Messages

1786

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 12:47:33 PM »

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

You're basically looking at off the shelf technology and mainly adaptation costs involved in the construction and integration, along with improved firmware.  Yet what you'd have would kick the crap out of 80% of the market.

I know that for a lot of mid-range, general studio, and wedding shooters, that's a solid camera and offers just about all that is needed in that market segment.  When you realize the image quality of a 3 year old 5Dmk2 still beats a vast majority of the competition, these tweaks remove the negatives of the current body and flesh out it's feature set nicely.

Looking at prosumer and up, it would still leave room for a 7Dmk2, an enhanced version of the 7D, same 18M pixels, but improved APS-C sensor, 10 fps. It leaves room for a 5Dx with higher megapixels, and the 1Dx for the pro market.

i would rather have the current rumoured camera at 3k

Understood.  But you do realize the rumored camera will NOT have a better noise performance at high ISO (low light) than the 1Dx....it will be worse.

You might ask why....it's simple.  The 1Dx has the latest 18M FF sensor and represents the best Canon can currently do with the sensor technology ready for mass production.  A 22M FF sensor will have more pixels and won't be able to produce images with less noise at the same ISO settings. 

So, you're going to trade off more noise for those extra pixels for $3k.  Frankly, I'd take what's in the package I outlined for $500 less and be able to use my existing grip and batteries making it about $800 less than the rumored option, and shoot cleaner images at ISO 3200 and 6400.

If the 22MP lets them get better video quality and you don't lose 4MP (not that it matters so much, although at some point it becomes a slippery slope and since we had hoped to gain some even....) then why not? Seriosult what different does 18MP vs 22MP make for SNR and DR? Zero for DR and like what maybe 1/10th stop? 1/6th stop at worst for SNR? Who cares about that? Nobody can see the difference between a fraction of a stop difference for noise.

1787

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 12:41:38 PM »

Regarding the argument of 22MP not being enough to replace the 7D - because a 1.6x crop would not give enough pixels - Canon will probably argue that users should use a 1.4x TC to get the extra reach.  - I am not saying this will get the results people are looking for - just that that is what I would expect Canon to argue.

Sorry don't agree with you:
7D + 400 MM F4 + 1.4x = 896 @ F5.6 (autofocused) (560 * 1.6)
5D (or 1D) + 400 mm F4 + 1.4x =  560 @ F5.6 (autofocused)


To add antother 1.4 behind it would be a 2x (1.4 * 1.4) resulting in:
5D (or 1D) + 400 mm F4 + 2x =  800 (still shorter) @ F8 (Manual focused)

You can't do the math like that. What matter is pixels per duck and so you need to use the camera's photosite densities not whether they are FF or APS-H or APS-C. A 5D, a 5D2 and 1Ds2 and a 1DX all would need a different results, not the same result.

1788

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 12:39:29 PM »

What I'm mostly worried about is the DR. Not only it has been less on the Canon side than the competition by raw figures for quite some years already, it is also less usable, shadow area does not tolerate much pushing.

Btw DR is not a goal by itself, but the tool to overcome harsh lighting conditions, targeting pleasant non-hdr like output. Add wrong exposure to the list, being it a different user wish after the shoot or biased mesurement due to tricky light conditions etc.

Yeah me too. It's a little worrisome that they aren't bragging about it. If they had gone to a new process where they could improve the 5D2 DR by 2 measured stops and 3 usable stops at ISO 100 then you'd think we'd already be hearing all sorts of claims about the 1DX. They did mention DR a bit when it came to the 1DX but they were unclear calling it DR in one spot and SNR in another and improved largely in JPG in another so it's hard to say, there is reason for hope for sure but also reason to doubt, i.e. nobody yet knows and we will see soon enough.

1789

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 12:36:56 PM »

Am I to expect the same 61pt AF system that's in the 1D X?

Considering what Nikon offers, you should be expecting that only even more considering how resting on their laurels and holding as much back as possible and milking out every last penny rather than charging forward and blowing Nikon out of the water (which they easily could have done a few times over the last few years) and arrogant about their position they have become, quite possibly not. But you can hope. Maybe, maybe, maybe, Nikon/Sony have put enough fear into them to wake them up again.

1790

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 07:20:20 PM »

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

You're basically looking at off the shelf technology and mainly adaptation costs involved in the construction and integration, along with improved firmware.  Yet what you'd have would kick the crap out of 80% of the market.

I know that for a lot of mid-range, general studio, and wedding shooters, that's a solid camera and offers just about all that is needed in that market segment.  When you realize the image quality of a 3 year old 5Dmk2 still beats a vast majority of the competition, these tweaks remove the negatives of the current body and flesh out it's feature set nicely.

