70D what do you think?

[David Hull]

There is little difference in IQ for any DSLR at ISO 100. You are buying features and hype.

For landscapes, more MP will give you more detail, but as MP count goes up, so does the difficulty in actually getting that extra bit of resolution. There are some who do very well with high MP cameras, but the average photographer is not obsessed with a incremental increase in resolution, the more important elements such as composition and subject, lighting, DR, etc put and IQ improvements far down the list. In fact, I don't even know how to measure something hypothetical like IQ that only exists in the mind of a photographer and is different for each of them. We can measure several parameters, and they trade off against each other, but IQ? That sounds like something DXO would assign a number to

There is a pretty huge difference at ISO100. That is actually where cameras differ the most since they are all pretty solid at high ISO now. But at low ISO some have one to THREE AND A HALF stops better dynamic range than others. For many scenes that doesn't matter at all, but for many potential scenes it could.

70D RAW file appears to show the same old DR as Canon has been stuck with since 2007 . I hope it is not their new process sensor!

My guess is Canon's noise problems are not really with their sensor, but with the downstream high frequency electronics. In other words, DIGIC. It seems most other manufacturers have moved to on-die processing of some kind...Sony with CP-ADC, and others with something similar...on-die ADC. Canon supposedly had similar technology with the 120mp APS-H (the press releases explicitly called out on-die "parallel image processing", which I can only figure is ADC)...why they haven't put the technology into practice is beyond me.

because they sell cameras and have only invested in 2 fab lines which one is old and can not produce column vise ADC at the sensor = 500nm feature size, which means that it cannot be used for small pixels and =higher resolution with the accuracy needed
120mp is from fab line 2 = the compact camera line where they( Canon) can produce smaller circuits but it takes resources from the compakt line
So it is costs vs better and newer solutions in APS and 24x36
People buy anyway Canon because the brand name is so strong and they think Canon makes the best sensors
And Canon says , Who needs more than 21Mp it is the optimal amount of Mp
Right?

You overlook the fact that the sensors actually DO work and work quite well. People aren’t buying this stuff because somehow Canon has stirred some sort of marketing “fairy dust” into their morning coffee – they are buying it because it works, the cameras produce excellent images and they see people getting excellent results using the equipment. This is exactly why when the 5DIII came out (and the price dropped to a more reasonable level), I upgraded from my 5DII. I did this because I knew that the gear would do the job I needed it to do and that it would do it well, and it has.

21 MP probably is a good sweet spot when you trade off how much resolution is actually needed / used by typical photographers vs. file size, firing rate etc. 36 MP is good if you need it, but I think that most photographers do not necessarily need it (particularly when it comes at a cost in terms of storage, processing time and firing rate). And, before you start, I know all the rebuttals, disk storage is cheap etc. but huge files are with you always whether you need them or not, I am glad I don’t have to put up with them.

 

[Don Haines]

I think that I will wait until the 70D is out and in use to pass judgement. There are a lot of changes between it and the 60D. The sensor is different, the focus system is different, and the features are different.

Several of the big changes between the 60D and the 70D are with focus, and this has a greater impact on your photos than the sensor tech does. (Who cares what the resolution, noise, or dynamic range is on an out of focus picture...) This certainly bodes well for the 70D being a great camera, but is no guarantee.

Many seem to confuse IQ with sensor resolution. IQ is an arbitrary concept that results from a combination of lens, shutter speed, IS, lighting, focus, and yes, sensor technology. A few lab shots under controlled conditions are not going to reflect what YOU want for the way YOU shoot with YOUR lenses. And then we have the question of "how does it feel" in your hands and do you like the user interface.... You are going to have to wait until you get your hands on it to be sure.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

70D RAW file appears to show the same old DR as Canon has been stuck with since 2007 . I hope it is not their new process sensor!

How do you conclude that the 70D RAW files have the same DR as older Canon Cameras? Maybe I misunderstand the concept of DR, but I think to measure the DR you need to how light was when the picture was taken; a piece of information that is not included in the RAW file.

The RAW files from Canon cameras have a pitch black masked off area around the outer edge that you can access with pre-RAW debayer/processing software. You can measure that and usually get a value that is pretty close to what you get from the main imaging portion of the sensor in a captured dark frame.

