Chuck Westfall & the 5D Mark III

[V8Beast]

It caught my attention too.  Is he saying that it could, for example, correct for some of the edge of image deficiencies of UWA lenses like the 17-40L?  It can't magically make images sharp edge-to-edge of course, but possibly reduce CA and other issues?

That's how I interpret it. In light of all the stink that's been made over the 5DIII's noise and DR, if this feature actually works, this is the kind of innovation people are accustomed to seeing from Canon.

Optically, my L lenses are damn near perfect, but I wouldn't mind less vignetting from my 24-105.

[jrista]

I have to say, I'm not overly impressed with Westfall's interview.

I found his response to the question about high ISO performance with RAW files more than a bit unsatisfying:
"These figures are not being disclosed, but of course they will be lower than the noise reduction achieved with in-camera JPEGs and EOS Movies."

It sounds like the camera has a great autofocus system and I know that's what most 5D II people wanted, but as a 7D owner hoping for improvements in sensor technology, his comments aren't giving me a lot of confidence.

I literally laughed out loud when I read "These figures are not being disclosed". Really?!? REALY!!!? He has got to be kidding us. For the life of me I cannot understand why canon would not want to disclose this. It's not like we're not going to find out in a few weeks anyways (I know, double negative). It just makes it seems like Canon his trying to hide something. If they are so proud of their improved jpeg performance, why not improved raw performance. It's the raw performance that the vast majority of 5d3 owners actually care about.

I'm a little baffled.

They are not trying to hide something. Results with RAW are entirely subjective and depend on the kind of post-processing applied, and how much effort you put into post processing. Given that the same RAW data was used to produce the JPEG's in the first place, there is really nothing to prevent a clever and hard working photographer from creating final output that is just as good as the in-camera JPEG. Its just that it could take a LOT of effort, and many photographers will be unwilling to expend the amount of energy necessary. As such, they can't publish any specific numbers, as results will vary from photographer to photographer.

Thats in contrast to the JPEGS. They know exactly what kind of processing they have put into them, and exactly what that processing can achieve. They also know that the results oscillate within a fairly narrow range. Only then can a company like Canon legitimately and safely (for their own sakes, to keep themselves from getting sued) claim any particular improvements.

We'll know soon enough what the low-level hardware is capable of from DXO. Around the same time we'll also know what we can expect in a more real-world context from DPR (i.e. without pushing the hardware to its absolute limits and expending a tremendous amount of time and energy in post to extract every last ounce from every last pixel). It may not improve by the full 2.5 stops we all want it to, but I believe it will improve adequately one way or another.

[Matthew Saville]

How Chuck Westfall is able to remain employed by Canon will always be a mystery to me.  What complete non-answers.

Just about all I could gain from this is, I noticed he used different words when comparing the 1DX and the 5D mk3 to the 1D mkIV.  From what it SOUNDS like, I'd say that both the 1DX AND the 5D mk3 are going to be better focusing than the 1D mkIV, but in some subtle, tech-jargon-obscured way, the 1D mkIV will retain an advantage over the 5D mk3?

Anybody care to venture additional guesses at how the 5D mk3 will AF compared to other flagship cameras?  I know there was a similarly subtle and almost-impossible-to-detect difference between the D700 and the D3's AF, and then the D3s etc.  But I also know that the D700 (and now the D800 it seems) have ALMOST EVERY BIT of both accuracy AND speed when it comes to AF.

If Canon has found some subtle way to "cripple" the flagship AF in the 5D mk3 so that it looks awesome and flagship-y on paper but actually starts to drop the ball in low light enough to make people want for the 1DX, well, I think that is an epic fail on Canon's part.  Although it would be in keeping with their long tradition of tactful product placement.

However personally I'm assuming the best; I bet the 5D mk3's AF will be 99.9% of the 1DX, and it will be the perfect camera for MANY types of photographers...

=Matt=

BTW, the whole thing regarding RAW noise is kinda silly.  In my opinion, Chuck is just embarrassed to state that Canon's own RAW processing options play second-fiddle (or third, or fourth?) to Adobe's powerful ACR, and other RAW converters that do a WAY better job at maintaining low light high ISO image detail while eliminating noise.

[awinphoto]

How Chuck Westfall is able to remain employed by Canon will always be a mystery to me.  What complete non-answers.

Just about all I could gain from this is, I noticed he used different words when comparing the 1DX and the 5D mk3 to the 1D mkIV.  From what it SOUNDS like, I'd say that both the 1DX AND the 5D mk3 are going to be better focusing than the 1D mkIV, but in some subtle, tech-jargon-obscured way, the 1D mkIV will retain an advantage over the 5D mk3?

Anybody care to venture additional guesses at how the 5D mk3 will AF compared to other flagship cameras?  I know there was a similarly subtle and almost-impossible-to-detect difference between the D700 and the D3's AF, and then the D3s etc.  But I also know that the D700 (and now the D800 it seems) have ALMOST EVERY BIT of both accuracy AND speed when it comes to AF.

