested to see what Canon puts inside the upcoming 7D2 camera.

As I recall, they didn't develop a new processor for the 7D, but rather used the same configuration as the 1D4. So maybe a new 7D would use the same config as the current pro sports model (dual digic 5+). However, those cameras came out really close to one another so that could have simplified the decision.

They may want to use a 7D as a test bed for new tech, or they may want to use the economy of scale and leverage of the existing production infrastructure.

In any case, my suspicion is that getting a capable core is the lowest hanging fruit in the higher resolution tree. Developing a line of great lenses is the biggest hurdle, and they've crossed it. The sensor unit is somewhere in the middle, and that's the biggest question in my mind from a tech standpoint, whereas the market is the overarching driver in all of this (if they don't think they can sell sufficient higher res cameras, they won't bother making them).

111
The fact that in a camera developed for release two years ago they didn't use a modern core indicates they don't have a modern core now?

The very fact that there are more capable processors than the (old'ish) DiG!C 5+ can only mean that Canon is behind ... either in terms of actual know-how or due to patent constraints. So it will be very, very interesting to see what processor(s) are placed inside the 7D2.

To me it merely means camera cores developed >2 years ago are behind current cores, but that's an obvious reality.

It doesn't give me any indication as to what Canon will produce for future models (i.e. cameras developed <2 years ago). If they release a digic 6+ with the same kind of performance gains the 5+ saw, it will be very capable.

112
Would be an idea for the Magic Lantern development - if one could identify where everything was saved...

Yah, that's what got me thinking about it. The rule of thumb is to reset your camera to default settings before installing ML, so I was hoping I could offload my settings somewhere first.

113
Canon can do dual processors even in a half sized body (7D), ...

Canon already needs to dual-configure these little rascals to produce a decent frame rate with 18MP sensors.

That was a camera developed for release in 2009. They probably don't need dual processors to do the same in 2014 (the pixel throughput of the 5D3 is nearly 93% of the 7D even though the former only has one processor).

Also, can these DiG!C 5+ or 6 processors even be quad-configured?


Good question. I imagine they could fit four in a full sized body. The PCB might get a little thick, and heat would likely be a major factor, but it's probably doable. I doubt it would be necessary unless they wanted a super high resolution super high frame rate $20,000 market entry. 

... and they can do it with modern cores.

True, but the big question is whether Canon has any "modern cores". The very fact that they have not used it in the 1DX tells me that the answer is a very sorry no, they don't.

Wait, what?
The fact that in a camera developed for release two years ago they didn't use a modern core indicates they don't have a modern core now?

114
bah, humbug.

115
Just once digic5+ is good for at least 180MB/sec (5D3 raws at 6FPS). Given Moore's "law," it would shock me if something like the core logic chip fundamentally precludes higher-resolution cameras.

That's the transfer rate of data, i.e. throughput, of already processed data. What is important is the number of instructions per second that the little guy can do ... and then how many instructions are required to process the data from the sensor's A/D-converter. Not stuff that Canon gives out readily, but it can be deduced from current camera models.

Yes, it's data rate. In any case, one digic 5+ is good for at least 6 23MP captures per second, soup to nuts, all operations. Maybe it doesn't scale linearly, i.e. perhaps it's not safe to assume one can do 3 46MP captures, but I bet it can do 1.5-2. And that's with a single 2+ year old chip. Canon can do dual processors even in a half sized body (7D), and they can do it with modern cores.

116
My conclusion was that Canon cannot really produce a "High-MP" camera (or a decent mirrorless camera) for the very simple reason that the DiG!C processor has hit the wall.

Just once digic5+ is good for at least 180MB/sec (5D3 raws at 6FPS). Given Moore's "law," it would shock me if something like the core logic chip fundamentally precludes higher-resolution cameras.

117
   The funny part is that DPReview said that "Nikon’s 800mm F5.6 FL ED VR and 400mm F2.8 FL ED VR lenses earn the 'FL' in their names from the coating of fluorine applied to the lens elements."