That sounds more like what the 5D2 might have been, that's too little to last until 2015.

The D800 would already, just six months later have had 50% more MP, possibly 2 stops better low ISO DR, same fps with grip, vastly better video (if it used the dual digic iv in your list instead of the digic 5), better AF.

Way too conservative.

1791

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:51:06 PM »

there's more to image quality than megapixals.  i'll take low noise for what i'm doing.

But don't forget that the 24MP D3x has a lot higher ISO 100 DR than the low MP D3s.
So it's not so simple.

1792

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:38:13 PM »

I've done my share of D800 humping lately, but a 22 mp 5DIII with a 61-point AF system and 6.9 FPS would be one heck of a camera. Throw in one or two additional stops of DR and ISO over the 5DII, and this sucker will be irresistible. Do it, Canon My Canon glass gives me wood every time I use them, and I really don't want to switch systems.   

It is not physically possible to improve the 5Dmk2 high ISO performance by 2 stops.

Not for say middle tone SNR, but for lowest ISO DR it could easily be improved to stops measured and closer to 3 stops usable.

1793

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:28:32 PM »

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera.  Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

Could be.

Although I'm not sure why everyone keeps calling the 3D the slow, fat MP body when the EOS 3 and the fabled 3D everyone has been going on about was always said to be a pro AF, high speed, compact FF.

So I'd swap your 5D3 and 3D names and I would raise the re-labelled 3D price to $2700+ and lower the 5D3 price to $3200.

In 2015 or so the 3D2 bumps up to 39MP and retains 6.9fps and top AF and then we really have a nice all around camera and the 5D4 get cancelled or becomes a much slower, less expensive 39MP body than the 3D2?

For now, some will prefer the D800 and some the 3D.

If the they have fixed up the DR on the 3D/5D3 and haven't crippled the 1DX AF in it more than a trace (and I don't think they should since the D800 will do 6fps in DX mode with grip and 36MP, two pretty decent things! plus have Nikon's very best AF attempt! and uncompressed 1080p out) it will be pretty cool, awesome video, great speed and performance, top AF, compact size. The only thing it will lack is reach, it will be somewhat weak for wildlife, and the detail for hyper ppi 13x19 or for 300 ppi very large size prints, everything else would be everything you want (other than pro sealing, pro durability, hyper fps for the most serious of action shooters, for the ones who must have that they will pay for the 1DX).

1794

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:17:15 PM »

the way Canon develops new product is to satisfy the needs of professional photographers. For instance, the introduction of EOS-1D X is to satisfy professional photographers to photoshoot sports events like the Olympics, in terms of their requirement of high FPS and high image quality under high ISO settings.

I find this comment confusing.. if their 'way' is to develop products for professional photographers.. why are they making video cameras in SLR form?  It really feels like videoographers, at minimal, share equal weight.. at this point probably more.

Because many news outlets are now equally hungry for video clips as for stills and of course small scale film makers are and even the big boys have need for them. Some say that the 5D2 actually sold more copies to those using it mostly for video, not sure what the truth is.

1795

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:14:58 PM »

The quote from Maeda certainly looks like Canon is playing the role of the front-runner.  Apparently, they've got a bunch of tech and several prototypes, and were just waiting for Nikon to tip their hand so they can one-up them.  Now, before everyone gets too excited, as I said in a previous post, Canon will not put all of their best tech in these cameras: they will do just enough to take a clear edge, and then profit from the next cycle as well.

Hah that sounds more like following than front-running, if you hold back everything and only release in minimum response to what the other guy does...

1796

Canon General / Re: More Lens Suggestions [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 02:07:36 PM »

One thing is for sure: Canon rumors are quantum leap better then Canon launches. Big LOL. 

 

Anyway I though this was the year of the dragon not lenses???

1797

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 01:32:17 PM »

It just doesn't make any sense. Why would they do that?

That would be the 70D...

The 7D is a real oddity - a decidedly "pro" body with glaringly non-pro features (sensor, pop-up flash anyone?). Put a 22MP new-gen FF sensor in a 7D body, add the new 1Dx-derived AF tech, and you have the 5Dx. Every 7D/5D2 owner will buy one, probably two. Pump up the 60D with some 7D tech and bring back the xxD line to it's rightful place at the top of the APS-C heap. Wham-bam, Canon sells a gazillion cameras and Nikon fanboys gloat about their 36MP that no-one really wanted anyway

Don't knock the pop-up flash, you never know.

Out of the blue we once got a call that the stanley cup was in town and that we needed to run and get some shots instantly, pop up flash sure provided some nice little fill flash for the first location they had it in and some pros there were in the same situation and going "gotta love the pop up!"

