December 08, 2016, 05:34:10 PM

Author Topic: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013  (Read 47607 times)

K-amps

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1783
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #90 on: January 02, 2013, 01:07:23 PM »
I hope the 7dii and 70D get new sensor tech with the newer 180nm process I was hoping they would have used with the 5diii...   with better ISO, DR and banding performance than the 7dii/70D.

The 19 pt AF is fine for the 7Dii as long as the center is -3EV or -4EV sensitive.

On a separate note: I was wondering... Did Canon not make real updates to their 18mp APS-C sensors to protect the sales of the 7d?
EOS-80D & Pentax K1
EF Mount Rok 14mm F2.8; ∑ 24-105mm F4 A; 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; 100-400mm L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; 100mm L F/2.8
Pentax D-FA 15-30 F2.8 & 28-105mm

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #90 on: January 02, 2013, 01:07:23 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5447
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #91 on: January 02, 2013, 01:27:36 PM »
On a separate note: I was wondering... Did Canon not make real updates to their 18mp APS-C sensors to protect the sales of the 7d?

I don't think so... Some camera has to be first, unless they want to hold out and update every camera at the same time, and that would be a marketing and financial nightmare... and being as the big bucks (volume wise) are with the lower end cameras, it might even make more sense to see the new technology first in a Rebel or EOS-M body
The best camera is the one in your hands

neech7

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 45
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #92 on: January 02, 2013, 01:37:12 PM »
3 fps for the 70D? That's pretty poor performance...disappointing...

Why did you guess 3fps, and not 3 gigapixel sensor? If you can't read the language in question, don't comment.


that1guyy

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #93 on: January 02, 2013, 03:54:49 PM »
3 fps for the 70D? That's pretty poor performance...disappointing...

Why did you guess 3fps, and not 3 gigapixel sensor? If you can't read the language in question, don't comment.



He guessed that because initially the admin posted the specs as 3fps for the 70d. If you weren't here for that then don't comment.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5334
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #94 on: January 02, 2013, 10:11:07 PM »
now that they have gapless microlenses and such you don't lose much by going to smaller photosites, any individual photosite is noisier if it is smaller but all together it's reasonably close to the same, withing reason.

Not quite. You still lose FWC when moving to a smaller pixel. Since both large pixel and small pixel sensors all use gapless microlenses these days, use of microlenses on sensors with smaller pixels really doesn't level the playing field like it did when it was first introduced. Microlenses improve Q.E. by increasing the number of photons that actually make it all the way to the photodiode, but photodiode capacity is entirely dependent on area...and in that respect, all else being equal (which is pretty much the case these days), larger pixels are still better.

There are other technologies that can still improve Q.E. on sensors with smaller pixels. Lightpipe tech for FSI sensors, BSI sensors, weaker CFA's, etc. are all techniques used on higher density sensors that can still help level the playing field. Even with those technologies, FWC of higher density sensors is usually less than 40k electrons/pixel, where as FWC with lower density sensors gets as high as 100k electrons/pixel. Granted, you can always downsample a higher resolution image and reduce noise, but generally you buy a high resolution camera for a reason, and the final output is usually upscaled, not downscaled.

In the end, once 180nm technology normalizes across the board for brands and sensor sizes/densities, I think the choices will boil down to two key things: resolution at the cost of noise or IQ at the cost of resolution. Personally, I'm fine with those choices...you can always own two cameras for different purposes. ;)

BrandonKing96

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #95 on: January 03, 2013, 05:22:36 AM »
3 fps for the 70D? That's pretty poor performance...disappointing...

Why did you guess 3fps, and not 3 gigapixel sensor? If you can't read the language in question, don't comment.



He guessed that because initially the admin posted the specs as 3fps for the 70d. If you weren't here for that then don't comment.
I translated what it said before I even read the comments.  It even says in the post "3.0" variable-angle LCD screen" or something along those lines.
"モイター"="monitaa"-"monitor".  The characters were distinct (just clearing up for the others who haven't seen the past comments).
Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 60D; EF-S 10-22; EF 70-200 f/4L IS; EF 24-70 f/2.8L II; 580EX II.  Soon to add: 50 1.2L, 135 f/2L, 8-15L

Ivar

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #96 on: January 03, 2013, 06:51:20 AM »
There will be a real (big megapixel) replacement for the 1Ds Mark III with an outstanding image quality.

Nice words. In recent years of development, Canon has been more about rumors, paper launches & products barely matching the price tag for the features offered.

Do not get me wrong - I sincerely hope they finally get back the title for innovation, however there is not much hard evidence this far for supporting the idea. I hope I'm wrong.



canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #96 on: January 03, 2013, 06:51:20 AM »

Aglet

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #97 on: January 03, 2013, 12:43:45 PM »
.. Microlenses improve Q.E. by increasing the number of photons that actually make it all the way to the photodiode, but photodiode capacity is entirely dependent on area...and in that respect, all else being equal (which is pretty much the case these days), larger pixels are still better.

I still wonder about another technology that could add some improvement to the overall QE and that's an old tech called "black silicon" from a few years back.
basically, I think it was a nano-structured surface that reduced reflectivity of the sensor (not sure if it can also work on the microlenses and AA filters) so that more photons got into the Si to do their work generating image electrons.

Even if such a surface treatment did not appreciably improve the QE, it'd still be nice to reduce the overall reflectance of the sensor+AA array which could help with overall contrast, flare and ghosting to some extent.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3111
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #98 on: January 03, 2013, 02:38:03 PM »
There will be a real (big megapixel) replacement for the 1Ds Mark III with an outstanding image quality.

All big megapixel sensors (prototypes) are in an 1D X style body.

