Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

[Caps18]

Canon just wants to get me to give them my money.  It looks like it would be really good. 

If it was medium format, it would be very tempting.  But I would have to save up for 2 more years probably...  It will be interesting if there is a megapixel 'war' and a pixel quality 'war' at the same time.

I also need to get at least 5 years of life out of my current camera.

[Cali_PH]

As a landscape guy that's recently gotten into printing stuff 24"x36" and possibly larger, this interests me.  Sure, I realize people can print large With lower mp's but if this rumor is true there'd be increases in low iso perfornance and DR, good stuff for landscape.

Many Canonites had dismissed the D800 simply because it had 'too many mp's,' would slow down pp, files take up too much space etc.  All valid considerations, but I'm guessing more than a few of those people would suddenly consider this Canon

 

[marekjoz]

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...

Going to 16 bit wouldn't hurt anything in the imaging process. It just isn't going to help anything. It's not going to  record better color transitions, just extra random noise. All it would do is make RAW files larger, because the files would now contain extra information on the random noise which previously was not being recorded. Larger files without any actual benefit to images is not something we should be asking for.

Why are you so sure it will record just extra noise but no more useful information?

People have studied this issue. See the following technical explanation related to noise and bit depth: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Also, see this rather lengthy discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0

In short, represntatives from a medium format digital back dealer essentially concede that when the term "16 bit" is applied to MF sensors, it is done so as marketing shorthand in order to convey to potential customers that the MF sensor will have better tonal qualities compared to DSLRs of equal megapixels, even though the actual reasons for those better tonal qualities lie elsewhere. This may be fine for MFDB buyers since they are not being misled and their camers do produce better tonal qualities. However the problem which has resulted from this seemingly innocent bit of marketing is that some people have been led to think that if you make DSLR sensors 16 bit they will produce the tonal qualities of MF.

I've read this article from Chicago some time ago and thanks - I've read it again :-) It's hard not to agree with it's contents written by prof Martinec (the more that I've got just a master and engineer degrees in computer science, not a professor but let me point to some circumstances:

1. Examples showing no difference between the original image and image with clipped 2 bits don't make sense in this discussion - there it was to indicate no difference on screen while viewing, we are talking about the useful information used later for image manipulation. If we intend to get one picture 14 bits deep and another 16 bits  deep, convert them directly to 8bits jpegs and display on a screen, then most probably we won't see too much difference, I'd say - no difference. But if you'd like to manipulate it in PS, then depending on how much you want to manipulate, you'll see the difference sooner or later.

2. The long part of the article regarding noise is based on real values measured in real devices like 1d3 or 40d and compared to other devices. The read noise in sensor plays an important part. How about changing it a little in next generation of sensors? I mean - what if? What if in a new sensor some other technology would be used? Let's assume they would find a method to read each pixel's value not once after exposing it to light but could introduce sampling with frequency let's say 1MHz, which could eliminate some read noise and improve DR? I'm not saying that such sampling would help but I indicate, that some conclusions might not be same true in such a new type of sensor. So what if those additional bits were not just to record more noise?

3. I don't think that 16bit RAWs would make my photos any better than 14bit RAWs because in most cases I wouldn't know what to do with this. At the same time I think that guys at Adobe could know :-)

4. I think that everyone here has heard that there was a world market for no more than 5 computers and that 640KB of computer memory was enough :-) So why not 32 bit RAWs?

BTW: In the era of 386s@40Mhz and 486s@50Mhz if I would say to my professor that in 20 years there will be processors working at 2.4GHz and a graphics memory would utilize 7GHz clock it would be the best joke he'd hear that week. In one cycle of 2Ghz clock light (or other electromagnetic wave) travels like 15cm in vacuum...

[DarkKnightNine]

There is a real hole in the Canon lineup at $2,000 advanced amateur level .  The 60D and the 7D are both rounding 3 years and are showing their age.  This thing looks like a $5,000 camera.  There are plenty of $5,000 cameras I can't afford already.   Maybe this is a response the the Nikon 800E but it certainly doesn't fill the advanced amateur hole in the Canon line up.  I can't afford this camera, can you?

The D800 is NOT a Medium Format killer, it is merely an imitation and possibly an introduction, but Medium Format cameras have much larger sensors than 35mm and perform on a level not capable even by the D800. The only camera that comes close is the Leica S2.

[Aglet]

To me the answer is obvious:
On one side you have some small companies trying to survive in a specialized market niche, while on the other hand you have big corporations with disproportionate amounts of money to invest in R&D out to annihilate annoying niche market competitors. I have seen this situation in other lines of business and the end result is rather easy to predict.

so why does it take Canon this long to start producing a camera with serious DR? (assuming they can and will from this latest rumor)

After all, they’ve been solidly kicked by the D90, D5100, D7000, D800, D4 and a few Pentax bodies along the way since the K10D thru K5, some of those, I believe, still used a CCD sensor and managed to deliver better DR and color range.  They've certainly had a few years to show they could catch up.
If they intended to annihilate the competition, they’re certainly taking their sweet time about it.

Still, however baseless this rumor may be, I hope Canon can pull a rabbit out of their hat here - and allow us to take a picture of the deep dark black felt lining inside that hat without all the attendant red-channel noise we’re accustomed to seeing from their current cameras.