The white point has general been in similar ballpark and even if you take the max possible value it doesn't change the results too much so you can get away without even measuring that if there is no portion of the frame that is totally blown out.

Between those two things you might not exactly nail the DR but you get close enough that it doesn't matter.

At least so far.

I will say again that the black masked area on the left this time is much more narrow than on the other bodies and since DPR claims to have seen an improvement, it is possible, that this time, for the first time, the method will prove to not have been reliable. I suspect it will be proven to be reliable, but I'm not like 99% sure by any means this time as I was the other times. So there is still a definite chance that it could be better. We will have to wait for a true black frame.

Even if the engineering DR proved to not be any better and nowhere close to Exmor, there is always the chance that they may have at least improved pattern banding noise and brought to super low 1Ds3 levels perhaps which would be an improvement over the 7D.

Anyway, we will see, it would have been nice had the masked area shown a huge improvement though.

It is also possible that they may have decided to focus on dual-phase stuff and had the aps-c team focusing only on that while having some other team FF sensor team working on a truly new process that will give the 5D4/3D/maybe 7D2 or what not much better ISO100 DR. Maybe after this round they will eventually merge the tech between the two?? Who knows.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

There is little difference in IQ for any DSLR at ISO 100. You are buying features and hype.

For landscapes, more MP will give you more detail, but as MP count goes up, so does the difficulty in actually getting that extra bit of resolution. There are some who do very well with high MP cameras, but the average photographer is not obsessed with a incremental increase in resolution, the more important elements such as composition and subject, lighting, DR, etc put and IQ improvements far down the list. In fact, I don't even know how to measure something hypothetical like IQ that only exists in the mind of a photographer and is different for each of them. We can measure several parameters, and they trade off against each other, but IQ? That sounds like something DXO would assign a number to

There is a pretty huge difference at ISO100. That is actually where cameras differ the most since they are all pretty solid at high ISO now. But at low ISO some have one to THREE AND A HALF stops better dynamic range than others. For many scenes that doesn't matter at all, but for many potential scenes it could.

70D RAW file appears to show the same old DR as Canon has been stuck with since 2007 . I hope it is not their new process sensor!

My guess is Canon's noise problems are not really with their sensor, but with the downstream high frequency electronics. In other words, DIGIC. It seems most other manufacturers have moved to on-die processing of some kind...Sony with CP-ADC, and others with something similar...on-die ADC. Canon supposedly had similar technology with the 120mp APS-H (the press releases explicitly called out on-die "parallel image processing", which I can only figure is ADC)...why they haven't put the technology into practice is beyond me.

Yeah it depends upon your definition of sensor. If you are talking solely the photon capture and not a whit else than yes their sensors are very good, even the current ones, I believe, capture more than 14 stops DR, I forget the numbers but it might even be closer to 16. But the electronic readouts/ADC and such that are in some cases on and more or less a part of the sensor too and in some cases just off sensor are much worse and yeah that is where the problem lies. Exmor makes it all part of the sensor in a much different way.

Maybe there is some degree of cost to switch to that and the bean counters just wanna milk the cow more and more. Maybe they are right in sense of stock holders, maybe not (certainly not for users though). Companies that reach the top often become very slow and arrogant in some ways (thinking about the Canon rep a number of years back at that one show in Europe, totally bragging about Canon was infinitely ahead of Nikon or anyone else for FF and he more or less laughed when asked if Canon would try to get out FF cameras with faster performance or improve the sensors more, saying they were the kings and had no need to bother to do anything, although he did also say that on the very odd chance they were wrong they had everything ready for a quick response to any possible challenge.

Well they were wrong as Nikon came out with FF less than a year later, not years to decades later, and they were a little slower at upping FF body specs than he implied and they still haven't answered to Exmor for low ISO.

Of course it is true that Canon video, thanks to ML unleashing the true power, is vastly better than anything Nikon hardware can do so Canon is, for now, miles ahead in tech in some ways still, I do have to say the 5D3 video is beyond amazing now, infinitely better than Nikon video and of course the Canon lens division has been hitting home run after home run and they do seem to be making the better lenses compared to Nikon.

