An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild

[sjprg]

12K would really push me, BUT, I would probably buy. 10K would be more what I would like.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3   of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3   of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)

DRip DRop DRip DRop waiting for the DRivel to stop.   

Canon's real competition in the dSLR market, i.e., other dSLRs, have had better DR for years.  Canon sold more dSLRs than any of their competitors for those same years.  An easy conclusion for Canon to draw is that improving DR isn't a wise investment of R&D resources.  Seems they prioritized on-CMOS AF...

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3   of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)

DRip DRop DRip DRop waiting for the DRivel to stop.   

It'll stop when either everyone who cares finally gives up and gives in and switches brands or Canon finally decides to care about DR again. I'm glad for all the DRip DRip. And I bet that if they ever do, all the ones tossing around DRip DRIp terms will be the first ones to flood the forums bashing Nikon for being a joke for not quite matching current Canon DR, just watch. The old if Canon has it it's IMPORTANT and if they don't it's insignificant drivel.

Canon's real competition in the dSLR market, i.e., other dSLRs, have had better DR for years.  Canon sold more dSLRs than any of their competitors for those same years.  An easy conclusion for Canon to draw is that improving DR isn't a wise investment of R&D resources.  Seems they prioritized on-CMOS AF...

I hope not, but some signs do point that way. I really don't know that I want to have to hope for a 5D5, we'd be talking years and years of not getting to use state of the art DR and who knows if they'd even feel the need by the 5D5? Otherwise I like Canon more, but....

The dual-pixel AF is cool no doubt and something they deserve plenty of credit for, but all the same they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality. They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.

[Sporgon]

They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.

Maybe not when using the DXo scores, in practice I've found the 5Dmkii to be significantly better than mki, the 6D better than the mkii and so on; the DXo scores are similar. Maybe some of this is to do with the more gradual clipping to high and low lights, I'm not sure, but they have definitely been getting better.

[neuroanatomist]

... they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality.

Sorry, but why do they 'need' to do that?  Besides the fact that you and some others want them to, I mean...     There's a small minority of people who DRone on about this issue, but a small minority carries little weight in terms of impacting R&D priorities.

It's interesting how people say Canon is 'sleeping' and 'not innovative', but when they come out with a technology that represents a profound improvement for AF, those same people dismiss it...because it's not the innovation they wanted.  News flash: Canon sells cameras designed for the mass market, not designed for a small minority. The fact that they have been and remain the market leader says they've been making the right design decisions for that mass market.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

... they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality.

Sorry, but why do they 'need' to do that?  Besides the fact that you and some others want them to, I mean...     There's a small minority of people who DRone on about this issue, but a small minority carries little weight in terms of impacting R&D priorities.

It's interesting how people say Canon is 'sleeping' and 'not innovative', but when they come out with a technology that represents a profound improvement for AF, those same people dismiss it...because it's not the innovation they wanted.  News flash: Canon sells cameras designed for the mass market, not designed for a small minority. The fact that they have been and remain the market leader says they've been making the right design decisions for that mass market.

I did say the dual-pixel AF was innovative. That is pretty cool.

But that still doesn't answer the fact that their low ISO quality has not improved one bit, actually a trace worse, for well over half a decade going more towards a decade now. Isn't it about time low ISO IQ got a look at again? Canon kept going on in their PDF about how they always are looking to find way to let people be able to shoot in more conditions. So that also means they should be looking into improving DR at low ISO.

I don't think the DR people are such a tiny minority as you think either. One could also say it's easy for those who don't care about DR to just toss it off a silly thing only a few extreme users care about. I see a lot more talking about that than the poor video AF actually if you want to go by forum polling.

The 5D3 getting top AF in it was awesome, but that wasn't innovative that was just a marketing change matching what Nikon was doing for quite a while already. One should also note that it was something people droned on endless in the forums. It seems that is what it takes for them to take notice. Had we not drone on about that maybe the 5D3 would be 7D AF AND the old sensor. I bet you would've loved that even more right? And don't forget it takes a LOT of time to get new tech going for sensors so if people wait until they have truly had it with the DR then it's wayyyy too late and you'd be waiting years beyond that still.

The RAW video in the 5D3 is a revolution and quite rather astonishing, although we'd have never ever seen it had Canon been the only ones at work. They credit for making the HW in the camera being to do it though and not blocking Magic Lantern.

If you want me to ping Nikon. Well they pretty much muddled up liveview and didn't do anything all that impressive for video on their recent cameras. 5D3 pulls those off with help of ML infinitely better than any recent (or older) Nikon and even without ML 5D3 pulls those off better.

