Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

[helpful]

There is some good news out there, though. Have any of you seen the recent series of sample images? I thought for sure someone was going to post the link because they have been there for 36 hours or so, but I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet.

http://www.fotomagazin.de/test_technik/testbilder/detail.php?objectID=6204&class=&thema

If you toggle through the photos at full screen size (not 1:1), it's impossible to tell any difference until beyond ISO 12,800. At 1:1 it is great, no worse than ISO 400 on cameras five-six years ago. The top of the regular ISO range, 51,200, actually does look usable as well--certainly better than 25,600 on the 5D3.

I am so excited because I was still grappling in my mind with the worry that I should have gone with the D4 (I already own complete systems of both Canon and Nikon, so the array of lenses isn't an issue for me).

[lonebear]

I had in mind that they could try NOT to put a "last-minute improvement" (significant or not) but to include a "big" improvement which they have behind the closed doors - something like a BSI sensor - they have the technology...

A BSI sensor, if it ever be true, will place Canon at the same starting line as Nikon/Sony, and should be worth of the long bitter waiting period...

[jrista]

I had in mind that they could try NOT to put a "last-minute improvement" (significant or not) but to include a "big" improvement which they have behind the closed doors - something like a BSI sensor - they have the technology...

A BSI sensor, if it ever be true, will place Canon at the same starting line as Nikon/Sony, and should be worth of the long bitter waiting period...

BSI primarily benefits sensors with small pixel pitch, and the aim is to increase QE (quantum efficiency), which only might affect noise levels as more of a byproduct of its primary job. (BSI basically "flips" the fabricated sensor upside down, putting all the R/C activation and readout wiring behind the photodiode, and therefor out of the light path from the pixel/microlens.) The pixel pitch on the 1D X sensor is relatively very large, and it would benefit little from a BSI design. The D800 does not use a BSI design either...it is still FSI.

The difference between Sony cmos sensors and Canon cmos sensors is that Sony integrates FAR more hardware-level noise reduction technology than Canon. Currently, to my knowledge, Canon sensors only employ CDS, Correlated Double-Sampling...however I believe their patents date back nearly a decade. Sony sensors employ a newer and more effective form of CDS, a form of transistor differential compensation to reduce FPN, integrated column-parallel ADC (a smaller, slower ADC for every column of pixels built right into the sensor...slower ADC's produce less noise of their own, and having one ACD per column also helps reduce FPN), and a few other smaller improvements that I currently can't find the patents for. Its these explicit noise reduction features that make a Sony Exmor sensor produce cleaner pictures than a Canon sensor.

Canon could benefit from a BSI sensor in their compact and bridge cameras, but the improvement to QE in a large sensor with a very large pixel pitch like the 1D X would be very small...maybe 1-2%...definitely not enough to put them in the same league as a Sony Exmor. (It should be noted that Canon uses a gapless "microlens" sensor design...but the pixels themselves still have gaps between them...most of the activate and readout wiring exists within the spaces of the gaps, with minimal intrusion into the light path from a pixel. If this were not the case, as might indeed be the case with a very high density full-frame camera (say 60mp or more, the 2-3 micron pixel pitch range), then a BSI design would probably benefit a full-frame high resolution sensor as much as it benefits a tiny point and shoot sensor.)

[AG]

I had in mind that they could try NOT to put a "last-minute improvement" (significant or not) but to include a "big" improvement which they have behind the closed doors - something like a BSI sensor - they have the technology...

A BSI sensor, if it ever be true, will place Canon at the same starting line as Nikon/Sony, and should be worth of the long bitter waiting period...

BSI primarily benefits sensors with small pixel pitch, and the aim is to increase QE (quantum efficiency), which only might affect noise levels as more of a byproduct of its primary job. (BSI basically "flips" the fabricated sensor upside down, putting all the R/C activation and readout wiring behind the photodiode, and therefor out of the light path from the pixel/microlens.) The pixel pitch on the 1D X sensor is relatively very large, and it would benefit little from a BSI design. The D800 does not use a BSI design either...it is still FSI.

The difference between Sony cmos sensors and Canon cmos sensors is that Sony integrates FAR more hardware-level noise reduction technology than Canon. Currently, to my knowledge, Canon sensors only employ CDS, Correlated Double-Sampling...however I believe their patents date back nearly a decade. Sony sensors employ a newer and more effective form of CDS, a form of transistor differential compensation to reduce FPN, integrated column-parallel ADC (a smaller, slower ADC for every column of pixels built right into the sensor...slower ADC's produce less noise of their own, and having one ACD per column also helps reduce FPN), and a few other smaller improvements that I currently can't find the patents for. Its these explicit noise reduction features that make a Sony Exmor sensor produce cleaner pictures than a Canon sensor.

