Canon U.S.A. Announces New 120 MP Ultra-High Resolution and 2.7 MP Ultra-High Sensitivity CMOS Sensors

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
50
47
If I go to a club event dark with lasers (no flash)...
A serious word of warning: Consider avoiding environments with lasers when shooting with your digital cameras. Lasers use concentrated beams of coherent light that can KILL sensors in extremely short times. Shooting in such conditions is a major NO-NO to me.
In case you happen not to believe me:
There are more evidentiary videos like that out there...
 
Reactions: Diko

Cochese

EOS T7i
Oct 22, 2014
93
45
“These sensors help expand the company’s lineup of industrial vision products”

These are for industrial imaging. Things like security cameras, car back up displays, etc. You are about as likely to see these in a “photography camera” as you are likely to see the Oly medical sensors.....

We can debate the relative merits of Sony or Canon DSLR sensors all we want, but it has no relevance here. It is like debating the relative merits of a screwdriver and a hammer, they are different tools designed for different tasks.
 

Cochese

EOS T7i
Oct 22, 2014
93
45
“These sensors help expand the company’s lineup of industrial vision products”

These are for industrial imaging. Things like security cameras, car back up displays, etc. You are about as likely to see these in a “photography camera” as you are likely to see the Oly medical sensors.....

We can debate the relative merits of Sony or Canon DSLR sensors all we want, but it has no relevance here. It is like debating the relative merits of a screwdriver and a hammer, they are different tools designed for different tasks.
Cool yeah, I got the concept. But I was responding to somebody else. So, carry on.
 
Reactions: Diko

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
66
50
UK
For e.g. portrait shots; having too low dynamic range might mean a problem, for which I would need more light control - and that is another thing that is always great to have. E.g., when having to shoot in the middle of the day and harsh sunlight, I might need to go for a polarizing filter mounted on the lens, and a light diffuser placed above the model to make the light softer and so reduce the contrast (lower the DR of the scene) on the model's face and body.

Knowing the techniques helps me overcome these problems more cheaply than buying a more capable camera. Consider also that some scenes are so contrasty that no photographic digital sensors can capture the full DR to a satisfactory degree. Knowing this stuff is never a downside.

I'd also claim that knowing how to fix my car makes me a better and safer driver on the road. If my car is half-broken so that it can't operate in a reliably safe manner and can fail badly, resulting in loss of control and injury or death of someone or damage to property; knowing how to fix the car prior to a mishap, will make me a better and safer driver. :)
Not to say that the shear knowledge of how my tools operate has the potential of making me a better operator (that applies to both cars and cameras), because I know the limits of my tools better than someone who has no clue.
“A good craftsman never blames his tools”
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
346
222
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
For e.g. portrait shots; having too low dynamic range might mean a problem, for which I would need more light control - and that is another thing that is always great to have. E.g., when having to shoot in the middle of the day and harsh sunlight, I might need to go for a polarizing filter mounted on the lens, and a light diffuser placed above the model to make the light softer and so reduce the contrast (lower the DR of the scene) on the model's face and body.
In portraiture with controlled light, you won't have DR-related issues with any modern FF camera, you'll also be fine with 10-year-old cameras. In the harsh daylight, you'll probably use diffuser even with a medium-format Hasselblad just to change the quality of light.

Things change when you have to work with natural/available light and there you'll suddenly be getting more keepers with a better sensor, especially when you shoot some action.Will it make you a better photographer?

Knowing the techniques helps me overcome these problems more cheaply than buying a more capable camera. Consider also that some scenes are so contrasty that no photographic digital sensors can capture the full DR to a satisfactory degree. Knowing this stuff is never a downside.
No, it's not a downside, but not a big advantage either. You'll probably learn HDR-like techniques regardless of the camera you use, but with low-DR sensor you'll be using them more frequently. My point is, the more frequent use of HDR doesn't make you a better photographer.

Not to say that the shear knowledge of how my tools operate has the potential of making me a better operator (that applies to both cars and cameras), because I know the limits of my tools better than someone who has no clue.
20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,207
507
Even for still scenes, the less blending the better.
Why exactly is 'less better' here?

HDR is a technique, but it's not a creative technique but a workaround for technology imperfection.
So are focusing and setting exposure. Most of our craft involves studying and applying technique to get what we want out of the technology. So yes, knowing more does contribute to being a better photographer.