[RLPhoto]

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

Not if it has the same old DR (i.e. not close to low ISO Nikon or MF), much slower fps, no chance for magic lantern, costs a lot more. You'd get better reach and detail but give up a lot since Canon won't give it cropped modes with speed or stay at a more reasonable 36MP to keep some speed and doesn't seem to have the sensor tech to deliver top quality low ISO pixels. I'd rather keep the 5D3 and wait for a 5D4 or D900 myself.
Of course, who knows, maybe they finally spring their miracle new sensor with this or it does have fast crops modes or better fps (46MP dual digic should go 4.7fps not 3.7fps and it could hit 6fps if they cut MP down a little).


EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! 

Yes, 5D3 owners will be burned.

[bdunbar79]

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

Not if it has the same old DR (i.e. not close to low ISO Nikon or MF), much slower fps, no chance for magic lantern, costs a lot more. You'd get better reach and detail but give up a lot since Canon won't give it cropped modes with speed or stay at a more reasonable 36MP to keep some speed and doesn't seem to have the sensor tech to deliver top quality low ISO pixels. I'd rather keep the 5D3 and wait for a 5D4 or D900 myself.
Of course, who knows, maybe they finally spring their miracle new sensor with this or it does have fast crops modes or better fps (46MP dual digic should go 4.7fps not 3.7fps and it could hit 6fps if they cut MP down a little).


EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! 

Yes, 5D3 owners will be burned.

Burned?  Why?  Just b/c a better camera comes out doesn't make the one I have worse does it?  I'm a 5D3 owner and I don't want a 46 MP camera.  I don't want a 36 MP camera.  I want a 22 MP camera with a great AF system.  There's a reason I kept my 5D Mark III and sold my 1Ds Mark III. 

[RLPhoto]

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

Not if it has the same old DR (i.e. not close to low ISO Nikon or MF), much slower fps, no chance for magic lantern, costs a lot more. You'd get better reach and detail but give up a lot since Canon won't give it cropped modes with speed or stay at a more reasonable 36MP to keep some speed and doesn't seem to have the sensor tech to deliver top quality low ISO pixels. I'd rather keep the 5D3 and wait for a 5D4 or D900 myself.
Of course, who knows, maybe they finally spring their miracle new sensor with this or it does have fast crops modes or better fps (46MP dual digic should go 4.7fps not 3.7fps and it could hit 6fps if they cut MP down a little).


EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! 

Yes, 5D3 owners will be burned.

Burned?  Why?  Just b/c a better camera comes out doesn't make the one I have worse does it?  I'm a 5D3 owner and I don't want a 46 MP camera.  I don't want a 36 MP camera.  I want a 22 MP camera with a great AF system.  There's a reason I kept my 5D Mark III and sold my 1Ds Mark III.

Canon could have done better.

[bdunbar79]

I agree, the 5D Mark III could have had better DR.  That's the shortcoming I see and can understand.  Historically though, the 1Ds line has had that, and we sort of lost that with the 1DX and again I'll say, the 1DX doesn't replace the 1Ds3 at all.

[cliffwang]

Many Canonites had dismissed the D800 simply because it had 'too many mp's,' would slow down pp, files take up too much space etc.  All valid considerations, but I'm guessing more than a few of those people would suddenly consider this Canon

LOL.  I was also thinking how come those people not complaining this high MP camera.

[funkboy]

• 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

That would sort of defeat the point of messing with it, now wouldn't it :-).

But in fact if you play around with it & pixel peep I think you'll find that up to about ISO800 or ISO1600 (depending on the camera of course, for modern Canons it's usually around 800 for crop & 1600 for FF) it's actually beneficial to do what you're saying i.e. boost the ISO to get better sensitivity for ETTR.  Until the camera starts doing more linear amplification (which causes DR to drop above those ISOs), capturing more photons is better.

more in-depth discussion here

[Bosman]

The 1Dx is the merged 1D series. Here is what i think a big mp Canon should look like. It would be similar to Hasselblad and others in the big mp range. Change it from an EOS C300 to EOS D1 or 100. Dumbing down the cinema aspects for magazine shooter styling and mp size. I can almost hear the buzz of reasons why this wouldn't happen, lol. I like to dream.

[zim]

The 1Dx is the merged 1D series. Here is what i think a big mp Canon should look like. It would be similar to Hasselblad and others in the big mp range. Change it from an EOS C300 to EOS D1 or 100. Dumbing down the cinema aspects for magazine shooter styling and mp size. I can almost hear the buzz of reasons why this wouldn't happen, lol. I like to dream.

Actually that's a great design idea!

[Bosman]

The 1Dx is the merged 1D series. Here is what i think a big mp Canon should look like. It would be similar to Hasselblad and others in the big mp range. Change it from an EOS C300 to EOS D1 or 100. Dumbing down the cinema aspects for magazine shooter styling and mp size. I can almost hear the buzz of reasons why this wouldn't happen, lol. I like to dream.

Actually that's a great design idea!

I will savor this moment.   

[NY Wedding Photographer]

Would love it if it comes out in october