Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

[funkboy]

All investigations that I have seen suggests that current 14-bit cameras tend to be noise-limited (photon/electronics noise is large enough that the quantization noise (error) is dwarfed), and that the 15th and 15th bit of 16 bit raw files contain only random noise. Random noise needs not be recorded, it can be recreated in your computer at any time at much lower cost.

Agreed.  Medium format cameras have 16-bit ADCs & RAW because (historically) their pixels are so much larger & thus capture enough photons to warrant the additional bit depth.

BUT, an additional two bits on DSLRs would lessen the need for exposure to the right.

[Aglet]

There is much debate about the "16-bit myth." From what I've read on the matter, I don't believe that a 16-bit camera would produce any tangible improvement over a 14-bit camera, because those extra bits are not actually doing anything useful, just quantizing noise.

Certainly the case on Canon's bodies to date.  Only about 12b of good data there.  Maybe 12.5 to 13 on the 1Dx

[Aglet]

BUT, an additional two bits on DSLRs would lessen the need for exposure to the right.

not unless the noise levels went down by an equivalent 2 bits or more
unlikely

[wockawocka]

You had me until:

'Another feature mentioned about the camera is better heat dissipation of the sensor compared to other EOS cameras. Apparently, this results in industry leading low ISO performance.'
 

[Aglet]

I'm glad Canon cut the ISO at 6400, and has a native ISO 50 with an expandable 25.  This is clearly a studio unit (perhaps some solid landscape applications as well) that will have some killer low ISO performance.

I just hope it's real!

I hope it's REAL too!
But Canon has to make some serious improvements in their hardware to reduce the (patterned) read noise that is the bane of their current technology.
Without a significant reduction in read-noise, the lower ISO settings will be useful for wider apertures, or slower shutter speeds, but without a commensurate improvement in DR or need for extra digitizing bits.

DR should increase by about the same amount as ISO decreases (stop-per-stop) but if you look at Canon's measured DR curves, they're pretty flat from ISO 800 down.  E.G. The 5D3's DR is only moving about 1 stop despite 4 stops worth of ISO change.

Recent SoNikon's DR curves behave as they should, DR increasing equivalent to the decrease in ISO.
If Canon can fix this, for a new high-MP body, they'll please a lot of their current customers who've been hoping for such an improvement for years!

And I also hope that, if they DO accomplish this, we aren't hosed 10x as much $ as such DR technology can be had from competitor's products for as little as $500 in a consumer crop body.

[funkboy]

BUT, an additional two bits on DSLRs would lessen the need for exposure to the right.

not unless the noise levels went down by an equivalent 2 bits or more
unlikely

There are a few main arguments for doing ETTR:

• Maximize the dynamic range of the exposure (i.e. use the full range of the camera's DR)
• Maximize the SNR by capturing as many photons as possible
• Minimize the effects of quantization by trying to get as much of the image as possible into the exposure stops with the most tonal values available

16-bit ADC & RAW will increase the number of tonal values available in each EV (the third point above) by a factor of four vs. 14-bit.

[pakosouthpark]

i think this will be the inside of the 3Dx

[Marsu42]

• Maximize the SNR by capturing as many photons as possible

... unless you have to raise iso to get an ok shutter speed when overexposing, so often anti-ettr by underexposing and/or lower iso might give you a higher snr :-p

[NotABunny]

This will obviously be called 0DX 

[tg]

I think the lack of people talking about bit depth is surprising, I think it should be the main thing to consider, more so than mp. I'd much rather have 16bit version of 5dmkiii than a 14bit higher mp camera. It's the main aspect I'm considering investing in medium format.

I think it's not talked about much because it just won't happen for another generation of canon pro bodies,probably... but like you, I would be more than happy to be wrong!

You might want to have 16 bits, and you might feel better if you had. But chances are that your images  would not be any better.

All investigations that I have seen suggests that current 14-bit cameras tend to be noise-limited (photon/electronics noise is large enough that the quantization noise (error) is dwarfed), and that the 15th and 15th bit of 16 bit raw files contain only random noise. Random noise needs not be recorded, it can be recreated in your computer at any time at much lower cost.

I would much rather have good image quality, or at least, some measurable and relevant indicator of image quality (such as dynamic range at base ISO), rather than some random PR-driven spec that few people understand, such as the number of bits in an A/D-converter.

-h

My point, as I hoped others would notice: there is a real, tangible, visible difference in MF files vs dslr files when it comes to colour. (think transitions/gradations/subtleties in skin tone) It's not necessarily 'more' ,like mega pixels, but rather higher sensitivities... and yes, of course there's factors that allow this, like larger pixels and great lenses, but that's what I'm saying I'd love to have in my dslr... larger pixels (the 1Dx has large pixels) with higher colour sensitivity. And I'd be fine if that meant a loss in hi iso and speed.