Better sensor means less HDR in terms of taking multiple shots.
Do you know why I always challenge "SONY DR!" posters to post side-by-side, real world examples? It's because they can't. The DxO (or photons to photos) measured difference between a 5D4 and a A73 or A7r3 is so small that it's nearly impossible to demonstrate in the real world. It will show as slightly more noise in the deepest shadow zone on the 5D4, an amount of noise that disappears with a tick or two on a NR slider or even just with printing as opposed to pixel peeping. It's difficult (though possible) to show the difference between a 5Ds and an A73 series body, and that's a >2ev difference.

In short: there will never be a situation where a 5D4 or R needs HDR but an A73 does not. It's just not going to come up.

Those tests are not absolute statements of DR and the sensor data does not jump to black beyond the test number. Those tests look for arbitrary noise thresholds and output a number when the threshold is crossed. Consumers look at those tests and then imagine all kinds of capability for the camera with the higher number, capability that does not actually exist. I don't think I've ever seen a greater example of consumer rationalization than I have with these DR debates. It's like two exotic super car owners arguing about a 2mph difference in top speed when neither car ever sees more action than a daily commute in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Dodging/burning on the other hand is an example of a creative technique.
I don't see how this is deemed 'creative' yet blending is not. Blending can be used to draw emphasis to certain areas of an image just the same.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,207
507
20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?
They were better photographers than they would have been otherwise. Still are if they're still shooting film. Again, everything we do involves technique to get what we want from the technology we have.

I know you're trying to narrowly define 'better/worse' as a measure of creativity or artistic intent, but you can't achieve your vision without first understanding the relevant techniques. Mastering more techniques = greater artistic freedom.
 
Reactions: Diko and mk0x55

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
50
47
In portraiture with controlled light, you won't have DR-related issues with any modern FF camera, you'll also be fine with 10-year-old cameras. In the harsh daylight, you'll probably use diffuser even with a medium-format Hasselblad just to change the quality of light.

Things change when you have to work with natural/available light and there you'll suddenly be getting more keepers with a better sensor, especially when you shoot some action.Will it make you a better photographer?
This becomes a bit philosophical. I'd say it depends on how you look at it and what you aim to optimize - either just the photographer (person), or the system consisting of the photographer and his/her tools - the complete capability to readily produce great results. Both gear and skill will improve the latter. Gear will not necessarily improve the former, but skill will.

Now to the skill, specifically here skill related to making final images that comprise more DR from the scene than the sensor allowed to capture in a single exposure (also called HDR)...:
No, it's not a downside, but not a big advantage either. You'll probably learn HDR-like techniques regardless of the camera you use, but with low-DR sensor you'll be using them more frequently. My point is, the more frequent use of HDR doesn't make you a better photographer.
Whether the advantage is big or small, significant or insignificant, really depends on the context in which the photographer is. I agree with you that in many situations this has not been a great advantage to me (resulting in anything day-and-night); however, it has always when I chose to do it, had its significance.
Also, not having a camera that performed poorly enough to trigger my psychological desire to achieve better results and invest time and effort in trying to overcome the limitations and develop for me methods that make the process easier; I would have a lesser chance of doing so. This is a cause-consequence thing. The more capable camera one learns with, the lazier one tends to become... because of the lesser motivation to improve the results that already are closer to perfection. I'd say this in general; knowing however that this does not quite work for the case when the camera is extremely poorly performing... (Yerkes-Dodson law comes into mind).

20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?
I would say this also depends. The trick is that it is logically fallacious to try to evaluate whether the added possession of a skill or a tool in person 2 would do the person a better photographer than person 1 (irrespectively of whether this one possesses it or not) when not knowing all the significant specifics about both people. The more valid scenario would be to compare a single photographer prior to obtaining the skill or the tool, versus after having obtained it. Much like with the driver and the car fixing skills (from our previous posts). There I would claim that adding more knowledge about your toolset and its use always has the potential of making you a better operator.
I unfortunately cannot answer your question in a valid enough way; but I can claim that if I learned and trained photography with dark room processing, the event of me going through it would no doubt make me a better photographer - e.g. due to training the ability to better see beforehand and nail the scene in the field. Also, simply because I believe that training any kind of photography more would make me a better photographer thanks to the added experience. Even if I only learned it theoretically; it could have improved my reflectedness on postprocessing as such and therefore contributed to my capability to edit pictures - digitally or in a dark room.
 
Last edited:

Diko

7 fps...
Apr 27, 2011
432
5
36
Sofia, Bulgaria
Cool yeah, I got the concept. But I was responding to somebody else. So, carry on.
Like me? Next time check the name. I wasn't responding to you at all.