Canon could benefit from a BSI sensor in their compact and bridge cameras, but the improvement to QE in a large sensor with a very large pixel pitch like the 1D X would be very small...maybe 1-2%...definitely not enough to put them in the same league as a Sony Exmor. (It should be noted that Canon uses a gapless "microlens" sensor design...but the pixels themselves still have gaps between them...most of the activate and readout wiring exists within the spaces of the gaps, with minimal intrusion into the light path from a pixel. If this were not the case, as might indeed be the case with a very high density full-frame camera (say 60mp or more, the 2-3 micron pixel pitch range), then a BSI design would probably benefit a full-frame high resolution sensor as much as it benefits a tiny point and shoot sensor.)

Your post needs more acronyms 

[John Thomas]

I had in mind that they could try NOT to put a "last-minute improvement" (significant or not) but to include a "big" improvement which they have behind the closed doors - something like a BSI sensor - they have the technology...

A BSI sensor, if it ever be true, will place Canon at the same starting line as Nikon/Sony, and should be worth of the long bitter waiting period...

BSI primarily benefits sensors with small pixel pitch, and the aim is to increase QE (quantum efficiency), which only might affect noise levels as more of a byproduct of its primary job. (BSI basically "flips" the fabricated sensor upside down, putting all the R/C activation and readout wiring behind the photodiode, and therefor out of the light path from the pixel/microlens.) The pixel pitch on the 1D X sensor is relatively very large, and it would benefit little from a BSI design. The D800 does not use a BSI design either...it is still FSI.

The difference between Sony cmos sensors and Canon cmos sensors is that Sony integrates FAR more hardware-level noise reduction technology than Canon. Currently, to my knowledge, Canon sensors only employ CDS, Correlated Double-Sampling...however I believe their patents date back nearly a decade. Sony sensors employ a newer and more effective form of CDS, a form of transistor differential compensation to reduce FPN, integrated column-parallel ADC (a smaller, slower ADC for every column of pixels built right into the sensor...slower ADC's produce less noise of their own, and having one ACD per column also helps reduce FPN), and a few other smaller improvements that I currently can't find the patents for. Its these explicit noise reduction features that make a Sony Exmor sensor produce cleaner pictures than a Canon sensor.

Canon could benefit from a BSI sensor in their compact and bridge cameras, but the improvement to QE in a large sensor with a very large pixel pitch like the 1D X would be very small...maybe 1-2%...definitely not enough to put them in the same league as a Sony Exmor. (It should be noted that Canon uses a gapless "microlens" sensor design...but the pixels themselves still have gaps between them...most of the activate and readout wiring exists within the spaces of the gaps, with minimal intrusion into the light path from a pixel. If this were not the case, as might indeed be the case with a very high density full-frame camera (say 60mp or more, the 2-3 micron pixel pitch range), then a BSI design would probably benefit a full-frame high resolution sensor as much as it benefits a tiny point and shoot sensor.)

Your post needs more acronyms 

Nope. It was quite informative as it was. 

[nikkito]

ehhh what? 

[pwp]

Your post needs more acronyms 

Awww you're being tough. FWIW he's probably from the Democratic Republic of Acrynomia (DRA).
Famous for some great photographers and excellent BLT's.

PW

[jrista]

BSI primarily benefits sensors with small pixel pitch, and the aim is to increase QE (quantum efficiency), which only might affect noise levels as more of a byproduct of its primary job. (BSI basically "flips" the fabricated sensor upside down, putting all the R/C activation and readout wiring behind the photodiode, and therefor out of the light path from the pixel/microlens.) The pixel pitch on the 1D X sensor is relatively very large, and it would benefit little from a BSI design. The D800 does not use a BSI design either...it is still FSI.

The difference between Sony cmos sensors and Canon cmos sensors is that Sony integrates FAR more hardware-level noise reduction technology than Canon. Currently, to my knowledge, Canon sensors only employ CDS, Correlated Double-Sampling...however I believe their patents date back nearly a decade. Sony sensors employ a newer and more effective form of CDS, a form of transistor differential compensation to reduce FPN, integrated column-parallel ADC (a smaller, slower ADC for every column of pixels built right into the sensor...slower ADC's produce less noise of their own, and having one ACD per column also helps reduce FPN), and a few other smaller improvements that I currently can't find the patents for. Its these explicit noise reduction features that make a Sony Exmor sensor produce cleaner pictures than a Canon sensor.

Canon could benefit from a BSI sensor in their compact and bridge cameras, but the improvement to QE in a large sensor with a very large pixel pitch like the 1D X would be very small...maybe 1-2%...definitely not enough to put them in the same league as a Sony Exmor. (It should be noted that Canon uses a gapless "microlens" sensor design...but the pixels themselves still have gaps between them...most of the activate and readout wiring exists within the spaces of the gaps, with minimal intrusion into the light path from a pixel. If this were not the case, as might indeed be the case with a very high density full-frame camera (say 60mp or more, the 2-3 micron pixel pitch range), then a BSI design would probably benefit a full-frame high resolution sensor as much as it benefits a tiny point and shoot sensor.)

Your post needs more acronyms 

Hah! I could probably conjure up a few more for ya... ;P

[jrista]

Your post needs more acronyms 

Awww you're being tough. FWIW he's probably from the Democratic Republic of Acrynomia (DRA).
Famous for some great photographers and excellent BLT's.