Since I also have a video shooter side in me too though, now that we have ML RAW and video extras, the 5D3 finally is a pretty revolutionary DSLR IMO though, every bit as much as the D800, just in very different ways. For stills, it's a really fantastic body, top notch with lots of abilities and superb UI, saddled with a sensor that is somewhat regularly frustrating for low ISO shooting in this day and age (although pretty pleasing for high iso if not quite state of the art as D4,1DX,6D; it is a bit surprising they held back the high ISO tech and re-used older stuff for the 5D3 when they put it all in the 6D so relatively soon after).

[LetTheRightLensIn]

They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.

Maybe not when using the DXo scores, in practice I've found the 5Dmkii to be significantly better than mki, the 6D better than the mkii and so on; the DXo scores are similar. Maybe some of this is to do with the more gradual clipping to high and low lights, I'm not sure, but they have definitely been getting better.

Well actually they do not all measure the same on DxO. The 5D measures a full stop worse at ISO100. And the 6D measures a little bit better at ISO100 than the 5D2 plus it has less pattern noise in deep shadows so it feels more manipulable real world and it does have a bit better DR than the 5D3 no doubt, but none of them are any better or even as good, other than the 6D, which is merely as good, as the old 1Ds3 from years back and that one isn't even close to any of the best cameras for ISO100 DR on the market for the last number of years, even some P&S, and not talking big ones likes Sony R1 but little pocket things, have better DR scores at their lowest ISO these days. All these cameras have linear capture. Canon DR slowly got slightly worse after the 1Ds3 and now has gotten back to that old level again. Other cameras have gotten 2-3+ stops better while all Canon did is manage to crawl BACK UP to where they had been back then to begin with (although they do manage it now in a camera vastly less expensive than the 1Ds3 at least).

(Not that it was the topic, but at high ISO they did improve DR some. 5D3 is somewhat better than the 5D2 and the 1DX and 6D are definitely better still, quite solidly better than all the older Canon models, and at the very top with cams like D4.)

Anyway I've said enough on DR in this thread. Back to the high MP talk? Bayer 75MP for great detail and reach and superb oversampling? 3-layer 25MP for full color per pixel? If the latter can it pull it off without compromising DR (since those types of designs in the past have tended to struggle a bit with SNR and real lot with DR from what I hear)?

[photonius]

Maybe the fact that even some of the latest, mini-pocket P&S actually have better DR than ANY Canon DSLR will embarrass Canon into finally fixing up low ISO DR for the 2014 models?? (I'm not kidding, the P&S in my pocket right now tested to have nearing a stop better lowest ISO DR than my 5D3   of course yeah they have MUCH worse SNR and poor UI and poor AF and not much lens selection etc. but.... for Canon flagship DSLRs to fall behind little pocket cameras for maximum DR....)

DRip DRop DRip DRop waiting for the DRivel to stop.   

It'll stop when either everyone who cares finally gives up and gives in and switches brands or Canon finally decides to care about DR again. I'm glad for all the DRip DRip. And I bet that if they ever do, all the ones tossing around DRip DRIp terms will be the first ones to flood the forums bashing Nikon for being a joke for not quite matching current Canon DR, just watch. The old if Canon has it it's IMPORTANT and if they don't it's insignificant drivel.

Canon's real competition in the dSLR market, i.e., other dSLRs, have had better DR for years.  Canon sold more dSLRs than any of their competitors for those same years.  An easy conclusion for Canon to draw is that improving DR isn't a wise investment of R&D resources.  Seems they prioritized on-CMOS AF...

I hope not, but some signs do point that way. I really don't know that I want to have to hope for a 5D5, we'd be talking years and years of not getting to use state of the art DR and who knows if they'd even feel the need by the 5D5? Otherwise I like Canon more, but....

The dual-pixel AF is cool no doubt and something they deserve plenty of credit for, but all the same they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality. They haven't improved DR for years while everyone else has improved it by many stops and they've slowly made the CFA more and more color blind under daylight conditions over the years.

In case you haven't noticed, the dual pixel technology, smartly combined with the dual exposure trick that Magic Lantern uncovered, will allow dramatic improvement of DR. I presume Canon is working on it, but probably - like the on-sensor AF- it takes some time to get the technology right.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In case you haven't noticed, the dual pixel technology, smartly combined with the dual exposure trick that Magic Lantern uncovered, will allow dramatic improvement of DR. I presume Canon is working on it, but probably - like the on-sensor AF- it takes some time to get the technology right.

