5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]

[K-amps]

Who is this "guy" you keep referring to Lens?

eosfun

No such member on CR...   

[pedro]

why only 51200 ISO while 1DX has 204800? i can't believe their sensosr has 2 steps difference in sensivity.

Why not. ISO limits are set by firmware. Photosamples are jpeg's, which implies Dual Digic magic fairy dust... As long as the RAW noise levels are on par, we should be ecstatic!   

Then I wasn't that wrong with my guess.

So, given this fact there are some additional technical questions:

Can a sensor get hacked then to yield more ISO range?
Let's say if Canon implements a derivate of the 1Dx sensor into the new whatever 5D (as posted at NL today) and lock it to 51200?
The other question:
Are sensors "programmed" to a certain ISO range or are they kind of "neutral"?

Thanks for helping a non-tech.[/list]

Pedro let me try :

A) Don't know about sensors being hacked; but certainly the system can be "hacked" for example, I have an older Rebel XT with a nominal max ISO setting of 1600. There are hacks out there that let you set it at 3200. These hacks do not compensate for added noise nor do they increase the NR or Sensor performance, but allow you to shoot at 3200 (which results in more noise), but is possible.

B) Yes; they can lock allowable ISO settings at any lower level they want. There could be an upper limit to which the analog amplifiers will saturate, but I suspect the image will be very useless before the chip op-amps saturate i.e. the image is overrun with distortion + Noise. Manufacturers do this to differentiate products routinely.

B2) Sensors have the ability to collect light / photons. They collect Chroma based on the Bayer sensor, they are as neutral as the Bayer filter allows. On the other hand, since light is collected over time, the system can use a smaller "time slot" (high ISO) and lock the signal, amplify it based on the small sample of data it has collected. The higher the ISO, the smaller the sample of data collected that can be reconstructed as an image. Digital noise and artifacts are by-products of this reconstruction.

If you look at the sensor Die, there is a lot of surface area taken up by electronics not just photo diodes (light collectors) . The extra electronics reduces the efficiency of collection of light. Since the ratio of surfaces of the photodiodes to "extra electronics" goes up with sensor size, so does it's ability to collect more light cleanly. Hence larger sensors have lesser noise.

Sony has just patented such a sensor design, it purports a 20% increased surface area for the actual photo diodes. Seems very promising, but yet to be tested in real life.

Hope this helps.

k-amps: yes it did. getting a better idea now! thx.

[Boyer U. Klum-Cey]

5D whatever wise... I'd put my five cents on one of the Vegas events. And if not, let's book at the hilton and attend the Elvis Presley show, or let's stroll over to the Sand's and see Sinatra do come fly with me... To see them perform again is almost more likely than a new Canon body before Photokina 

Well said, laddie.  That's the spirit!

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Who is this "guy" you keep referring to Lens?

eosfun

No such member on CR...   

I don't know if he posts here, if he does, he posts under something else. He is in the FM forums though.

[kenraw]

The rumor sounds pretty credible to me. Canon always want to keep up with Nikon and vice versa and I can't imagine they would give the megapixel crown to Nikon after having it for so long (D3x excluded on price

That 45 megapixel though - if you divide by 1.6^2 you get 17.57MP which is a tad less than 18MP which is what you get on the 7D. Thus the pixel density would be very similar to the 7D - just a bit under. I actually dislike the 7D image quality with a passion as I bought one and shot with plenty of L glass and the noise is horrible even at base ISO100 compared to my 5DMarkII. Other people like the 7D and if you're one of them then I'm happy for you. For me though I'm not touching a camera with that kind of pixel density with a 40-foot pole. If I ever want 40MP I'll buy a Pentax 645D and give those megapixels the space they really need. I don't want to spend my days in Lightroom and Photoshop adjusting the noise reduction sliders (landscape) or using blur tools to soften bokeh areas (portrait).

That 5DMarkIII - wow that is right up my alley! I so so hope it is spec'ed like that and be the cheaper of the two.
 
61 points AF! I hope they have X-type sensors left and right and they are spread out! please! 5D2 has 9 AF points but I can only rely on one of them - the centre. So it's not the sheer # of AF points - it's the usable ones that count. Give me a grid of say 19 x-type sensors (like the 7D) spread out and I'll be very very happy.

The 6.9 FPS. Wow that will blow me away after being used to 3.9. Sports pros would scoff with their 1Dx's but it's a huge improvement for me.

22MP - ooh yeah I think 18-24MP range is the sweetest range for pixel density in full frame cameras.

I'd happily buy the 1Dx except I don't want to have to lug that portrait grip on my big overnight hikes, so essentially I'm after something smaller and just as rugged.