As for the HDR and blending. I am afraid I am doing it myself as well as long as it goes for Architecture. I don't know but hardly would believe that SONY has been so far for me to make a single photo in those case. And you know why? Because we officially are talking in difference less than a bit (13 & 14 bits) in DR. Between SONY and CANON. I am not sure for the MF (even though they are SONY's) if above 14 bit is achievable.

....Shooting in such conditions is a major NO-NO to me. ...There are more evidentiary videos like that out there...
Yep. Your's somewhat darker and I don't understand why point at the lasers? Check this: DR preview with ISO 2500 1/125 F1.4 5D4

As for the DR and its potential for further development. Already was said that better sensors exist for industrial utilization. When would they come th photo and video - don't know. The info is greater for the current techs at hand. The ones created are either monochrome, or smaller factor (due to the huge data flow for processing).

And yet again. Do you work or hobby with your gadget or you just need to compare with SONY, NIKON, Hasselblad, Quarkcharmed ?

In portraiture with controlled light, you won't have DR-related issues with any modern FF camera, you'll also be fine with 10-year-old cameras. In the harsh daylight, you'll probably use diffuser even with a medium-format Hasselblad just to change the quality of light.
Yeah, right. The mirror of my old 40D is broken. Otherwise I would have given it to you to try to make any descent shoot with good DR @ ISO 3200 (1600 was extreme already, and of course with worser DR than the same ISO on5D4). Quite extreme statement which makes me doubt your experience even further.

Things change when you have to work with natural/available light and there you'll suddenly be getting more keepers with a better sensor, especially when you shoot some action.Will it make you a better photographer?
Yes it will - for the customer. I have best lenses for the job can crop the way I want and get the best of the best keepers. That is a true "catch the moment" - and the customer is amazed. But I got that NOW. Don't deny the SONY's better sensors, but my point is - they are not THAT MUCH better and for everyday use I am perfect. HDRs are very specific photos for very specific occasions. ;-)

20-30 years ago many photographers had dark room processing skills which are totally irrelevant now. Were they better photographers than the ones who use exposure blending and luminosity masks in Photoshop?
For their thime. They were the best! I admire them truly and am full of respect, to play poker like that. Make awesome photos, develop them and hope that something didn't f* up. All the time staying in blind.

They shot what they couldn't see. We shoot what the others haven't see.

What I mean:

- Sometimes 2 identical photos of a duo. On each one the first or second model looking where I don't want them to look. Merging together in less than 2 min.

- A too dark or too bright place - too little or too big - we make people see them in a different way, controlled and developed by us.

Our skills to see what the others can't; imagine what the others won't and show what the others would appreciate is our proof of how great we are.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: mk0x55

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
422
388
OK. Does the 100MP sensor have Dynamic Range? Any of it? :)

I'm no troll, but since I added an A7R III, I now know what we've been missing out on for years. While Canon lenses area amazing, Canon sensors SUCK. They really do. The difference between a Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).

Here is hoping Canon will catch up, and I don't need to switch to Sony completely.
Thanks for the warning about Canon sensors.
I'll throw my Eos 5 D III and 5 D IV into the next river, and buy plenty of Wonderful Sonys with their magnificent sensors. I now understand why all my pictures were so dull ! A maximum of 0,5 EV additional DR makes a world of difference, I now know it!:ROFLMAO:
 
Reactions: Don Haines

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,207
507
Thanks for the warning about Canon sensors.
I'll throw my Eos 5 D III and 5 D IV into the next river, and buy plenty of Wonderful Sonys with their magnificent sensors. I now understand why all my pictures were so dull ! A maximum of 0,5 EV additional DR makes a world of difference, I now know it!:ROFLMAO:
Apparently the difference between night and day is just 1ev :LOL:
 
Reactions: Quirkz

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
50
47
[...] and I don't understand why point at the lasers? [...]
Sure, there is no wise point doing that willingly except that the photographer might at some point fail to realize that there is a laser source in the frame, which might lead to a three-grand-down situation (or something like that). ;)

I would say... it is surely fine for one who is confident in the ability to avoid damage (or face it); but my strategy in this case would be to avoid the risk exposure. :)
 