The 24-70G from Nikon seems to really struggle a bit outside of center frame on the D800 for instance the don't match the 24-70 2.8 II or have a match for the 24-70 f/4 IS, they have nothing at all like a 70-300L, they only just recently finally made a 70-200 f/4 IS type clone, while their 200-400 is good it ain't no match for the 200-400 IS optics, their super tele are great, good enough maybe it largely doesn't matter but put a 2x tc or even 1.4x tc, never mind stacked TCs, on the IS II and the Nikon and Canon does seem to hold up better, they don't have anything to touch the 17 T&S or 24 T&S II.

Their UI seems a lot more annoying and less intuitive than what Canon has evolved theirs into. Their liveview took a huge step back on their recent releases.

Anyway, as I was saying though, the Canon bean counters maybe hear all the talk about video being the next big thing and figure putting the money into whiz bang stuff like dual-phase AF (especially since their mirrorless stuff was getting killed in reviews for AF and that market is apparently big in Japan) makes more sense since when they look into forums and see everyone who tries to complain about DR get driven away and the ones who stay getting mocked as DRip DRippers and figure they don't need to bother, nobody cares about DxO scores or trying to capture more types of scenes (as more DR allows) and maybe so long as people defend them to the ends of the Earth in the forums and beat down the Drippers and Ankorwatt and such and people don't get scared away and they keep decent sales they maybe figure safer to be conservative and not lose out jobs than push forward and spend more to improve DR no matter how small the risk just in case ROI takes some time. It's also harder to get fired for sales not improving a lot and not totally dominating compared to Nikon (as I suspect would have happened had they pushed top AF into 5D2 and top sensors into 5D3/60D) and easier to look bad for a big one quarter expenditure to push stuff like that forward? Who knows.

Or maybe they are in some way stuck for whatever minor technical reason.

(The EOSF guy seemed to have some inside info and he claimed back in the 5D3 days that Canon saw no need to spend $ on new sensor processes and felt they could just add in 1 series AF for much lower cost and that they wanted to focus on upping the margin per body sale compared to the 5D2 more than improving the sensor that round, or something along those lines. I don't know how deep his connections run or if something was lost in translation, he may have misinterpreted something, so it probably should be taken with a big grain of salt.

There was also another guy, from Canon, but not from camera division, who said their division sent a technology for a possible patent to hep improve DR in DSLRs and that the DSLR division in Japan appeared to care less and the upper level marketing type guys who got their communication just blew it off and they are not even sure if they even bothered to show it to their engineers. Again who knows though whether or not important details were lost in translation or due to miscommunication they simply got a misleading impression (maybe they had shown it to engineers and there was something horribly wrong with it and that is why it got blown off).


Maybe the 70D does have better DR but the masking area just has some junk in it this time. Maybe the 70D sensor isn't really their new sensor line and they do have something much better about to be used in all the other, non-70D, upcoming bodies.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9

The new sensor in the 70D seems significantly improved in this respect - there certainly doesn't appear to be a noise cost to pay, compared with the older Canon models, as a result of the dual pixel design. However, while the 70D looks like a step forward from the older models, it's still not yet matching the Nikon D7100.

It does, although as you say still far from Exmor, but it would be a noticeable improvement at least (which would be good since well a noticeable improvement, but perhaps bad since it might imply that is the best they can do even with a new process (assuming they are even using one on this sensor)).

But all I can say is look at the RAW file and measure the masked area black noise and it's not good at all, not one bit better compared to any of their old stuff. Hopefully, considering DPRs shows an improvement, it means the masked area isn't valid this time (although if you look at DPR's samples they show a rebel doing better than an xxD for ISO100 DR when DxO and other did not get that result, so it is possible that DPR is not doing the test properly ).

 

[jrista]

There is little difference in IQ for any DSLR at ISO 100. You are buying features and hype.

For landscapes, more MP will give you more detail, but as MP count goes up, so does the difficulty in actually getting that extra bit of resolution. There are some who do very well with high MP cameras, but the average photographer is not obsessed with a incremental increase in resolution, the more important elements such as composition and subject, lighting, DR, etc put and IQ improvements far down the list. In fact, I don't even know how to measure something hypothetical like IQ that only exists in the mind of a photographer and is different for each of them. We can measure several parameters, and they trade off against each other, but IQ? That sounds like something DXO would assign a number to

There is a pretty huge difference at ISO100. That is actually where cameras differ the most since they are all pretty solid at high ISO now. But at low ISO some have one to THREE AND A HALF stops better dynamic range than others. For many scenes that doesn't matter at all, but for many potential scenes it could.