If Canon has found some subtle way to "cripple" the flagship AF in the 5D mk3 so that it looks awesome and flagship-y on paper but actually starts to drop the ball in low light enough to make people want for the 1DX, well, I think that is an epic fail on Canon's part.  Although it would be in keeping with their long tradition of tactful product placement.

However personally I'm assuming the best; I bet the 5D mk3's AF will be 99.9% of the 1DX, and it will be the perfect camera for MANY types of photographers...

=Matt=

BTW, the whole thing regarding RAW noise is kinda silly.  In my opinion, Chuck is just embarrassed to state that Canon's own RAW processing options play second-fiddle (or third, or fourth?) to Adobe's powerful ACR, and other RAW converters that do a WAY better job at maintaining low light high ISO image detail while eliminating noise.

From what I gathered, he's saying the 5d3 and the 1dx uses better tracking mechanisms and al servo will have a newer generation II vs III, so both should be "better" than the 1d4, but the 1dx will be even better because it has the IFCL sensor, but the 5d3 should be better than the 1d4, although in the end the proof will be in the pudding in a few days/weeks. 

I personally was rubbed the wrong way with all his vague answers, but then again, he probably was given explicit instructions what to answer, what not to answer, and if he wants to keep his nice fat paycheck, he better abide by that, so i think it's more his handlers telling him "no comment" rather than him avoiding questions for the heck of it. 

[briansquibb]

If the AF is as good or better than the 1D4 then there wont be many upset people

[neuroanatomist]

There is an arrogance, if not actual contempt, shown for the customer in this interview. The answer about f/8 focusing borders on flippant.

"CW: This request has been conveyed for consideration."

I must have read another article because I didn't detect any "arrogance". The fact that they are listening to their consumers and considering f/8 is far better than him flat out saying no. You have to keep in mind that he has to be careful with what he says and promises because Canon customers would want his head if he went back on something he said, no matter what the reasons were.

I worked for a Big Corporation (about the size of Canon) for 30+ years, so allow me to translate for you what it means when a corporate mouthpiece says something like "This request has been conveyed for consideration":

"You're annoying the crap out of me, go away and die"

That's a little harsh, don't you think?  Big corporations have to listen to their customers, because the customer always comes first.

Oh, wait, my mistake.  The shareholder comes first.  As for customer suggestions, those are always handled appropriately:

[Seamus]

The digital lens optimizer does sound great, the AF sounds great... Hopefully in less than two weeks I'll know for sure.

[unfocused]

Seriously, I don't know if Westfall just isn't very good at corporate PR or if Canon isn't very good at it, but in either case, the approach seems to be quite behind the times in comparison to how smart companies handle their public relations.

People get jaded about corporate relations, but there are quite a few very smart and good examples out there of companies who understand the importance of candor and keeping their customer base informed with intelligent, reasonable explanations.

Reading this interview made me think that Westfall went into it unprepared and expecting to just coast with a few talking points about what he wanted to emphasize. Of course, you always want to get your points across, but being unable to answer some pretty softball questions is amateurish. He didn't do himself or his employer any favors in this interview.

[t.linn]

How Chuck Westfall is able to remain employed by Canon will always be a mystery to me.  What complete non-answers.

I realize I'm pi$$ing into the wind on this issue but I am amazed, not just at this particular comment, but at all the negativity directed at Chuck Westfall.  Is no one able to see beyond their own perspective to understand his?  Chuck works for Canon.  It is not his job to be a critic or to disclose proprietary plans or to answer every question that is asked.  He is not supposed to be an objective observer who sees all sides.  People may be frustrated with his lack of candor on certain performance parameters or Canon's future plans but he is always truthful—and you'll notice that he doesn't deny that issues exist.

To my knowledge, there is not another Chuck Westfall in this industry and we should be thankful that he works for Canon.  He is genuinely knowledgeable about the products, how they work, and issues that users have with them.  When he says Canon is aware of a situation and is looking into it, you know he is speaking from a position of knowledge.  He's accessible to darn near everyone who has a question and if he personally doesn't know the answer he will find someone who does.  He is an advocate for us within Canon and that's a very good thing when you're dealing with a company that doesn't always seem to be completely in touch with its customers.

[awinphoto]

Seriously, I don't know if Westfall just isn't very good at corporate PR or if Canon isn't very good at it, but in either case, the approach seems to be quite behind the times in comparison to how smart companies handle their public relations.

People get jaded about corporate relations, but there are quite a few very smart and good examples out there of companies who understand the importance of candor and keeping their customer base informed with intelligent, reasonable explanations.

Reading this interview made me think that Westfall went into it unprepared and expecting to just coast with a few talking points about what he wanted to emphasize. Of course, you always want to get your points across, but being unable to answer some pretty softball questions is amateurish. He didn't do himself or his employer any favors in this interview.