Fluorine, fluorite…what's a calcium ion among friends.   Actually, the 'fluorine coating' is a clever bit of marketing-speak…fluorine is a highly toxic element that's gaseous under standard conditions, so the 'fluorine coating' certainly isn't just fluorine.  It's most likely a polymer of fluorine and carbon…but neither Canon nor Nikon want to say they're using fluorocarbons as lens coatings…   :o

Can't say I blame them. Consumers are easily swayed by words and phrases to which they have a predisposition. Note how almost everyone drops the "RP" from "CFRP" because everyone likes Carbon Fiber but nobody likes (Reinforced) Plastic.

118
Does anyone know if it's possible to back up personal settings for non 1D-series cameras?

119
the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

     

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

Waiting for the next best thing in the electronics industry is a losing game.

Buy what you need/want/can afford when you need/want/can afford it, and don't worry if x months down the road there is a better version, because that's a near guarantee.

never said we should be "waiting for the next best thing."  This is why I actually like Canon's mindset with gear refreshing.  Put it on a reasonable time table so that by the time the next thing comes around, it fits in nicely with most of our own purchasing cycles.  the 5d3 came out and now it's used and we as users aren't worrying about Canon throwing us for a loop with a 5d3a or something silly like that (like ---if canon said, fixed the DR issue, here's a new 5d3 with more fps greater dynamic range and no banding at base ISO). 

Releasing new gear on a more paced out schedule allows us to do what you said, because we know what we have and we know the replacement will be in 3-4 years - not 2, or even 1.  Like i said, I would be rather frustrated with nikon right now if I were on that side of the fence.  First, wow, have to choose between 2 d800's, then came the flop that was the d4, followed by the d4s (great camera unless you shelled out a ton of $$$$ on the d4

I guess I just put a little responsibility on the consumer. If the D800 offers what you need, get it. If it doesn't, don't get it, or return it. Same goes for the D4. Nikon isn't withdrawing money from your account and then mailing you a camera. Did they make some blunders? Sure.

Can most people afford to refresh bodies every two years? No. So don't get the S. If Nikon waited another year to release the S, would it change anything? Not for previous D800/E owners. On the other hand, if they recognize flaws in their products, and refrain from releasing a ready-to-go replacement, that absolutely screws anyone who will purchase the old version between the time the replacement is ready and the time it is released. Remember, not everyone buys things immediately at market entry.

Anyway, this is silly and tangential, so I'll bow out.

120
the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

     

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

Ok, what of the huge amount of D700 users who wanted a D3 lite replacement?
The D700 was Nikons best performing DSLR in terms of sales by a long long way and far out sold the replacement D800. There was literally half the wedding market selling all their Canon kit and going with Nikon because of that particular camera. When the D800 was released, their only option was to buy a mint S/H D700 or pay nearly double ($4K) for the D4. These buyers genereally need two DSLR bodies...that's $8K!!! There were a lot of really irratated pros and semi pros who no longer had a viable replacement path...they were effectively abandoned by Nikon. The D800 was a fine camera but certainly not a D700 mkII.

Meanwhile back in Canon land, the 5DIII was released keeping all their existing user base happy with a clear and logical replacement plan. Which left a lot of Nikon users pretty green with envy and angry / frustrated with their brand choice. Some even migrated back again. Most pros / semi pros have a three year cycle of camera buying. After which the DSLR is in a pretty shabby state (most nikons have all the rubber falling off by then) and need to be replaced on the reliability factor alone. One of my 5DIII's is up for renewal early next year. If I bought a 1DX, i'd move that camera to a 5 year cycle instead of three.

+100 --- that's what I was talking about!!!!


Sure, maybe Nikon screwed its wedding professional base by not adequately replacing the D700 (the D600 kinda does, but at a significantly higher resolution).

But quickly refreshing the D800 is entirely independent of that lack of market entry. The introduction of the D800S in no way plays into what GMC noted. It isn't a D700 replacement either, and they're still looking at either two D4-level cameras or finding mint D700s.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 25