70D RAW file appears to show the same old DR as Canon has been stuck with since 2007 . I hope it is not their new process sensor!

My guess is Canon's noise problems are not really with their sensor, but with the downstream high frequency electronics. In other words, DIGIC. It seems most other manufacturers have moved to on-die processing of some kind...Sony with CP-ADC, and others with something similar...on-die ADC. Canon supposedly had similar technology with the 120mp APS-H (the press releases explicitly called out on-die "parallel image processing", which I can only figure is ADC)...why they haven't put the technology into practice is beyond me.

Yeah it depends upon your definition of sensor. If you are talking solely the photon capture and not a whit else than yes their sensors are very good, even the current ones, I believe, capture more than 14 stops DR, I forget the numbers but it might even be closer to 16. But the electronic readouts/ADC and such that are in some cases on and more or less a part of the sensor too and in some cases just off sensor are much worse and yeah that is where the problem lies. Exmor makes it all part of the sensor in a much different way.

From what I've found around the net, Canon's on-die circuitry is quite good. Their analog CDS is some of the best, which is probably what gives them the edge in terms of high ISO noise performance.

The ADC is slightly parallel (8-channel per DIGIC 5+ these days), but housed off-die in the ADC. They are also responsible for processing a considerably greater number of pixels each than the column-parallel on-die ADC that Exmor has. I think its the high frequency, bucket-parallel nature of Canon's off-die ADC that introduces the most offensive banding noise (the vertical stuff). I think there is some lighter banding, both horiz and vert, added by the non-uniform response of analog CDS transistors (which is apparently the reason why Sony moved to digital CDS).

If Canon could follow Exmor's lead....move the ADC onto the sensor die, go column parallel...even if they did not go fully digital like Exmor, that should improve things. Each ADC would have to work less hard as it would have to process fewer pixels. They wouldn't need to be clocked as high, so wouldn't introduce as much noise. Another trick Exmor employs is moving the PLL off into an isolated corner of the sensor die, away from the ADCs themselves, along with all other high frequency components...which apparently helps reduce noise introduced during ADC as well.

I'll grant ankorwatt ONE thing here: A smaller fabrication process, 180nm or smaller, would certainly help Canon achieve success in migrating more logic onto the sensor die.

Anyway, as I was saying though, the Canon bean counters maybe hear all the talk about video being the next big thing and figure putting the money into whiz bang stuff like dual-phase AF (especially since their mirrorless stuff was getting killed in reviews for AF and that market is apparently big in Japan) makes more sense since when they look into forums and see everyone who tries to complain about DR get driven away and the ones who stay getting mocked as DRip DRippers and figure they don't need to bother, nobody cares about DxO scores or trying to capture more types of scenes (as more DR allows) and maybe so long as people defend them to the ends of the Earth in the forums and beat down the Drippers and Ankorwatt and such and people don't get scared away and they keep decent sales they maybe figure safer to be conservative and not lose out jobs than push forward and spend more to improve DR no matter how small the risk just in case ROI takes some time. It's also harder to get fired for sales not improving a lot and not totally dominating compared to Nikon (as I suspect would have happened had they pushed top AF into 5D2 and top sensors into 5D3/60D) and easier to look bad for a big one quarter expenditure to push stuff like that forward? Who knows.

I don't personally have a problem discussing DR, even begging Canon for more. I've argued, here on CR, both sides of what I guess is a rather fine line...not long ago I got stuck in a DR debate and had to produce my own photos with 14 stops of DR to demonstrate how Canon lags behind the rest of the industry. I don't deny they need to work on it. I would love to discuss it more.