Things that are missing from this spec sheet is WEATHER SEALING.   I'd be p1ssed if the 5Dx gets all the shoot-all-day-in-the-rain weather sealing and the 5DIII doesn't. I hope Canon seal them both right up. I'd happily pay and extra $500 or more for decent weather sealing!

Im with you on this one, if they used a FF sensor with 45mp giving the same pixel density as the 7D it's a disatster waiting to happen if the resulting IQ suffers anything like the 7D's does.

It will be fine for those who like to brag about mp or use a tripod but for handheld events etc it will be shite!

[scokar]

...Honestly I don't see how they could be THAT out of touch, they have to know that D700 successor would solve the missing MP and video issues and that they can't just sit around and give us some minor little increment.
...

Canon has a history of not producing cameras that will 'eat their lunch'. they let others do that because, so far and until recently,  others have only been nibbling.

Which makes it a company culture almost.

...Hopefully there really is not some deeper reason behind the President of Canon just having resigned...

Canon is not a camera company.  don't anyone forget.   they are a flipping huge conglomerate with many markets to satisfy and a whole lot of internal politics as well.

[Chuck Alaimo]

why shoot sRaw? just shoot raw and downsize.. I never understood shooting at a quality less then your camera could provide..

Images would take up more space on memory cards, resulting in more memory card changes during a shoot. Images would take more time to download, then time spent downsampling and converting to a new file and erasing the original. Time is money...

Raw versus sRaw - This goes beyond just memory cards.  How many harddrives can you afford if only shooting full sized Raw?

SRaw is fine for many purposes.  I mean really, how many weddings or portrait shoots result in people wanting larger than a 20x30 print?  Generally for non-art shoots, I go with sRaw on my 7D - and sometimes when i do shoot art i forget to switch back to full size RAW.  I've done 20x30 prints from sRaw files, and they look pretty damn good!


http://chuckalaimo.com/

[thepancakeman]

why shoot sRaw? just shoot raw and downsize.. I never understood shooting at a quality less then your camera could provide..

Images would take up more space on memory cards, resulting in more memory card changes during a shoot. Images would take more time to download, then time spent downsampling and converting to a new file and erasing the original. Time is money...

Raw versus sRaw - This goes beyond just memory cards.  How many harddrives can you afford if only shooting full sized Raw?

SRaw is fine for many purposes.  I mean really, how many weddings or portrait shoots result in people wanting larger than a 20x30 print?  Generally for non-art shoots, I go with sRaw on my 7D - and sometimes when i do shoot art i forget to switch back to full size RAW.  I've done 20x30 prints from sRaw files, and they look pretty damn good!


http://chuckalaimo.com/

I suspect that I take/keep as many pictures as most, and with the RAW file from a 7D, a $100 3TB drive that stores roughly 167,000 images will last me for awhile.  And the $100 is pretty insignificant in terms of photography expenses.

[Woody]

Is anyone else getting somewhat worried that one guy who has seen and held the new 5D3 keeps saying stuff like: "The marketing mistakes Canon makes repeatedly lately is an understimation of the pace of innovation needed to keep a strong position in the market. The 5D mk II successor, still not announced, will be a disappointment to many."

 

EOSFun thinks the future lies in integration of various electronic devices, hence, the lack of such integration is a disappointment to him. He also hopes to see a breakthrough product from Canon but a 20 to 45 MP, 6 to 8 fps, 19 to 61 AF pt FF camera is not considered one. Does not matter if that is what the masses want. Does not matter whether the camera sells by boatloads or not.

Looking at the number of DSLRs sold by Nikon and Canon in 2011 despite the onslaught of competition, I must say their marketing departments clearly know what they are doing.

[Orangutan]

Canon has a history of not producing cameras that will 'eat their lunch'...Which makes it a company culture almost.

<snip>

Canon is not a camera company.  don't anyone forget.   they are a flipping huge conglomerate with many markets to satisfy and a whole lot of internal politics as well.

A company in the lead will not, in almost any circumstance, put their best tech on the market until the competition forces them to do so.  Let's say we're on Generation N technology now; if Canon jumps straight to Generation (N+3) for its next pro camera, there are two problems:

1. They miss out on the opportunity to sell Generations (N+1) and (N+2), and lose the profits therefrom.
2. They lose their R&D incremental investments in those intermediate generations (yes, some of that goes into later generations, but some does not)


In other words, Canon will not sell sensors with 15-stop DR in their SLR's until someone else starts selling a lot of sensors with 14.8 stops of DR.  Just ain't gonna happen.  It's a business, nothing else.  This is why we should all be cheering the D4 and D800: it will force Canon's hand.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon has a history of not producing cameras that will 'eat their lunch'. they let others do that because, so far and until recently,  others have only been nibbling.