And it's nice for the occasional little snap shot or a sudden unexpected thing like a tree frog appearing at night when that was the last thing you were expecting to shoot, etc. Not everyone want to always drag an external flash along every single time they are out.

Don't knock it.

1798

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 01:26:54 PM »

....and I'll say it again - Canon should never have made the 7D as good as it is functionally with a crop sensor.  It's like putting a lawn-mower engine into a BMW convertible.

I should know as I own two 5DMarkII's and a 7D. I bought the 7D thinking it would be close to the 5D in image quality, or at least in the same ballpark. I was excited by its features and thought I could live with a small drop in IQ for the sake of all those other goodies. Unfortunately it's not even close. Makes sense though - the 5D Mark II has 2.56 times the surface area for the sensor, and sensor technology improves, but rarely by that amount in a year. The crop factor at 1.6x really does make a big difference.

So the current lineup is just freaking bizarre. In fact it's horrible. Here's why:

1. You have a fantastically featured awesome little camera with great autofocus, button layout, flash trigger capabilities, weather sealing, responsiveness...yadda yadda yadda.... but with a horrible sensor (by pro standards OK - compared to 5D Mark II) that make shots look very point-n-click like in the noise department, and even in the low light color rendition. That's the current 7D.

If you are distance limited, the 7D sensor delivers a touch better than the 5D2, so what was so wrong with a little aps-c camera with better performance? Lots of people liked it.

And APS-C is less expensive and it's not like it performs that badly even when not distance limited, sure not as well as FF, although if you adjust aperture to make up for DOF the performance becomes much closer.

That lineup is just whack and they should really do a sensor swap. Canon will address this by putting crop sensors solely back into the XXD line with the 70D, and boosting the features of the 5DmarkIII so they meet or surpass the 7D - guaranteed. Well shots per second *might* be down a bit, and there will be no onboard flash but these are the only exceptions I can think of). If they did kill the 7D line and put most of it's great features into the next 5D, then look out for a 5Dx moniker.

certainly nothing wrong with boosting small body FF specs, I've been asking for that for ages but I don't think it has to kill off the 7D, at least unless it has at least 30-36MP sensor density and APS-C crop mode.

1799

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]

« on: February 13, 2012, 09:10:40 PM »

The rumor doesn't make sense.
Why should the ISO range between the III and X be different? The ISO performace will be the same if the same technology is used since basic physics tells us that the pixle size has neglectable impact at high ISO performance.Why should the ISO range for the X version be the same as for 7D? The sensor is more than twice as large and will have more than 1 stop better ISO performace than 7D, and be better than 5Dmk2, even with no improvements what so ever. Will Canon release a new DSLR with a sensor that is worse that something they made already several year ago?

This rumor is obvioiusly not the truth.

Because this is clearly not the case.

Not sure what you mean but if you think this pixel size itself has anything else than neglectable impact at high ISO performance then you believe something that is in contradiction with basic physics and proven facts.

The physics that larger pixels will have more light to work with seems pretty obvious and the facts are that sensors of the same generation show superior ISO performance per pixel when those pixels are larger. The recent NEX 7 comparisons I'v seen didnt seem to offer as good performance as the NEX 5 even downscaled so I'v rather sceptical of the idea that this will always even out noise.

ISO performance does seem like it can be targetted towards a specific range aswell with for example many users seeming to preffer the 1D4's higher ISO's and the 5Dmk2's lower ISO's. It would certainly seem to make sense to target the 5D X's performance towards lower ISO settings if its going to be a studio/landscape camera.

OTOH look at the D3x and D3s, now the former has wayyy more MP but guess which has the much greater low ISO DR? Also the D3x that has wayyy more MP.  So it's not so simple. If the 5D3 doesn't have a new readout technology then it could end up having 18MP and LESS low ISO DR, by a few stops even, than the D800.  Hopefully that won't be the case, although the fact that marketing isn't already bragging about 2 stops better real and 3 stops better usable DR in RAW for low ISO makes you wonder a little.

Anyway just pointing out that it is not as simple as to say we need it to be low MP so we can get say great low ISO DR. What technology they use matter a lot more than the MP count.

1800

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Book Shows Up at Amazon France

« on: February 13, 2012, 09:04:10 PM »

Hmmm, but after a little "research" I've found out that Canon Europe is sharing booth with some DICOM company. This company deals with some scanners and software and does some hardware services. Also that booth is situated in Business IT section.

http://www.dicom.com/en/

So maybe really nothing for CeBIT. Hmmm.

CeBIT really doesn't seem the sort of show they would use for this. It's the place that new computers might get unveiled but not something like this.