What do you want from the 5D mk III

[alipaulphotography]

Well voting closes tomorrow and looks like the very aged autofocus is coming out top with ISO handling in close 2nd.

More megapixels is in last place - but I somehow reckon canon will probably boost them anyway and compromise ISO handling potential.

Wish I had dynamic range up there - would be interesting to see!

What current (digital) camera has the greatest dynamic range? What is stopping manufactures from improving it substantially?

You lot are so wise..

 

[Grendel]

[dynamic range] What is stopping manufactures from improving it substantially?

Physics.

 

[branden]

PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.

You are being ridiculous. The question is not "what color are snow crystals". Snow, being by definition a large quantity of snow crystals, when pure and exposed to light, reflect back the same color as the light. This meets the definition of a white pigment. This also brings us to your second ridiculous error, where you ignore the universe that is pigments and state that white is not a color. When discussing colors of objects, it is convention that unless specifically stated otherwise, what is under discussion is the object's pigment color. The pigment color of snow is white, therefore the color of snow is white.

 

[NotABunny]

in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness).

I think you meant to increase the 0.5 stop to the D3S.

Right, the image is already underexposed with 1.3 stops, so this correction gives it only 0.8 stops underexposure. (Considering that these are both Nikons from the same range are really doubt that they have an ISO sensibility that differs with 0.8 stops; I simply believe that the photos were taken in a different amount of light.)

On my screen the D3s wins with a little though, but not much.

Exactly.

When I discussed quality above I was discussing "high end" prints and limits of human vision.

Right, but if the resolution of the print / display increases, the image with fewer pixels must be upscaled more, which means that its noise is increased plus it would show blurry details because it has no real details (they are interpolated).

This example was meant to show that the theory that less pixels means less noise is an illusion. Even if we ignore the technological advancements of D3s, is it really important that tiny difference in noise that you get from halving the number of pixels (note: only in this illusory world where the better quality of the D3s is strictly given by the fewer pixels)?

I can see no practical application where fewer pixels would mean a technically better image (= not better pixels). The only advantage there is, is in terms of more FPS and less storage space per image, but if the camera (with more pixels) implements pixel binning, these advantages are very limited (it really depends how fast the camera does pixel binning).


Of course, one could always go to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 where I point to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light with a 1D4 and a D3s (the photos have the same exposure settings and brightness).

Those images have to be normalized for the physical size of the sensor (and black level). Some people ignore that comparison because they do not understand that sensor size is THE technical reason why DSLRs and medium format (and whatever other uber-sized format) exist: more light for the same exposure AND noise. When such images are seen at the same physical size as the ones coming from smaller sensors, that extra light actually clears the image of some noise.

(Alas, the guy's conclusion is wrong because he compares the noise at pixel level, not at image level.)

 

[NotABunny]

PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.

You are being ridiculous. The question is not "what color are snow crystals".

He's being technical, not ridiculous.

The question refers to a social concept: color. However, technically, the colors perceived by humans are really a spectral power distribution function of an illuminating light which is altered when reflected by matter into another spectral power distribution function and then received by the human eye and altered into a much more limited spectral power distribution function (the so called RGB receptors), and finally processed by the brain into something we perceive as color.

 

[alipaulphotography]

Enough snow talk already! Camera site, camera forum and I check a new post and it is about whether white is a colour.

Really interesting link behind the physically limits of photography - Thanks for posting Grendel.

in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness).

I think you meant to increase the 0.5 stop to the D3S.

Right, the image is already underexposed with 1.3 stops, so this correction gives it only 0.8 stops underexposure. (Considering that these are both Nikons from the same range are really doubt that they have an ISO sensibility that differs with 0.8 stops; I simply believe that the photos were taken in a different amount of light.)

On my screen the D3s wins with a little though, but not much.

Exactly.

When I discussed quality above I was discussing "high end" prints and limits of human vision.

Right, but if the resolution of the print / display increases, the image with fewer pixels must be upscaled more, which means that its noise is increased plus it would show blurry details because it has no real details (they are interpolated).

This example was meant to show that the theory that less pixels means less noise is an illusion. Even if we ignore the technological advancements of D3s, is it really important that tiny difference in noise that you get from halving the number of pixels (note: only in this illusory world where the better quality of the D3s is strictly given by the fewer pixels)?

I can see no practical application where fewer pixels would mean a technically better image (= not better pixels). The only advantage there is, is in terms of more FPS and less storage space per image, but if the camera (with more pixels) implements pixel binning, these advantages are very limited (it really depends how fast the camera does pixel binning).


Of course, one could always go to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 where I point to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light with a 1D4 and a D3s (the photos have the same exposure settings and brightness).