I personally dont know if i'd perfer canon's PR approach or Apples... Apple released an iphone for instance, big press conference, big announcement, big presentation, lots of buzz... and then after the announcement, the dark curtain gets drawn again until the release, albeit, to apples credit, their release is usually 1 week or less from the announcement date, and they do let developers in early to play, experiment, and build apps for the new product.  But to the layman, there's no trade shows (focus), no outside interviews (chuck westfall)... I think part of his vagueness about future products and F8 is somewhat justifiable as I dont think he would really be privy to that info, probably very few are... The RAW info he probably knows but much like apple, mum's the word until it is released. 

[t.linn]

The digital lens optimizer does sound great

I have to admit that I didn't even read Chuck's comments about this feature because I do not, nor will I ever, use DPP.  Building proprietary features into your own proprietary RAW converter software seems like a waste of resources.  Why not work with Adobe to make those features available in ACR and LR?  Or release the specs so that Adobe can do it themselves?  This seems like it would be a much greater service to Canon's customers.

Having said that, I'm completely ignorant on software development so maybe this isn't even feasible.  But regardless, features like this that aren't available to ACR and LR users don't do most people any good.

[jrista]

The digital lens optimizer does sound great

I have to admit that I didn't even read Chuck's comments about this feature because I do not, nor will I ever, use DPP.  Building proprietary features into your own proprietary RAW converter software seems like a waste of resources.  Why not work with Adobe to make those features available in ACR and LR?  Or release the specs so that Adobe can do it themselves?  This seems like it would be a much greater service to Canon's customers.

Having said that, I'm completely ignorant on software development so maybe this isn't even feasible.  But regardless, features like this that aren't available to ACR and LR users don't do most people any good.

As far as I understand, Canon does provide their specifications and even source code to the likes of Adobe, and even the community at large. Not long ago people were discussing DPP noise reduction and how it seemed better than Lightrooms. A Canon rep stated that they make their noise reduction algorithms public, and they were unaware of why Lightroom did not make use of them.

I don't think the problem is a lack of openness on Canon's part. It seems more to be a lack of interest on the part of parties like Adobe.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If it is just a matter of doing the math, an increase of 4mm from 15 to 19 should yield a significant 26.7% increase in coverage.

The coverage is a big step up from the 5D2 coverage, pretty impressive (if they were to ever put it into a 7D2 then holy smokes would it have amazing AF coverage of the frame).

[awinphoto]

The digital lens optimizer does sound great

I have to admit that I didn't even read Chuck's comments about this feature because I do not, nor will I ever, use DPP.  Building proprietary features into your own proprietary RAW converter software seems like a waste of resources.  Why not work with Adobe to make those features available in ACR and LR?  Or release the specs so that Adobe can do it themselves?  This seems like it would be a much greater service to Canon's customers.

Having said that, I'm completely ignorant on software development so maybe this isn't even feasible.  But regardless, features like this that aren't available to ACR and LR users don't do most people any good.

As far as I understand, Canon does provide their specifications and even source code to the likes of Adobe, and even the community at large. Not long ago people were discussing DPP noise reduction and how it seemed better than Lightrooms. A Canon rep stated that they make their noise reduction algorithms public, and they were unaware of why Lightroom did not make use of them.

I don't think the problem is a lack of openness on Canon's part. It seems more to be a lack of interest on the part of parties like Adobe.

I will admit i haven't done any recent tests, but my last tests I did in raw NR and overall IQ I did almost 3 years ago vs Adobe Camera Raw vs DPP, DPP was more cumbersome, it wasn't pretty, but in the end, it was a cleaner file (3 years ago) than ACR.  I do use ACR because of convenience and and seamless integration with photoshop, but maybe if Canon could develop a 3rd party plug-in for lightroom or photoshop for DPP, then maybe I would be more inclined to use that even more. 

[3kramd5]

The digital lens optimizer does sound great

I have to admit that I didn't even read Chuck's comments about this feature because I do not, nor will I ever, use DPP.  Building proprietary features into your own proprietary RAW converter software seems like a waste of resources.  Why not work with Adobe to make those features available in ACR and LR?  Or release the specs so that Adobe can do it themselves?  This seems like it would be a much greater service to Canon's customers.

Having said that, I'm completely ignorant on software development so maybe this isn't even feasible.  But regardless, features like this that aren't available to ACR and LR users don't do most people any good.

I don't like using multiple software packages either, but I could see myself running images through DPP on a case-by-case basis, doing nothing other than DLO, and then pushing into LR. It's a bit off putting that doing so will double file size. Seems... odd.

That said, IIRC, this isn't a 5D3/1Dx feature, but that all cameras through the 30D are supported. Pretty cool if I want to reach back and fix some old frames.