I do have a serious problem with ankorwatt, however. He is unfathomably narrow sighted, makes ridiculously inaccurate claims on a regular basis, has an unbeatable bias against Canon, and seems to do everything he can at every opportunity to bash and beat down Canon as an incompetent, incapable competitor that produces products unworthy of even being spoken about, rumormongored about by Canon fans, etc. He interjects debate into every single thread, makes bold claims that are completely false, obfuscates at every opportunity, directly insults and berates other members (particularly about their intelligence), and is otherwise the largest pain in the rear end I can imagine. I greatly dislike him, and for some reason, despite considerable effort to leave the issues be...I just can't seem to let some of his comments go. I think everyone, including myself, is sick and tired of hearing about how much ankorwatt thinks the D800 and Sony Exmor are the greatest thing since the Breath of Life itself woke man up out of the dust of the Earth, and yet none of us can get away from it. He's always there, either starting a new argument or berating some member, always over the same thing even when the topic has absolutely nothing to do with DR, sensors, or the D800. I think he is the root cause of 90% of the debates on this forum, the ever-present antagonist, and I think we could have far more civil discussions about dynamic range, sensor technology, etc. if he wasn't around pushing every Canon-fanboy button he can find all day every day. I try to exit debates with him as quickly as I can if I end up in one, and I try to ignore as much else that he says as possible. One thing I just can't let be, however, is anyone believing him when he says that Canon is incapable of competing in the marketplace, is incapable of building a new fab and therefor must use other manufacturers technologies, or that the only way to produce good photos is to get a D800. If someone wastes their money believing that crap, dumps their kit, and buys into Nikon only to find out they despise the ergonomics, or the menus, or any number of other Nikon features that are inferior to Canon's...well, I'd always feel I could have spoken up and given them a more realistic basis upon which to base such a decision.

I do think Canon needs to improve their fabrication technology and get up to date with modern sensor design. I don't think anyone here really thinks otherwise. I think everyone who needs it would LOVE to have the kind of DR other cameras have. I think people react to the antagonism they feel from ankorwatt specifically, and maybe a few other non-Canon members generally, so the reaction is to defend their chosen brand, rather than have a more civil discussion about the rumors and technology that interest them. It isn't really the DRivel...sometimes its just drivel...and people get sick of it. It would be awesome to have a normal discussion about DR and sensor technology without having to fight about it over idiotic points that don't really matter in the end. It would be awesome to read a Big MP or 7D II rumor thread without wondering on which page the pointless debate is going to begin, and whether I'm going to read something I just plain and simply can't resist responding to because its so asininely idiotic...and yet believable enough that some poor sap is going to read it, think the wrong thing, and end up wasting their hard earned money jumping brands without first having all the facts. Bah.

Anyway...I agree. Canon needs to enter the modern age. They need to improve their sensor technology. They need to improve their dynamic range. They need to respond to their customers requests and deliver. I think they can, too...they certainly did with the last round of camera releases (the big outcry before the 1D X was "fewer megapixels, higher ISO w/ less noise")...unless they really truly have become bean-counter central and despite their capability, are really only interested in the bottom line. (If that IS the case...well, at some point the competition's better sensor technology will eventually hurt their bottom line, forcing them to react in kind.)

 

[David Hull]

dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9

The new sensor in the 70D seems significantly improved in this respect - there certainly doesn't appear to be a noise cost to pay, compared with the older Canon models, as a result of the dual pixel design. However, while the 70D looks like a step forward from the older models, it's still not yet matching the Nikon D7100.

I had not seen these RAW comps before. It looks pretty quiet in the shadows but then this particular scene usually does. I would really like to see a "back of lens cap shot" but we will need to wait for a RAW converter. The noise has never bothered me in these things it has always been the banding.

 

[David Hull]

I don't personally have a problem discussing DR, even begging Canon for more. I've argued, here on CR, both sides of what I guess is a rather fine line...not long ago I got stuck in a DR debate and had to produce my own photos with 14 stops of DR to demonstrate how Canon lags behind the rest of the industry. I don't deny they need to work on it. I would love to discuss it more.