We will see. Not sure and you do cut down the sensor light collecting area by half and so on. Maybe they CAN get something out if for more DR, not sure. They haven't seemed to peep about DR at all though and you'd think they;d be bragging if it was workable.

[jrista]

... they realllly need the next round of major cams to way improve the low iso image quality.

Sorry, but why do they 'need' to do that?  Besides the fact that you and some others want them to, I mean...     There's a small minority of people who DRone on about this issue, but a small minority carries little weight in terms of impacting R&D priorities.

It's interesting how people say Canon is 'sleeping' and 'not innovative', but when they come out with a technology that represents a profound improvement for AF, those same people dismiss it...because it's not the innovation they wanted.  News flash: Canon sells cameras designed for the mass market, not designed for a small minority. The fact that they have been and remain the market leader says they've been making the right design decisions for that mass market.

I did say the dual-pixel AF was innovative. That is pretty cool.

But that still doesn't answer the fact that their low ISO quality has not improved one bit, actually a trace worse, for well over half a decade going more towards a decade now. Isn't it about time low ISO IQ got a look at again? Canon kept going on in their PDF about how they always are looking to find way to let people be able to shoot in more conditions. So that also means they should be looking into improving DR at low ISO.

I don't think the DR people are such a tiny minority as you think either. One could also say it's easy for those who don't care about DR to just toss it off a silly thing only a few extreme users care about. I see a lot more talking about that than the poor video AF actually if you want to go by forum polling.

The 5D3 getting top AF in it was awesome, but that wasn't innovative that was just a marketing change matching what Nikon was doing for quite a while already. One should also note that it was something people droned on endless in the forums. It seems that is what it takes for them to take notice. Had we not drone on about that maybe the 5D3 would be 7D AF AND the old sensor. I bet you would've loved that even more right? And don't forget it takes a LOT of time to get new tech going for sensors so if people wait until they have truly had it with the DR then it's wayyyy too late and you'd be waiting years beyond that still.

The RAW video in the 5D3 is a revolution and quite rather astonishing, although we'd have never ever seen it had Canon been the only ones at work. They credit for making the HW in the camera being to do it though and not blocking Magic Lantern.

If you want me to ping Nikon. Well they pretty much muddled up liveview and didn't do anything all that impressive for video on their recent cameras. 5D3 pulls those off with help of ML infinitely better than any recent (or older) Nikon and even without ML 5D3 pulls those off better.

Since I also have a video shooter side in me too though, now that we have ML RAW and video extras, the 5D3 finally is a pretty revolutionary DSLR IMO though, every bit as much as the D800, just in very different ways. For stills, it's a really fantastic body, top notch with lots of abilities and superb UI, saddled with a sensor that is somewhat regularly frustrating for low ISO shooting in this day and age (although pretty pleasing for high iso if not quite state of the art as D4,1DX,6D; it is a bit surprising they held back the high ISO tech and re-used older stuff for the 5D3 when they put it all in the 6D so relatively soon after).

I think Canon probably will improve DR. It is a tough thing to really scale peoples immediate wants to actual camera releases. Before the rash of new high end camera releases a year or two ago, the thing I remember people complaining about MOST in the Canon camp was "fewer megapixels, better high ISO". It was the thing I droned on about, it was the thing most of the people I knew droned on about, and it was the thing people droned on about in their blogs, review sites, etc. Everyone complained that more megapixels was dead, and we needed better high ISO. That was between the 1Ds III/5D II generation and the 1D X/5D III/D800 generation.

It really wasn't until Sony and Nikon dropped an Exmor into the D800 that a different segment of the Canon camp started DRoning on about DR.   When you boil it all down, the complaints of each era make sense. Canon claimed the megapixel crown on their high end cameras (the ones that generally take four years to replace anyway), and over the next four years, people saw interim Nikon cameras improve their high ISO performance. I think we saw a realistic shift from ISO 1600 being artistically usable to ISO 3200 and even 6400 being artistically usable, with ISO 12800 being the top native setting on Nikon cameras. That was occurring on LOWER megapixel Nikon cameras, at that. So, what did the Canon camp ask for? Pretty much the same thing...and, Canon delivered! We got the 1D X, with usable ISO 6400 and 12800, with a maximum native 51200 which blew everything else out of the water. We got the 5D III with native ISO up to 25600, and only a smidge more MP. That was what people asked for.

