Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors

[marekjoz]

So the battle for 5d3 image quality will continue for some time. No matter for a while whether DXO results are fine or not - the numbers are presented to the public and caused some mess anyway. People in Canon probably are not happy looking at comparisons knowing the public look at them as well and buys equipment following those summaries. So what Canon will do next do defend it's positions?

 

[Astro]

they will care a shit and listen to pros who actually use cameras out in the field.

 

[lol]

My impression is they're spending all their time and effort in video, and have neglected any major development on the stills performance side of the sensors.

 

[altenae]

And still it's a superb tool which is capable of more then most of us will ever need or use..

And I think this is a fact..

 

[Astro]

or they will just post a link to the techradar test with a big question mark ?

and ask how two DxO test can have different results.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5868.0

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Here's something I'd generally be interested in -- but, please, only reply if you have real-world experience, and not if you're only projecting your expectations from interpretations of an unfocused high-ISO macro shot of the inside of soWmebody's lenscap you saw posted on the 'Net.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

I personally can't think of any.

Cheers,

b&

 

[gene_can_sing]

My impression is they're spending all their time and effort in video, and have neglected any major development on the stills performance side of the sensors.

That's a huge misstatement. Their current video products are consider so overpriced and underspec'd that they're getting destroyed on the video forums. Nikon D800 video is even shining over the 5D3.

Canon has just slacked too hard the last few years. They lost the hunger after the success of the 5D2 on all fronts.

 

[lessmore]

Here's something I'd generally be interested in -- but, please, only reply if you have real-world experience, and not if you're only projecting your expectations from interpretations of an unfocused high-ISO macro shot of the inside of soWmebody's lenscap you saw posted on the 'Net.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

I personally can't think of any.

Cheers,

b&

Ask the same question about the 5D Mark II (or any number of other cameras) and you may get the same answer.

Whether the camera does everything you need or not, Canon also has to live up to their customers' expectations. Those expectation are shaped partially by what the competition is doing.

How many people who own a Porsche have ever driven it at full speed around a corner? Does that mean that Porsche should make cars that go slower because for most people "that's fast enough"? Sure, they could. I wonder how sales would look if they did?

 

[Astro]

How many people who own a Porsche have ever driven it at full speed around a corner? Does that mean that Porsche should make cars that go slower because for most people "that's fast enough"? Sure, they could. I wonder how sales would look if they did?

exactly.... 95% of all porsche owners don´t need a porsche or could even use it´s full potential. it´s a status symbol.

 

[lol]

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

Currently I primarily use a 7D plus assorted telezooms for wildlife. Lack of reach at a reasonable quality is a limiting factor, but at the same time, I need to be ready to adapt to changing situations. Typically I'd go out with two bodies, one tele zoom, one wide zoom. I would love a high MP density FF body to use. 36MP full frame would be an acceptable minimum, although a Canon parallel would be 46MP (make the 18MP APS-C sensor bigger). Basically this would give me the same effective quality and reach as the 7D by cropping on the long end of zoom. When I don't need to crop, I can make use of the increased resolution. Also, by being a bigger sensor, the zoom just got extended 1.6x on the wide end. This would increase my flexibility significantly as I look towards longer focal length solutions. Yes, I'd trade off the fps for the increased resolution. For obvious reasons medium format is the wrong tool for this job.

e.g. using the 100-400L as an example.
On 7D: 160-640mm equivalent at 18MP
On hypothetical 46MP full frame sensor: 100-400mm at 46MP, 400-640mm effective at >18MP by cropping.

Increased resolution over most of the range, while maintaining the total reach, and more effective zoom range compared to 7D.

 

[altenae]

More and more and more superb reviews about the 5D mark iii are becoming available.
Very very good user experiences also.

But these are all users who own the camera and use the camera.

I am really sick and tired over these DXO numbers, price to high , sensor not good , Canon is a shame, etc.

Buy the 5D or not.
I am really interested in the portfolio of all the complainers , so that I can see why the 5D mark iii is not good enough and why Canon is a shame.

There is so much more to an improvement over the mark II then only the sensor and the BS DXO numbers.
-----
www.wildlife-photos.net
www.scramble.nl
www.planepix.nl

 

[sach100]

More and more and more superb reviews about the 5D mark iii are becoming available.
Very very good user experiences also.

