December 21, 2014, 08:51:06 AM

Author Topic: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?  (Read 32282 times)

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #75 on: April 20, 2013, 12:20:14 AM »
The 1dsmk3 have a better CFA  regarding white light, day light than 5dmk2 and 5smk3, the middle tones are unsurpassed which can been seen in a even colored  surface with texture
another example and good explanation of why, sometimes, old tech is better than new

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #75 on: April 20, 2013, 12:20:14 AM »

Sella174

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 793
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #76 on: April 20, 2013, 11:53:57 AM »
I think what the OP means is that the line-up of cameras from "entry-level" to "flagship" are not incremental in terms of capabilities and features such as megapixels, sensor size, AF system, FPS, weather-sealing, etc. - especially when also factoring in the cost of the camera. At least on paper, that is.

Example ... the 6D should at least have had the same 19-point AF system of the 7D, since it is classed "one-up" in the designations.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #77 on: April 20, 2013, 02:16:15 PM »
I think what the OP means is that the line-up of cameras from "entry-level" to "flagship" are not incremental in terms of capabilities and features such as megapixels, sensor size, AF system, FPS, weather-sealing, etc. - especially when also factoring in the cost of the camera. At least on paper, that is.

Example ... the 6D should at least have had the same 19-point AF system of the 7D, since it is classed "one-up" in the designations.

It's classed one up because its a FF body and enjoys all the benefits a FF sensor has over a crop sensor.  The 5d2 was still one level ahead of the 7d even with its vastly inferior AF, so the 6d with a better AF system still comes in ahead of the 7d, it should still be ahead of the 7d2 because I don't see a crop sensor being able to push out usable files at the higher range of ISO's
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

Sella174

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 793
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #78 on: April 21, 2013, 04:23:00 AM »
It's classed one up because its a FF body ...

And therein lies the conundrum ... for if the size of the sensor is the criterion, then the 6D with its 20.2MP sensor trumps the 1DX with its 18.1MP sensor ... on paper.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15227
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #79 on: April 21, 2013, 07:07:03 AM »
It's classed one up because its a FF body ...

And therein lies the conundrum ... for if the size of the sensor is the criterion, then the 6D with its 20.2MP sensor trumps the 1DX with its 18.1MP sensor ... on paper.

There is no conundrum. Size as in physical dimensions, not MP count.  The 6D, 5DIII, and 1D X all have the same size sensor, and it's the ability of that physically larger sensor to collect more total light than an APS-C sensor that leads to the better high ISO performance. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Neutral

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #80 on: April 21, 2013, 09:08:40 AM »
Both images are full size files.





I used the very cool MultiExposure method (as I learned here on CR). It's ONE raw file on both images, shadowpushed to +100 in LR, and +40-something with shadows in the tone curve. I was out to really push the shadows as a test, not to create a HDR-image, and this is why the whites are a bit over here and there. I specifically chose a VERY high contrast scene I didn't expect any camera to perform any good at all. And the light is nowhere near as crazy with the things I normally shoot, or care about if the subject looks good.

Those who say the 1d X is dissapointing need to figure out how to use it...
It is pleasure for me  to see that Multiexposure method which I described last year here for 1Dx   is being used providing best possible IQ out of 1Dx.  When 1Dx is also used with extremly sharp 24-70 2.8L M2 or TS-E 17 4L  image IQ is just amazing - it is hard to believe that it is possible- I always amazed with the quality. There is one issue though for Phase One C1 and DXO Pro  white balance for ME files  - I opened the case with both and DXO already reasearched it  and found the problem and will fix it in future releases. Phase One  is still working on that. But root cause is the same - they did not took into account that color balance is already applied by canon  in ME output RAW file and appliying that for second time in SW which result in strong violet color cast for both DXO and C1.  As for now Canon   DPP provides best white balance for ME files- better then Lightroom.
LR4 works fine but Canon DPP  is even better for color balance - no corrections at all are required.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 09:14:03 AM by Neutral »

Sella174

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 793
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #81 on: April 21, 2013, 11:18:27 AM »
Size as in physical dimensions, not MP count.  ... better high ISO performance.

Again the sensor is used as the only criterion. And if that be, the 6D is better than the 1DX ... on paper. What happens when the look at the whole camera, as a unit?

I am not disputing that the 1DX is the "flagship" Canon DSLR ... rather that the 6D is not a superior camera to current APS-C cameras simply because it has a "full-frame" sensor. And yet its designation (and price) places it on a higher tier than the 7D and 60D (and even the 700D). Actually, in a sense, in my opinion, the 6D should rather have been designated the 70D.

... it's the ability of that physically larger sensor to collect more total light than an APS-C sensor that leads to the better high ISO performance.