Today, the gap between camps is that Nikon now has both megapixels and DR at low ISO. Makes total sense thats the thing that people want now. I suspect it is an entirely different group complaining about low ISO DR than those who complained about too many megapixels and the need for better high ISO during the last generation. I do think Canon listens to their customers, and if the DRoning about DR DRivel is loud enough to be heard by Canon, I think they will probably deliver. I honestly can't say when...its only been about two years since the last high end camera releases...seems a bit soon for more. I can't say what we might see with the 7D II, but I kind of suspect it won't offer amazing low DR performance...it just doesn't seem to fit the model. If Canon does hear the low ISO DR message, then I suspect the camera it would make the most sense for is the rumored big megapixel monster. We did hear about Canon experimenting with active cooling technologies...and if it is applied to the image processing chips, it might indeed help with downstream noise contributors (although I kind of doubt it will improve low ISO DR by another 2 stops like everyone is hoping.) With recent rumors about a 75mp layered sensor, I guess there is really a split potential for improved DR in the next high end camera. It could be 50/50 between a layered (foveonesque) sensor or something that improves DR by a stop or so.

The only thing I really know for sure is...whatever Canon releases....someone will find something else to complain about. I think its human nature to complain about whatever it is you don't have and the other guy does. 

[rumorzmonger]

More pixels would be nice, but more dynamic range would be much more appreciated.  I just hope if they do have something good in the works, they at least announce it before my CPS membership expires...

[Dave Sucsy]

If the image quality is noticeably better than what my D800 gives me, I’ll get one.  In my business I need higher image quality than is now available in 35mm format, but medium format equipment is not cost-effective for me. So if Canon takes my needs seriously, I'll buy their system.

Also, by the way, any 1 series system MUST have integrated GPS. If a $100 point and shoot can have it, surely a 1 series camera should have it. It is ridiculous to have to monkey around with add-on devices just to get accurate geotagging for an efficient productive workflow. Same goes for automatically setting the camera clock. In this day and age it is utter foolishness to have to always be worrying about setting your camera clock every time you get off a plane or drive across a time zone. Please Canon, treat your customers seriously and with respect.

Same goes for integrated WiFi and a built-in popup flash. It is absurd to have to add a flash just to get a little fill flash or photo-trigger from time to time. At least Nikon is gracious enough to supply that.

[neuroanatomist]

It is absurd to have to add a flash just to get a little fill flash or photo-trigger from time to time. At least Nikon is gracious enough to supply that.

I use a TS-E 24L II.  The graciously-provided popup flash on the D800 interferes with full rotation of the PC-E 24mm.  Granted, that's not going to be an issue for too many people, but personally, it would annoy me.

yes but  Nikon  have also high iso and DR + megapixel

But is that helping them sell more dSLRs than Canon?   

Funny story about the more MPs - I was out shooting yesterday with a couple of Nikon shooters.  One was looking to upgrade her main wedding camera, and she said she called NPS and the recommended getting the D600 and not the D800 for shooting weddings.  When even Nikon recommends not getting the D800....  The other Nikon shooter recommended picking up a used D700 instead of the D800. 

[neuroanatomist]

It is absurd to have to add a flash just to get a little fill flash or photo-trigger from time to time. At least Nikon is gracious enough to supply that.

I use a TS-E 24L II.  The graciously-provided popup flash on the D800 interferes with full rotation of the PC-E 24mm.  Granted, that's not going to be an issue for too many people, but personally, it would annoy me.

yes but  Nikon  have also high iso and DR + megapixel

But is that helping them sell more dSLRs than Canon?   

Funny story about the more MPs - I was out shooting yesterday with a couple of Nikon shooters.  One was looking to upgrade her main wedding camera, and she said she called NPS and the recommended getting the D600 and not the D800 for shooting weddings.  When even Nikon recommends not getting the D800....  The other Nikon shooter recommended picking up a used D700 instead of the D800.

spreading lays and myths-why?
 we can take the cars examples  again, Toyota are the best  selling  cars company, I do not drive Toyota and several with me who wants a better car

Ahh, so when I say that Canon dSLRs outsell Nikon dSLRs, or that Toyota outsells whatever car you drive, which is that - a lie or a myth?  As usual, you have difficulty distinguishing lies and myths from facts.

So answer my question - has Nikon's better DR in their sensors helped them outsell Canon in the dSLR market? 

Cars again? Ok. If I put an engine with more horsepower, more torque, and better fuel efficiency than the engine in your car into a Toyota Camry, would that make the Toyota a better car than yours?  If you answer no, your car is still better, then try for once to apply that logic to cameras. If you say yes, that would make the Toyota better than your car, at least you'll demonstrate some logical consistency, even if the logic itself is flawed.

But I bet your answer will be, "The D800 has better DR."  Now, where have I read that before?