Those images have to be normalized for the physical size of the sensor (and black level). Some people ignore that comparison because they do not understand that sensor size is THE technical reason why DSLRs and medium format (and whatever other uber-sized format) exist: more light for the same exposure AND noise. When such images are seen at the same physical size as the ones coming from smaller sensors, that extra light actually clears the image of some noise.

(Alas, the guy's conclusion is wrong because he compares the noise at pixel level, not at image level.)

The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there. But you are saying that even if it had 30mp, that wouldn't affect its performance and the image at higher ISO's would infact be better?

 

[NotABunny]

The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there.

Yes, but that's because of its sensor size (and its top technology), not because of the fewer pixels.

The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there. But you are saying that even if it had 30mp, that wouldn't affect its performance and the image at higher ISO's would infact be better?

Exactly. (But only in theory because Nikon / Sony may not have the actual sensor technology which would allow them to increase the pixel density while maintaining the level of noise. As the comparison between the 1D4 and D3s shows, Canon does have such technology.)

 

[fernando]

- Better audio monitoring and features
- Raw Video
- Better encoding
- All available FPS (24p, 30p, 50p, 60p)
- Swivel Screen
- Higher Res LCD Screen

oh and announce it tomorrow

 

[torger]

You cannot be categorical on this issue. Yes, the noise advantage of large pixels/sensels is generally over-estimated, but saying it is not a factor to take into account is going too far.

The noise advantage of a larger pixel is that you gather more light (more signal), and if the read noise is the same, you get a higher signal/noise ratio (you get some advantage of less photon shot noise too with more signal). So if you make a smaller pixel you need also to lower the read noise to keep the same signal/noise ratio per pixel. It is also easier to gather the photons in a specific area with one pixel than if you have pixel borders in it - photons can hit in-between pixels (micro lenses developments has improved this collection problem though).

Whether or not the advantage of large pixels will compensate or supersede the advantage of averaging noise between several pixels you need to subjectively compare on a case per case basis. If the small pixel sensor has great electronics and great micro lenses, and the large pixel sensor has poor the small pixel sensor will certainly win. If the quality of the electronics and sensor construction is exactly the same, which sensor will win? I don't know, I'm not sure if anyone knows, there's too many variables.

The high ISO advantage of the D3s I think is due to both larger pixel size and quality electronics. However, if you make a camera body specifically aimed at high ISO you don't really need many megapixels - high ISO typically means hand-held and action and then it is generally not possible to get the extreme sharpness you need to max out 20+ megapixels, plus the noise levels will be so high in any case that the pixels are not carrying useful info at the pixel level. So you have more than one reason that makes a high ISO sensor favor fewer megapixels.

But perhaps I'm wrong not believing in combining top performance in high ISO and high pixel count. I would be glad if I am, because I do favor high pixel count since my main interest is landscape photography...

The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there.

Yes, but that's because of its sensor size (and its top technology), not because of the fewer pixels.

The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there. But you are saying that even if it had 30mp, that wouldn't affect its performance and the image at higher ISO's would infact be better?

Exactly. (But only in theory because Nikon / Sony may not have the actual sensor technology which would allow them to increase the pixel density while maintaining the level of noise. As the comparison between the 1D4 and D3s shows, Canon does have such technology.)

 

[NotABunny]

if you make a smaller pixel you need also to lower the read noise to keep the same signal/noise ratio per pixel. It is also easier to gather the photons in a specific area with one pixel than if you have pixel borders in it

That may have been true for older technology, years ago. But those photos taken with the 1D4 and D3s are taken by two sensors built by different companies (at about the same time, so we can say with sort of similar technology), where one has 3 times the pixel density of the other, yet there is no visible difference in the noise levels (between the two) at ISO 12800. So what does it take from a practical point of view to have a visible difference in the noise levels?

if you make a camera body specifically aimed at high ISO you don't really need many megapixels

Right. Maybe if Canon / Nikon / Sony would build a sensor with only 10% of the pixels (1...2 MP), using the same technology that they've used in their latest cameras (or something better that can be scaled at that resolution), that would show 1 stop less noise at ISO X. But who would use such a low resolution? And more to the point, where is the physical evidence?

 

[John W. Hession]

I am the photo editor of an architectural magazine. About half our contributing photographers shoot with the 5D Mark II primarily because of the excellent array of tilt shift lenses that Canon has come up with.

1. The biggest improvement would be the dynamic range of the sensor, espedially at low iso (eg 50). Where the 5D really falls behind the Phase One backs and traditional 4x5 is the inability to hold shadows and highlights in high contrast situations.