PW

Hmm...gonna have to look DRA up. (And get me some BLT's...MMM!)

[jrista]

ehhh what? 

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

[Ivar]

Unfortunately not a very good test for deciding the high ISO capability - look at the shutter speed, there was plenty of good quality (studio) light, which absolutely doesn't reflect the intended use. It is the low light under which cameras start to break down in IQ.

There is some good news out there, though. Have any of you seen the recent series of sample images? I thought for sure someone was going to post the link because they have been there for 36 hours or so, but I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet.

http://www.fotomagazin.de/test_technik/testbilder/detail.php?objectID=6204&class=&thema

If you toggle through the photos at full screen size (not 1:1), it's impossible to tell any difference until beyond ISO 12,800. At 1:1 it is great, no worse than ISO 400 on cameras five-six years ago. The top of the regular ISO range, 51,200, actually does look usable as well--certainly better than 25,600 on the 5D3.

I am so excited because I was still grappling in my mind with the worry that I should have gone with the D4 (I already own complete systems of both Canon and Nikon, so the array of lenses isn't an issue for me).

[jrista]

There is some good news out there, though. Have any of you seen the recent series of sample images? I thought for sure someone was going to post the link because they have been there for 36 hours or so, but I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet.

http://www.fotomagazin.de/test_technik/testbilder/detail.php?objectID=6204&class=&thema

If you toggle through the photos at full screen size (not 1:1), it's impossible to tell any difference until beyond ISO 12,800. At 1:1 it is great, no worse than ISO 400 on cameras five-six years ago. The top of the regular ISO range, 51,200, actually does look usable as well--certainly better than 25,600 on the 5D3.

I am so excited because I was still grappling in my mind with the worry that I should have gone with the D4 (I already own complete systems of both Canon and Nikon, so the array of lenses isn't an issue for me).

Hmm, I guess I would disagree that there are imperceptible differences till *after* 12800. At full size, it is readily apparent that there is some pretty heavy duty noise reduction going on at 12800, and its even visible at 3200. Below 3200, the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 is largely imperceptible at 1:1 crop.

When viewing the images scaled down to "fit on screen" (2560x1600 30", a tad less than 1/4th the native image size, so approximately 2x downscaling), there is minimal perceptible difference between ISO 100 and ISO 3200. At ISO 6400, things start to look ever so slightly "muddy" compared to ISO 100...fine details start to dull...although things still appear sharp. Fine detailed highlights in particular start to fade at ISO 6400. At ISO 12800, there is definite "muddying" of fine detail...the difference in the blue feather and thread wheels; the highlights of the silver bristle holder on the brush, the strainer, even fine highlight detail in the crumpled ball of foil; black printing on all of the highlight markers; finer detail in the queen playing card (which isn't really that "fine" overall)...all soften visibly between ISO 100 and 12800.

I would call every ISO setting up through 25600 "usable"...however if you need fine detail, 3200 seems to be the limit (most fine detail, including highlight detail, is preserved up through ISO 3200.) I would call 51200 usable in certain circumstances, however it definitely obliterates finer details. If I wanted to make a recording like the one NASA Astronauts made from the ISS of earth and the auroras at night, I would say that 51200 would do a better job than the Nikon D3 did on their first video, preserving even finer earthly details.

It is a bummer all of these photos are JPEG's though. I would really love to see how the same photos fare with RAW and some more meticulous, manual noise reduction and sharpening. I wonder how much detail could be preserved.

[1dxhurryup]

More about 1dx.

The 1dx firmware is 7.1.1 B0.9

so close now!!!

[John Thomas]

ehhh what? 

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

Why do you think that Nikon D800's Exmor sensor settled at 36 Mpix?

Wouldn't be a much better solution WRT noise removal a, let's say, 22-24 Mpix sensor? Now I'm thinking that if Nikon would had a 18-24Mpix Exmor then the 5D3 would be in serious trouble, because Exmor's NR hardware correlated with a rather big pixel size would have an amazing output even at high ISOs.

What do you think?

[John Thomas]

More about 1dx.

The 1dx firmware is 7.1.1 B0.9

so close now!!!

1. Aha! They have a firmare in late Beta. Very good! They're working on it.

It is very very good for the community to know this. Also I presume that the 5D3's firmware is update accordingly, where applicable, isn't it?

2. > "So close now!!!"  ...hmmm.... from WHERE do you know? 

Usually these sorts of things are shipped "when is/are ready" (TM). A small hurdle can keep the team for enough time stuck. What makes you to say "So close now!!!" (with three exclamation marks)

OTOH, someone very close to the team knows such things. (I don't think that's very bad to say that you know more - in fact it would help us, the guys which are left in the twilight zone) Especially if we can help with something and/or is something which affects many (eg. it is related also to 5D3 - for ex. a wide-impact update) or affects few (eg. a niche feature which is related only to 1DX - eg. Ethernet card).

3. Did you just received a new firmware for your 1DX?

Thanks in advance for your response!