Can you comment on difference in sensors among 1Ds3, 5D3, and 1DX?  Thanks for your knowledge.
2 x 1DX
B1G, MAC, GLIAC

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3111
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #99 on: January 03, 2013, 02:53:21 PM »
There will be a real (big megapixel) replacement for the 1Ds Mark III with an outstanding image quality.

All big megapixel sensors (prototypes) are in an 1D X style body.

Can you comment on difference in sensors among 1Ds3, 5D3, and 1DX?  Thanks for your knowledge.

M.S.T has never backed up one single thing they have said and they have claimed some pretty NDA covered type stuff. But when you can't even post an image from an NDA free, fully released lens you claim to own, or even an image of the lens, then I think that is a good measure of their real knowledge.

Oh, I see.
2 x 1DX
B1G, MAC, GLIAC

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4753
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #100 on: January 03, 2013, 05:54:50 PM »
I predict 7D2:
5D3 AF, 10fps,24MP
Exmor level low ISO DR
1/2 stop better high ISO than 7D2 (1 stop for DR)
$2300

EOS CS:
39 MP - 4k video/utterly superb 2k video filtered down
6.1fps
5D3 AF and slightly improved 5D3 metering (maybe 1DX AF and metering if they use a big brick size, hope not)
Exmor level low ISO DR
1DX/D4 level high ISO SNR/DR
hope, hope body only slightly larger than 5D-size
$4500

70D:
7D AF and metering, 5-6.5fps, 24MP
Exmor level low ISO DR
1/2 stop better high ISO than 7D (1 stop for DR)
$1300

if they have the much better sensors and full speed (digic 6) it may be end of 2013 for in stores and not this spring,if it hits this spring I think the specs might be way worse than i suggest, i hope they go for the held off instead of rush possibility options

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4753
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #101 on: January 03, 2013, 05:56:09 PM »
There will be a real (big megapixel) replacement for the 1Ds Mark III with an outstanding image quality.

All big megapixel sensors (prototypes) are in an 1D X style body.

Because landscapers and architectural photogs love dragging big and heavy cameras? No, I find that hard to believe. But if that is the case then it is a stupid move by Canon, and the D800 looks even more appealing.
Nope, as someone who does the above for a living, I -do- want a hefty 1 series body. I'd much rather see a genuine 1Ds3 replacement than something in a small body... The 1D X didn't amount to a significant enough upgrade for the work I do (important caveat, given it's a very good camera for many)

You are definitely in the minority of landscape photogs then.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4753
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #102 on: January 03, 2013, 06:02:25 PM »
now that they have gapless microlenses and such you don't lose much by going to smaller photosites, any individual photosite is noisier if it is smaller but all together it's reasonably close to the same, withing reason.

Not quite. You still lose FWC when moving to a smaller pixel. Since both large pixel and small pixel sensors all use gapless microlenses these days, use of microlenses on sensors with smaller pixels really doesn't level the playing field like it did when it was first introduced. Microlenses improve Q.E. by increasing the number of photons that actually make it all the way to the photodiode, but photodiode capacity is entirely dependent on area...and in that respect, all else being equal (which is pretty much the case these days), larger pixels are still better.

There are other technologies that can still improve Q.E. on sensors with smaller pixels. Lightpipe tech for FSI sensors, BSI sensors, weaker CFA's, etc. are all techniques used on higher density sensors that can still help level the playing field. Even with those technologies, FWC of higher density sensors is usually less than 40k electrons/pixel, where as FWC with lower density sensors gets as high as 100k electrons/pixel. Granted, you can always downsample a higher resolution image and reduce noise, but generally you buy a high resolution camera for a reason, and the final output is usually upscaled, not downscaled.

In the end, once 180nm technology normalizes across the board for brands and sensor sizes/densities, I think the choices will boil down to two key things: resolution at the cost of noise or IQ at the cost of resolution. Personally, I'm fine with those choices...you can always own two cameras for different purposes. ;)

As I said each individual photosite does worse but taken together....

And I also said "do reasonably close to" as well as "within reasonable differences between photosite sizes" not "exactly the same" for "any possible difference in relative photosite scale".

With the current tech, a 40MP cam, overall, not 100% view comparing each photosite, doesn't have more than a a very modest bit worse high iso performance than using same tech on a 12MP it would seem and might even do a trace better for low iso dr. You gain so much more from the extra detail/reach compared to the likely insignificant loss in high iso.

The whole point is that you don't need two different cams for two different purposes. You can just own the high MP cam and when you care more about detail then print super large, view 100%, etc. and when you do care about noise then just print or view it at the same scale that you'd have to do with the lower MP cam. You very nearly get best of both worlds.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 06:05:07 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #102 on: January 03, 2013, 06:02:25 PM »

nolken

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 37
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #103 on: January 03, 2013, 06:30:57 PM »
any rumors on when? I'm planning on purchasing another DSLR here soon. I'm willing to wait for the 7d's price to drop upon announcement of the 7d mk ii, but only if it'll be February or sooner.

RGomezPhotos

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 328
    • Ricardo Gomez Photography
Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #104 on: January 03, 2013, 08:02:46 PM »
There will be a real (big megapixel) replacement for the 1Ds Mark III with an outstanding image quality.

All big megapixel sensors (prototypes) are in an 1D X style body.

Can you comment on difference in sensors among 1Ds3, 5D3, and 1DX?  Thanks for your knowledge.

M.S.T has never backed up one single thing they have said and they have claimed some pretty NDA covered type stuff. But when you can't even post an image from an NDA free, fully released lens you claim to own, or even an image of the lens, then I think that is a good measure of their real knowledge.

LOL!!!  I thought the same thing :-D
EOS 5D MKII & 50D, Zeiss 50mm f1.4
www.ricardogomezphotography.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« Reply #104 on: January 03, 2013, 08:02:46 PM »