2. When shooting video the base of the camera is not up to keeping the lenses aligned with followfocus and matte box accessories. Just pure bad build. I shoot a lot with film cameras, and an essential feature is the ability to use accessories without the camera moving thus having the lens center moving in the frame. I know the 5D is a throw away compared with an Arri or and Aaton, but still, the build is cheesy.

 

[torger]

I guess you are referring to this comparison:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm

I see clear differences to the D3s's advantage, I'd say it is about 2/3 stops in that comparison, the reviewer sees 1. D3s ISO12800 looks only slightly worse than 1D4 ISO6400. If you say that it is no difference, I understand your conclusions, but I cannot draw the same since I think the D3s shows clearly better performance.

Afterall, it's all subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, it could just as well be me that is more picky than the average user. It is a very interesting discussion.

(There's one thing that testers often miss, I'm not sure if done here, the light meters can make different decisions, typcially low contrast scenes are underexposed if auto-exposed, so I prefer tests when there is manual exposure according to the expose-to-the-right principle so I get to see the raw sensor performance. Light meter behavior is of course relevant to action photography though, but much harder to test... anyway, when shooting from a tripod and you have the time one should always expose manually, it is not uncommon that the camera's auto-exposure algorithm throws away 1-2 stops in dynamic range just like that, at least according to my experience.)

yet there is no visible difference in the noise levels (between the two) at ISO 12800.

 

[NotABunny]

I guess you are referring to this comparison:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm

I see clear differences to the D3s's advantage, I'd say it is about 2/3 stops in that comparison.

That's because you have not normalized the sensor size (plus the black level applied by Nikon - or maybe that was a mistake in the RAW editor). As I said above, the sensor size is THE technical reason why DSLRs (or medium format) are used instead of compact cameras.

You can't directly compare two photos taken with sensors of different sizes if you want to see if the pixel density matters. Yes, because of its sensor size and top technology, not because of pixel size, D3s is currently the best at ISO handling.


Here is why you see the difference: the 1D4 sensor has a 1.3 crop, which means that its surface is 1.69 times smaller than that of D3s, which means that it gathers that much less light, which means that you should see more noise worth about log2( 1.69) = 0.75 stops per photo.

 

[DOF]

Better AF, all points cross, double cross in center + zones.
16bit Raw, and the DR to make them useful (so at least +2 stops or why bother)
High ISO improvements. ISO 102400 may be silly, but clean ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 would be awesome.
No low ISO banding

what this person said

 

[torger]

Here is why you see the difference: the 1D4 sensor has a 1.3 crop, which means that its surface is 1.69 times smaller than that of D3s, which means that it gathers that much less light, which means that you should see more noise worth about log2( 1.69) = 0.75 stops per photo.

Ahh... did not think about sensor size, you're right that does have some impact. I'll look more into this in the future, really interesting for us technical nerds . But wait a minute, that would only count for photon shot noise, right?

Emil Martinec's noise discussion sheds some light on the issue:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Just as you say he says that light collection efficiency is largly independent of pixel size, but that there can be read noise advantages of larger pixels at high ISOs.

 

[archie.gsy]

better ISO performance
more focus points / better auto focus system
dual card slots
more AEB than 3, at least 5 poss 7
level indicator like the 7D
not really bothered by more MP / does it need more ?
selectable autofocus during video
a frame rate of about 5 FPS

 

[te4o]

With the Digic V intro I hope there's a chance of a new LifeView era: much higher resolution screen (iPhone like 300 dpi, retina) with high-end finger-zoom, touch AF-video&stills, touch-zoom, 100% coverage, easy video control functions on a menu separate from stills... why should only smart phone users enjoy smart interfaces? If Canon goes Apples why not integrate hardware and software more and more?
A swivel screen is unavoidable if serious about video, opponents may keep it fixed onto body all the time (don't think they would, though)
Everything else about IQ and AF etc is said already.

 

[NotABunny]

much higher resolution screen (iPhone like 300 dpi, retina)

Having seen a Samsung Galaxy S 1 and an iPhone 4 at the same time, I really hope Canon decides to go with AMOLED, like Sony. Having more but blurrier pixels doesn't appeal to me.

 

[alipaulphotography]

- 1 or 2 stops improved noise performance
- Dynamic range improvement
- 19 Cross type AF points
- DIGIC V
- USB 3.0 or thunderbolt
- Fix the aliasing problem for video people

Haven't made my mind up on a swivel screen - Don't think the camera needs it, but don't think it would do much harm.

 

[azf]

Haven't made my mind up on a swivel screen - Don't think the camera needs it, but don't think it would do much harm.

I guess it won't have it, and I definitely don't want it to have it either. All the extra joints would be problematic to seal properly against moisture and dust.