And the idea that few people understand all the tech behind it, I agree. I am one of them, trying to learn more. But I'm definitely not convinced that the progression to 16 bit is a bad idea. It needs to be implemented properly, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became something we all understood a bit better in the coming year or two...

[justsomedude]

Canon is obliged to meet the challenge imposed by Nikon D800. I believe this camera will appear. The price tag will be around ( in my opinion) $4499 - 4990.

Based on the 5D2, 5D3 and 1DX pricing, I agree that the price will likely be in the $3,995 ballpark, if not breaking $4k entirely, as you suggest. 

However, this really puts Canon in a pickle if it's running next to the D800.  They'll have to make significant improvements over the D800 to justify the pricing, and market it in a class of its own, since anyone can be off and running at 36MP for only $2,995 right now.

My point, as I hoped others would notice: there is a real, tangible, visible difference in MF files vs dslr files when it comes to colour. (think transitions/gradations/subtleties in skin tone) It's not necessarily 'more' ,like mega pixels, but rather higher sensitivities...

There was a D800 vs. Hasselblad video review done by some NYC commercial photographers that got into this issue.  But this was really their only primary complaint.  If you're not a $20,000/wk fashion photographer, or selling your photos to Christian Dior for the next 50' banner ad in Times Square, it's hard to justify the investment in a Hasselblad H back.  That said, what you get for 3 grand in a D800 is still mind blowing as far as I'm concerned.  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

[tg]

  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

I get the feeling some are obsessed with matching Nikon and their mega pixels and not worried about the conversation of how a photo can look... however minute the change can be.
I hear it time and again, when you have MF quality, the difference is there. When you have a dslr, most will try to appease themselves and insist MF, for some tech/scientific/'I read somewhere' reason, is not worth it and not even advantageous anymore.
I'm very happy with the 5dmkiii, very happy... it's much better than I thought it would be over the 5dmkii. But, there's always room for improvement, usually in aspects very difficult to make better, unlike MP which is where all the attention gets placed.
You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.
 

[bdunbar79]

  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

I get the feeling some are obsessed with matching Nikon and their mega pixels and not worried about the conversation of how a photo can look... however minute the change can be.
I hear it time and again, when you have MF quality, the difference is there. When you have a dslr, most will try to appease themselves and insist MF, for some tech/scientific/'I read somewhere' reason, is not worth it and not even advantageous anymore.
I'm very happy with the 5dmkiii, very happy... it's much better than I thought it would be over the 5dmkii. But, there's always room for improvement, usually in aspects very difficult to make better, unlike MP which is where all the attention gets placed.
You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.

If they do make a super high MP camera, I'm not going to buy.  I'll keep my 5D Mark III and 1DX because they take the images I need.  I don't need anymore.  Good post.

[Marine03]

Canon is obliged to meet the challenge imposed by Nikon D800. I believe this camera will appear. The price tag will be around ( in my opinion) $4499 - 4990.

Based on the 5D2, 5D3 and 1DX pricing, I agree that the price will likely be in the $3,995 ballpark, if not breaking $4k entirely, as you suggest. 

However, this really puts Canon in a pickle if it's running next to the D800.  They'll have to make significant improvements over the D800 to justify the pricing, and market it in a class of its own, since anyone can be off and running at 36MP for only $2,995 right now.

My point, as I hoped others would notice: there is a real, tangible, visible difference in MF files vs dslr files when it comes to colour. (think transitions/gradations/subtleties in skin tone) It's not necessarily 'more' ,like mega pixels, but rather higher sensitivities...

There was a D800 vs. Hasselblad video review done by some NYC commercial photographers that got into this issue.  But this was really their only primary complaint.  If you're not a $20,000/wk fashion photographer, or selling your photos to Christian Dior for the next 50' banner ad in Times Square, it's hard to justify the investment in a Hasselblad H back.  That said, what you get for 3 grand in a D800 is still mind blowing as far as I'm concerned.  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

Having just watched that video I know I'm not a pixel peeper or maybe im not overly critical, but seriously the Hasselbad IMO is a waste of money, is it 20K better of a camera or is the pic 20K times better, no way!  Now from the pro point of view they had to defend the Hasselbad because they own a 20K cam and get paid big bucks so they need to basically tell clients look, no one on the street shoots with this its SOOO good.  But serisouly look at a magazine for print tell me that a 1D3 or D800 etc isn't good enough for like 90% of work.

[justsomedude]

  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.

TG, I do get your point, and appreciate the "quality" improvements a Hasselblad offers over a 35mm camera.  To me, and for the work I do in photography, a MF camera simply has no real world practical application (especially at the $30k price tag).  That said, I think you're trying to compare cameras that are designed for totally different user groups, totally different markets and totally different applications. 

So while I understand there's "room for improvement", somehow wishing your dSLR to be a MF camera doesn't seem like a valid point to be making.  At least in my opinion.