Reactions: Diko

mpmark

I'm New Here
Aug 9, 2016
24
21
Canon and a Sony sensor is literally day and night (as far as shadow detail is concerned).
Stop with the "day and night" garbage! They're really marginal differences, and I don't know how many times I care to pull the shadows or highlights sliders 2+ stops for any reason. Dont think I've ever gone to those limits. If your photography really makes a difference between 14 and 13.5ev then you've got bigger issues to be honest.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
346
222
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
This becomes a bit philosophical. I'd say it depends on how you look at it and what you aim to optimize - either just the photographer (person), or the system consisting of the photographer and his/her tools - the complete capability to readily produce great results. Both gear and skill will improve the latter. Gear will not necessarily improve the former, but skill will.
Ok, lets get back to the original statements. Obviously you do need to have certain skills and know the photo-stacking techniques (if they're required for your work). My point was, those techniques are workarounds, so they don't make you a better photographer compared to other hypothetical people with better sensors who use workarounds less.

The more capable camera one learns with, the lazier one tends to become... because of the lesser motivation to improve the results that already are closer to perfection. I'd say this in general; knowing however that this does not quite work for the case when the camera is extremely poorly performing... (Yerkes-Dodson law comes into mind).
I think it's very specific to one's personal mindset - that is, my photography improved with camera upgrades because I wanted to match my own camera(s).

I unfortunately cannot answer your question in a valid enough way; but I can claim that if I learned and trained photography with dark room processing, the event of me going through it would no doubt make me a better photographer - e.g. due to training the ability to better see beforehand and nail the scene in the field. Also, simply because I believe that training any kind of photography more would make me a better photographer thanks to the added experience. Even if I only learned it theoretically; it could have improved my reflectedness on postprocessing as such and therefore contributed to my capability to edit pictures - digitally or in a dark room.
In my childhood I had a little darkroom and did all b&w processing myself - the photos were ok but obviously not brilliant at all. Then I gave up on photography for some years until I got a DSLR. Literally all my darkroom/film processing skills became totally obsolete. All I brought from those days was the notion of exposure, ISO etc. - not really related to the darkroom. With my first DSLR, the artistic quality of my photos was as bad as in film days, but the technical quality improved tremendously. Just because of the gear. Had a become a better photographer after I bought my first DSLR? - not at all.

My point is, certain skills and techniques do make you better (such as composition, dodging/burning etc.), and certain skills are just necessary workarounds.

been so far for me to make a single photo in those case. And you know why? Because we officially are talking in difference less than a bit (13 & 14 bits) in DR. Between SONY and CANON. I am not sure for the MF (even though they are SONY's) if above 14 bit is achievable.
I wasn't even mentioning Sony in this conversation, but both Canon 5dIV and Sony A7rIII are 14-bit. 14-bit sensor can have 14 stops of DR max, it's a theoretical limit. In practice it's less than 14, of course. However, 1 bit difference means 1 stop and two times more information. The new 16-bit sensors will be FOUR times better in the sense of theoretical limits of DR and precision. 14 bits means each pixel can have 2^14 = 16386 values, 16 bits - 2^16 = 65536. That effectively means wider range of values for shadows and therefore cleaner shadows.

And yet again. Do you work or hobby with your gadget or you just need to compare with SONY, NIKON, Hasselblad, Quarkcharmed ?
Please read the thread back - I didn't even mention Sony and Nikon and I wasn't comparing Canon vs Sony. I mentioned Hasselblad but not for comparison.

Yeah, right. The mirror of my old 40D is broken. Otherwise I would have given it to you to try to make any descent shoot with good DR @ ISO 3200 (1600 was extreme already, and of course with worser DR than the same ISO on5D4). Quite extreme statement which makes me doubt your experience even further.
We were talking about the portraiture with controlled light, why would you shoot at ISO 3200 under the controlled light? 40D will be ok at ISO100 and with the controlled light - not up to date with the noisy shadows, but ok.
With the available light, the whole point was, you get more keepers with a better sensor. At ISO 3200, 40D will fail in many cases where 5DIV will produce keepers.
 
Reactions: mk0x55

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,207
507
My point is, certain skills and techniques do make you better (such as composition, dodging/burning etc.), and certain skills are just necessary workarounds.
And your point is false because blending and HDR are not just 'work arounds', they give you more freedom. Very much like dodging and burning.

I wasn't even mentioning Sony in this conversation, but both Canon 5dIV and Sony A7rIII are 14-bit. 14-bit sensor can have 14 stops of DR max, it's a theoretical limit.
Sensor ADCs are not perfectly linear which is why they can have more than 14 stops of DR. (In normal shooting for the Sony, and in DP RAW for the Canon.)