But these are all users who own the camera and use the camera.

I am really sick and tired over these DXO numbers, price to high , sensor not good , Canon is a shame, etc.

Buy the 5D or not.
I am really interested in the portfolio of all the complainers , so that I can see why the 5D mark iii is not good enough and why Canon is a shame.

There is so much more to an improvement over the mark II then only the sensor and the BS DXO numbers.

+1 Amen!

We need not go any further than CR forum. People are quietly posting away great pictures (and video) while some are going out of their way in proving 5d3 (sensor etc) is crap. btw, if guys are churning out great photos with their 'crap' 5d3 then they must be brilliant photogs and they can do magic with ANY camera.
There are issues with 5d3, agreed (like every other camera that came before it), but i am more than happy with mine! yeah baby!!

 

[jrista]

Here's something I'd generally be interested in -- but, please, only reply if you have real-world experience, and not if you're only projecting your expectations from interpretations of an unfocused high-ISO macro shot of the inside of soWmebody's lenscap you saw posted on the 'Net.

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

I personally can't think of any.

Cheers,

b&

Landscapes...in a heartbeat! The average sunset landscape can have a DR well above 12 stops, even above 14 stops. The more DR the better for landscape shots. Not that you will necessarily use all of it in the final product, but that you can always use the leeway when it comes to landscape shots. Being able to do even a touch of shadow recovery where necessary without encountering the color-blotched noise-infested pattern-ridden shadows that Canon is well-known for would be a godsend. Not to mention the improved sharpness on the D800e.

 

[jrista]

e.g. using the 100-400L as an example.
On 7D: 160-640mm equivalent at 18MP
On hypothetical 46MP full frame sensor: 100-400mm at 46MP, 400-640mm effective at >18MP by cropping.

Um...what? On a 47.6mp FF sensor (which would be the equivalent pixel density of an 18mp APS-C), if you crop the 18mp APS-C sized center of the frame...you would get the exact same effective focal length...160-640. Are you thinking about the 200-400mm with 1.4x TC? If so, that would be 320-640 effective @ APS-C crop. I'm curious where you got 400-640mm effective...

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

In what real-world situation does the 5DIII have insufficient image quality for the job but the D800 does have sufficient IQ? That is, when would you put down the 5DIII and pick up the D800 instead of a medium format kit?

e.g. using the 100-400L as an example.
On 7D: 160-640mm equivalent at 18MP
On hypothetical 46MP full frame sensor: 100-400mm at 46MP, 400-640mm effective at >18MP by cropping.

Increased resolution over most of the range, while maintaining the total reach, and more effective zoom range compared to 7D.

So why do people bother paying thousands for EF 400 L's and above if they could simply buy 1 camera and crop in? Because of quality. I would rather have Canon get the quality right first at 22.3. I have a 41mp medium format if I want bigger, but then medium format also has a different quality to it that the D800 can't fully replicate. If you need to get closer, GET closer. Stop decreasing you IQ by cropping in in post.

 

[lol]

Um...what? On a 47.6mp FF sensor (which would be the equivalent pixel density of an 18mp APS-C), if you crop the 18mp APS-C sized center of the frame...you would get the exact same effective focal length...160-640. Are you thinking about the 200-400mm with 1.4x TC? If so, that would be 320-640 effective @ APS-C crop. I'm curious where you got 400-640mm effective...

I was saying you'd get 46MP at up to 400mm, but to effectively go beyond 400mm you can crop. Setting the floor at 18MP, you reach the same 18MP at 640mm effective as with 7D.

So why do people bother paying thousands for EF 400 L's and above if they could simply buy 1 camera and crop in? Because of quality. I would rather have Canon get the quality right first at 22.3. I have a 41mp medium format if I want bigger, but then medium format also has a different quality to it that the D800 can't fully replicate. If you need to get closer, GET closer. Stop decreasing you IQ by cropping in in post.

If I could get closer, I would be able to walk on water and fly. As far as I know, I am not related to Superman, so that is not an option. Sure, I'd love the massive telephotos too. If I had the cash, I'd get them, as well as an entourage to help carry them around. Medium format is about the worst camera for my needs. For less demanding uses, I have the 5D2 at half the price of the 5D3, but neither come close to the 7D in this application. And that is the big point here. I don't care if the kit does better in another application. I'm concerned with what it does for me. Do not try to impose a different set of irrelevant criteria to my needs.