Wrong. It's the larger photo-sites of the sensor. If you should make an 8MP APS-C sensor using the same technology as that of the sensor in the 1DX/5D3/6D, then you'll get the same "better" high-ISO performance.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #81 on: April 21, 2013, 11:18:27 AM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #82 on: April 21, 2013, 11:44:15 AM »
Size as in physical dimensions, not MP count.  ... better high ISO performance.

Again the sensor is used as the only criterion. And if that be, the 6D is better than the 1DX ... on paper. What happens when the look at the whole camera, as a unit?

When you do so, you discover that the 6D has significantly better image quality in all circumstances than any APS-C camera, and dramatically better image quality (and focussing performance) in low light situations. It's not designed as a speed demon, but, aside from that, it stomps all over all the APS-C cameras. Only the 5DIII and 1DX are better.

Quote
... it's the ability of that physically larger sensor to collect more total light than an APS-C sensor that leads to the better high ISO performance.

Wrong. It's the larger photo-sites of the sensor. If you should make an 8MP APS-C sensor using the same technology as that of the sensor in the 1DX/5D3/6D, then you'll get the same "better" high-ISO performance.

And, yet, you're worng. Couldn't be more wornger.

Pop quiz. Which gathers more light: a 1DX with a Canon 50mm f/1.0 L mounted to it, or the Hubble with its distinctively unimpressive f/24 aperture? (57.6m focal length / 2.4m aperture) Which is going to generate the images with the least noise? (For the sake of this discussion, assume the 1DX is strapped to the wrist of an astronaut servicing the Hubble -- just to get out of the way any pointless side discussions about atmospheric interference.)

Cheers,

b&

Sella174

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 793
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #83 on: April 21, 2013, 12:45:09 PM »
Pop quiz. Which gathers more light: a 1DX with a Canon 50mm f/1.0 L mounted to it, or the Hubble with its distinctively unimpressive f/24 aperture? (57.6m focal length / 2.4m aperture) Which is going to generate the images with the least noise?

You are comparing lenses, not cameras. A 50mm f/1.0 lens mounted on a 300D "gathers" the same amount of light as when it is mounted on a 1DX.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15227
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #84 on: April 21, 2013, 01:23:57 PM »
... it's the ability of that physically larger sensor to collect more total light than an APS-C sensor that leads to the better high ISO performance.

Wrong. It's the larger photo-sites of the sensor. If you should make an 8MP APS-C sensor using the same technology as that of the sensor in the 1DX/5D3/6D, then you'll get the same "better" high-ISO performance.

Buzzzz.  Wrong.  Thanks for playing, try again next time.  The 5DII and 50D are of a similar tech (and the 50D has the advantage of gapless microlenses) - but even if the 50D were only 8 MP, the 5DII would still blow it out of the water for ISO performance.

A 50mm f/1.0 lens mounted on a 300D "gathers" the same amount of light as when it is mounted on a 1DX.

Sure. Is the 300D's sensor exposed to the same amount of that light as the 1D X's sensor? 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #85 on: April 21, 2013, 01:25:08 PM »
Pop quiz. Which gathers more light: a 1DX with a Canon 50mm f/1.0 L mounted to it, or the Hubble with its distinctively unimpressive f/24 aperture? (57.6m focal length / 2.4m aperture) Which is going to generate the images with the least noise?

You are comparing lenses, not cameras. A 50mm f/1.0 lens mounted on a 300D "gathers" the same amount of light as when it is mounted on a 1DX.

The lens may well gather the exact same amount of light regardless of what, if anything, is attached to the rear mount.

But that's completely irrelevant when what actually is attached to the rear amount throws away half of the light that the lens gathers.

Or are you somehow under the mistraken impression that every APS-C camera has an invisible Metabones Speed Booster attached to it? You do know that the "crop" part of "crop sensor camera" means that the borders get cropped away and the light that the lens would have projected onto them gets absorbed by the black interior of the camera, don't you?

Cheers,

b&

kyamon

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #86 on: April 21, 2013, 03:51:28 PM »
It appears that this discussion is taking off into a somewhat different direction than the OP had intended... But talking about noise performance on different (size) sensors is also interesting, even if a bit off-topic.
Now, I am not an expert in any of this, but reading the last few posts makes quite obvious that few, if any, of the last posters are, either. Just a few points/thoughts:

First: an APS-C sensor is smaller than a FF sensor, and thus a lower amount of light hits the total sensor surface. However, the framing is also different, and the image from the APS-C sensor has exactly the same size on the FF sensor because that is defined by the lens, not the sensor. Consequently, the amount of light per unit surface is the same on both sensors, and the noise performance can not depend on the sensor size.