Which makes it a company culture almost.

That can eventually prove dangerous for a company though, seen that many times before.

...Hopefully there really is not some deeper reason behind the President of Canon just having resigned...

Canon is not a camera company.  don't anyone forget.   they are a flipping huge conglomerate with many markets to satisfy and a whole lot of internal politics as well.

Yeah I know, it's only a VERRRRRRRRRY small chance that it had anything to do with this at all.

[Chuck Alaimo]

Quote from: Chuck Alaimo on Today at 07:17:51 AM
Quote
why shoot sRaw? just shoot raw and downsize.. I never understood shooting at a quality less then your camera could provide..

Images would take up more space on memory cards, resulting in more memory card changes during a shoot. Images would take more time to download, then time spent downsampling and converting to a new file and erasing the original. Time is money...


Raw versus sRaw - This goes beyond just memory cards.  How many harddrives can you afford if only shooting full sized Raw?

SRaw is fine for many purposes.  I mean really, how many weddings or portrait shoots result in people wanting larger than a 20x30 print?  Generally for non-art shoots, I go with sRaw on my 7D - and sometimes when i do shoot art i forget to switch back to full size RAW.  I've done 20x30 prints from sRaw files, and they look pretty damn good


I suspect that I take/keep as many pictures as most, and with the RAW file from a 7D, a $100 3TB drive that stores roughly 167,000 images will last me for awhile.  And the $100 is pretty insignificant in terms of photography expenses.

Just cause you can do a thing doesn't mean you have to or should!  I personally like the sRAW option.  I use it quite a bit.  Plus, combined cost.  I currently have one 16 gig, and two 8 gig CF cards - they ain't cheap (CF cards can be more pricey than a harddrive!)  at sRAW, you can fit triple the amount of shots per card.  Add in the extra storage cost to shoot everything in full RAW, sorry its just too much!  Again, how many people are buying giant sized prints (40x60 and up) from things like events and weddings?  sRAW is fine for prints 20x30 and lower...just saying...

[marekjoz]

Quote from: Chuck Alaimo on Today at 07:17:51 AM
Quote
why shoot sRaw? just shoot raw and downsize.. I never understood shooting at a quality less then your camera could provide..

Images would take up more space on memory cards, resulting in more memory card changes during a shoot. Images would take more time to download, then time spent downsampling and converting to a new file and erasing the original. Time is money...


Raw versus sRaw - This goes beyond just memory cards.  How many harddrives can you afford if only shooting full sized Raw?

SRaw is fine for many purposes.  I mean really, how many weddings or portrait shoots result in people wanting larger than a 20x30 print?  Generally for non-art shoots, I go with sRaw on my 7D - and sometimes when i do shoot art i forget to switch back to full size RAW.  I've done 20x30 prints from sRaw files, and they look pretty damn good


I suspect that I take/keep as many pictures as most, and with the RAW file from a 7D, a $100 3TB drive that stores roughly 167,000 images will last me for awhile.  And the $100 is pretty insignificant in terms of photography expenses.

Just cause you can do a thing doesn't mean you have to or should!  I personally like the sRAW option.  I use it quite a bit.  Plus, combined cost.  I currently have one 16 gig, and two 8 gig CF cards - they ain't cheap (CF cards can be more pricey than a harddrive!)  at sRAW, you can fit triple the amount of shots per card.  Add in the extra storage cost to shoot everything in full RAW, sorry its just too much!  Again, how many people are buying giant sized prints (40x60 and up) from things like events and weddings?  sRAW is fine for prints 20x30 and lower...just saying...

Image manipulation in postproduction costs quality. The more pixels the better final result. Smaller images maipulated in postproduction may lead to loosing details. Picture manipulation algorithms don't work on separate pixels only but rather also consider it's surrounding.

[Axilrod]

So if this were the case, they would be releasing 2 new 5D's AND the Cinema DSLR?  And supposedly the 7DII and more all in the same year?  It sounds like this "tip" was sent by someone that wasn't happy with the supposed 22MP 5DIII specs and is desperately trying to manifest the camera of his dreams. 

It doesn't make sense to cannibalize the Cinema DSLR sales with a 5DX

[adamfilip]

SRaw is fine for many purposes.  I mean really, how many weddings or portrait shoots result in people wanting larger than a 20x30 print?  Generally for non-art shoots, I go with sRaw on my 7D - and sometimes when i do shoot art i forget to switch back to full size RAW.  I've done 20x30 prints from sRaw files, and they look pretty damn good!

Not many will want a 20x30 but if you shoot sRAW and someone does want it.. or even larger.. you would wish that you had indeed shot RAW instead.. why limit yourself.. storage is cheap. and you only get 1 chance to get it right.