Besides, I'm not decreasing my IQ from my benchmark, which is the 7D. Having a high MP will allow cropping to that when necessary, and when not, a significant resolution increase. Put simply, if Canon had released a 5D3 with a sensor like the D800 in it, I'd have one in my kit bag right now.

 

[altenae]

Um...what? On a 47.6mp FF sensor (which would be the equivalent pixel density of an 18mp APS-C), if you crop the 18mp APS-C sized center of the frame...you would get the exact same effective focal length...160-640. Are you thinking about the 200-400mm with 1.4x TC? If so, that would be 320-640 effective @ APS-C crop. I'm curious where you got 400-640mm effective...

I was saying you'd get 46MP at up to 400mm, but to effectively go beyond 400mm you can crop. Setting the floor at 18MP, you reach the same 18MP at 640mm effective as with 7D.

So why do people bother paying thousands for EF 400 L's and above if they could simply buy 1 camera and crop in? Because of quality. I would rather have Canon get the quality right first at 22.3. I have a 41mp medium format if I want bigger, but then medium format also has a different quality to it that the D800 can't fully replicate. If you need to get closer, GET closer. Stop decreasing you IQ by cropping in in post.

If I could get closer, I would be able to walk on water and fly. As far as I know, I am not related to Superman, so that is not an option. Sure, I'd love the massive telephotos too. If I had the cash, I'd get them, as well as an entourage to help carry them around. Medium format is about the worst camera for my needs. For less demanding uses, I have the 5D2 at half the price of the 5D3, but neither come close to the 7D in this application. And that is the big point here. I don't care if the kit does better in another application. I'm concerned with what it does for me. Do not try to impose a different set of irrelevant criteria to my needs.

Besides, I'm not decreasing my IQ from my benchmark, which is the 7D. Having a high MP will allow cropping to that when necessary, and when not, a significant resolution increase. Put simply, if Canon had released a 5D3 with a sensor like the D800 in it, I'd have one in my kit bag right now.

Getting the reach with good lenses is better then crop in most circumstances.

 

[jrista]

Um...what? On a 47.6mp FF sensor (which would be the equivalent pixel density of an 18mp APS-C), if you crop the 18mp APS-C sized center of the frame...you would get the exact same effective focal length...160-640. Are you thinking about the 200-400mm with 1.4x TC? If so, that would be 320-640 effective @ APS-C crop. I'm curious where you got 400-640mm effective...

I was saying you'd get 46MP at up to 400mm, but to effectively go beyond 400mm you can crop. Setting the floor at 18MP, you reach the same 18MP at 640mm effective as with 7D.

So why do people bother paying thousands for EF 400 L's and above if they could simply buy 1 camera and crop in? Because of quality. I would rather have Canon get the quality right first at 22.3. I have a 41mp medium format if I want bigger, but then medium format also has a different quality to it that the D800 can't fully replicate. If you need to get closer, GET closer. Stop decreasing you IQ by cropping in in post.

If I could get closer, I would be able to walk on water and fly. As far as I know, I am not related to Superman, so that is not an option. Sure, I'd love the massive telephotos too. If I had the cash, I'd get them, as well as an entourage to help carry them around. Medium format is about the worst camera for my needs. For less demanding uses, I have the 5D2 at half the price of the 5D3, but neither come close to the 7D in this application. And that is the big point here. I don't care if the kit does better in another application. I'm concerned with what it does for me. Do not try to impose a different set of irrelevant criteria to my needs.

Besides, I'm not decreasing my IQ from my benchmark, which is the 7D. Having a high MP will allow cropping to that when necessary, and when not, a significant resolution increase. Put simply, if Canon had released a 5D3 with a sensor like the D800 in it, I'd have one in my kit bag right now.

Getting the reach with good lenses is better then crop in most circumstances.

+1 Definitely.

 

[marcust]

they will just quit makeing still cameras, going to video only,,,,,,,,,

 

[lol]

Getting the reach with good lenses is better then crop in most circumstances.

To the point when they either become too heavy or too expensive they are no longer an option. Optimise the whole system.