Second: Noise comes from the physical, chemical, and electrical properties of the sensor - or of each individual pixel, to be more specific. A photon hitting a section in the CMOS-chip promotes an electron to the conduction band, thus leading to a measurable current. Occasionally some other effect leads to current, producing dark counts. The current that is collected from the chip needs to be amplified, and the degree of amplification is set (in a camera) by the ISO speed. The amount of dark counts remains the same, but if pictures are taken in low light then the ratio between dark counts and "real counts" gets worse. Since the amplification process does not distinguish between the two types of currents, high ISO leads to more noise. The number of dark counts can either be constant for any single pixel, or a constant of the surface. I personally don't know which one it is, but they lead to different results if we then compare different sensors.

If we have a constant number of dark counts per pixel, then obviously we get lower noise in low-MP sensors of a given size) since there the amount of photons hitting each pixel is larger (as the pixels are larger), and the ratio of good/bad electrons is better. In the extreme case of one single pixel we would have the lowest absolute rate of dark counts, and thus the highest IQ (OK, the term "image" becomes questionable here...)...
On the other hand, if the rate of dark counts is a function of the total surface (and does not depend on the number of "cuts", or pixels, we make into that surface), then the number of MP will not matter. We then get lower dark count rates per pixel for higher MP, but the summed rate is still the same.

As far as I understood it so far, the fact that in general FF cameras have lower noise is mainly due to the fact that the sensors are the most recent types that have been developed. I have no experience with most models that are out there, but I would think that newer crop sensors will give lower noise than older FF sensors - simply because they are newer. Any attempt to quantify high-ISO performance simply on size and MP-count alone don't work because no two sensors of different size are the same otherwise.

I am open to hearing that all I have just written is nonsense... But what I would really like to hear is what a real expert has to say. Someone who builds the sensors, or who does research in that field...

Nathaniel Weir

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
    • Nathaniel Weir Photography
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #87 on: April 21, 2013, 03:59:50 PM »
Real photographers don't waste time on non photography related forum topics like this. Why don't you get out of the house and start honing your craft instead of talking about what really in the simplest sense is nothing that will help you take better pictures...
Canon EOS 5D Mark III w/ grip, Canon EOS 7D with grip, Canon 17-40mm, Canon 24-105mm, Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM II, Canon 100mm Macro L IS, Canon 40mm Pancake, Canon 85mm F/1.8, 2x 600 EX-RT Flashes and St-E3-RT. Gitzo 2452L and Manfrotto 410 head.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #87 on: April 21, 2013, 03:59:50 PM »

kyamon

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #88 on: April 21, 2013, 04:05:41 PM »
Real photographers don't waste time on non photography related forum topics like this. Why don't you get out of the house and start honing your craft instead of talking about what really in the simplest sense is nothing that will help you take better pictures...

Agreed. But I think there is nothing wrong in trying to understand the gear you are using.

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #89 on: April 21, 2013, 04:57:58 PM »
First: an APS-C sensor is smaller than a FF sensor, and thus a lower amount of light hits the total sensor surface. However, the framing is also different, and the image from the APS-C sensor has exactly the same size on the FF sensor because that is defined by the lens, not the sensor. Consequently, the amount of light per unit surface is the same on both sensors, and the noise performance can not depend on the sensor size.

BZZZZZT!

Worng.

The framing is the same only if you multiply the focal length by the ratio of the diagonals of the two lenses.

And the amount of light collected by the sensors is only the same if you perform a similar modification of the apertures.

To make the math simpler, let's start with a 100mm f/2 lens mounted to a 135 format ("full frame") camera. And we'll try to figure out what we need to get an equivalent image with a 4/3 camera, which has close enough to a 2x "crop factor" as makes no difference.

If you just mount the 100mm lens to the 4/3 camera, you'll only get the inner quarter of the image that you would have gotten on the 135 camera. On the 135 camera, you can get the exact same image by cropping out all but the inner quarter.

To match the field of view, we need to use a lens of half the focal length -- a 50mm lens. But what aperture?

The 100mm f/2 lens has a 100 / 2 = 50mm aperture. All the light headed to the lens that falls within that 50mm diameter circle makes its way to the sensor. To gather the same amount of light, we need a 50mm lens with a 50mm aperture. That means that our 4/3 camera needs a (50 / 50 = 1) 50mm f/1 lens to gather as much light as a 135 format camera with a 100mm f/2 lens. In both cases, both cameras are capturing all the light that falls onto a 50mm circle.

Because this is all simple geometry, it so happens that the depth of field, background blur, and the rest are also comparable.

But...even if everything else is equal, the larger format still retains a number of advantages, mostly because the image on the sensor doesn't need to be magnified as many times in absolute terms to print size. Imagine making a contact print with 8" x 10" film and comparing it with an 8" x 10" enlargement even from 4" x 5" film to understand why.

Cheers,

b&

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?
« Reply #89 on: April 21, 2013, 04:57:58 PM »