The new 16-bit sensors will be FOUR times better in the sense of theoretical limits of DR and precision.
MF backs have advertised 16-bit ADCs for years yet they do not have more DR than the highest DR FF sensors. Noise on the shadow side is the limiting factor, not the ADC resolution.
 
Reactions: mk0x55

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
346
222
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
And your point is false because blending and HDR are not just 'work arounds', they give you more freedom. Very much like dodging and burning.
HDR is a technique to overcome sensor limitations (or any other photo media limitations). Better sensors are less limited hence less HDR needed. As in my previous post, you have 40D and shoot landscapes and you need to do HDR often. Then you buy a 5DIV and realise now you need HDR not so often. Have you become a better photographer just because you bought a 5DIV? Or were you a better photographer when you had a 40D and had to use HDR more often?

Sensor ADCs are not perfectly linear which is why they can have more than 14 stops of DR. (In normal shooting for the Sony, and in DP RAW for the Canon.)
Ev/stops are not linear but logarithmic by nature, +1 stop means 2 times more light (photons), +14 stops means 2^14 = 16384 times more light. That fits into 14 bits exactly. If you're saying that a sensor can have say 15 stop DR with a 14-bit ADC, then the value of 16384 will actually represent a value of 32768. I don't think it works like that.
DxO measurements are obscure and I don't know how exactly they measure the DR. These guys seem to provide more reasonable measurements

MF backs have advertised 16-bit ADCs for years yet they do not have more DR than the highest DR FF sensors. Noise on the shadow side is the limiting factor, not the ADC resolution.
Analog noise is the factor but there's also digital noise related to the fact the shadows are represented by the smaller range of values than the highlights. In the darkest shadows, a 1-stop difference is represented by values 1 and 2, and in the brightest highlights, it's 8192 vs 16384 - much better range to play with.
16 bits vs 14 bits leave 4 times more values for shadows.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,207
507
HDR is a technique to overcome sensor limitations...
Dodging and burning are techniques to overcome film/paper limitations. They can still be used creatively to produce images that cannot be produced without them. Same for HDR and blending. Hell, HDR practically has it's own "look" that some love and some hate.

Or were you a better photographer when you had a 40D and had to use HDR more often?
You're a better photographer for knowing HDR because HDR allows for additional creative options.

Ev/stops are not linear but logarithmic by nature...
Exposure has a linear portion, and ADCs do not perfectly map this portion to bits.

If you're saying that a sensor can have say 15 stop DR with a 14-bit ADC, then the value of 16384 will actually represent a value of 32768. I don't think it works like that.
It observably works like that, though not in a single abrupt jump as you portray it.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
346
222
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Dodging and burning are techniques to overcome film/paper limitations. They can still be used creatively to produce images that cannot be produced without them. Same for HDR and blending. Hell, HDR practically has it's own "look" that some love and some hate.
A just HDR-merged image doesn't have any specific 'look', it looks like a normal out-of-camera image, which you could clearly see if you've ever done any HDR merge. So called HDR look is the result of further processing.

You're a better photographer for knowing HDR because HDR allows for additional creative options.
You have the same options with a better sensor but without an HDR merge. But no sensor will do dodging and burning for you.

Exposure has a linear portion, and ADCs do not perfectly map this portion to bits.
I wasn't aware of exposure having a linear portion. And I don't think it has actually. Exposure is a logarithmic function of amount of light, it doesn't have any linear parts in it.
Linear means some graph, with one axis being the exposure value and another - what exactly? Do you maybe have a link to a paper on that?

It observably works like that, though not in a single abrupt jump as you portray it.
I didn't portray any abrupt jumps, you probably misunderstood my message.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,207
507
You have the same options with a better sensor but without an HDR merge.
Except that you don't. And it actually takes a little work to get a HDR image to look natural which is why I prefer blending. And before you say "ah ha! blending is not artistic!" blending is an advanced form of dodging and burning.

I wasn't aware of exposure having a linear portion. And I don't think it has actually.
So all those years Kodak and Fuji were lying on their data sheets?

Exposure is a logarithmic function
You realize those are not mutually exclusive, right?

Linear means some graph, with one axis being the exposure value and another - what exactly?
Density or digital value, depending on medium.

I didn't portray any abrupt jumps, you probably misunderstood my message.
This was an abrupt jump: ...then the value of 16384 will actually represent a value of 32768...

There's not one big leap of missing tones at the end of the scale.