I do have a serious problem with ankorwatt, however. He is unfathomably narrow sighted, makes ridiculously inaccurate claims on a regular basis, has an unbeatable bias against Canon, and seems to do everything he can at every opportunity to bash and beat down Canon as an incompetent, incapable competitor that produces products unworthy of even being spoken about, rumormongored about by Canon fans, etc. He interjects debate into every single thread, makes bold claims that are completely false, obfuscates at every opportunity, directly insults and berates other members (particularly about their intelligence), and is otherwise the largest pain in the rear end I can imagine. I greatly dislike him, and for some reason, despite considerable effort to leave the issues be...I just can't seem to let some of his comments go. I think everyone, including myself, is sick and tired of hearing about how much ankorwatt thinks the D800 and Sony Exmor are the greatest thing since the Breath of Life itself woke man up out of the dust of the Earth, and yet none of us can get away from it. He's always there, either starting a new argument or berating some member, always over the same thing even when the topic has absolutely nothing to do with DR, sensors, or the D800. I think he is the root cause of 90% of the debates on this forum, the ever-present antagonist, and I think we could have far more civil discussions about dynamic range, sensor technology, etc. if he wasn't around pushing every Canon-fanboy button he can find all day every day. I try to exit debates with him as quickly as I can if I end up in one, and I try to ignore as much else that he says as possible. One thing I just can't let be, however, is anyone believing him when he says that Canon is incapable of competing in the marketplace, is incapable of building a new fab and therefor must use other manufacturers technologies, or that the only way to produce good photos is to get a D800. If someone wastes their money believing that crap, dumps their kit, and buys into Nikon only to find out they despise the ergonomics, or the menus, or any number of other Nikon features that are inferior to Canon's...well, I'd always feel I could have spoken up and given them a more realistic basis upon which to base such a decision.

I do think Canon needs to improve their fabrication technology and get up to date with modern sensor design. I don't think anyone here really thinks otherwise. I think everyone who needs it would LOVE to have the kind of DR other cameras have. I think people react to the antagonism they feel from ankorwatt specifically, and maybe a few other non-Canon members generally, so the reaction is to defend their chosen brand, rather than have a more civil discussion about the rumors and technology that interest them. It isn't really the DRivel...sometimes its just drivel...and people get sick of it. It would be awesome to have a normal discussion about DR and sensor technology without having to fight about it over idiotic points that don't really matter in the end. It would be awesome to read a Big MP or 7D II rumor thread without wondering on which page the pointless debate is going to begin, and whether I'm going to read something I just plain and simply can't resist responding to because its so asininely idiotic...and yet believable enough that some poor sap is going to read it, think the wrong thing, and end up wasting their hard earned money jumping brands without first having all the facts. Bah.

Anyway...I agree. Canon needs to enter the modern age. They need to improve their sensor technology. They need to improve their dynamic range. They need to respond to their customers requests and deliver. I think they can, too...they certainly did with the last round of camera releases (the big outcry before the 1D X was "fewer megapixels, higher ISO w/ less noise")...unless they really truly have become bean-counter central and despite their capability, are really only interested in the bottom line. (If that IS the case...well, at some point the competition's better sensor technology will eventually hurt their bottom line, forcing them to react in kind.)
[/quote]
Quite well put IMO. The problem I have (and the reason I jump in to these) is that they tend to generate needless FUD (as you more or less point out). I think that is actually the goal of some of the protagonists, they think that if they keep beating the drum long enough Canon will be shamed into improving their performance in this particular specification. But in the meantime, people need to know what the DR really means to their photography and that doesn’t come through in many of these dogfights. Good comments.

 

[jrista]

First, I think you forgot an open quote tag. ;P

Quite well put IMO. The problem I have (and the reason I jump in to these) is that they tend to generate needless FUD (as you more or less point out). I think that is actually the goal of some of the protagonists, they think that if they keep beating the drum long enough Canon will be shamed into improving their performance in this particular specification. But in the meantime, people need to know what the DR really means to their photography and that doesn’t come through in many of these dogfights. Good comments.

Thanks. I agree about the latter stuff...would be nice to explain DR in a more realistic context. For a lot of shooters, then probably rarely ever see an ISO setting below 400, in which case the DR debate is entirely meaningless to them.

On the flip side, I kind of doubt Canon actually reads these forums enough to matter, and if they do, I doubt they redirect their product map as a result. I think most of the real-world reviewers have noted an improvement in dynamic range from recent Nikon products, but few have mentioned it as the thing they really, truly think Canon should improve with their next DSLRs...at least, not like they did when they were calling for better high ISO performance and an end to the megapixel wars. I think Canon hears those guys far more than they hear anything on these forums. Which just further invalidates any reason to debate someone like ankorwatt every time he decides to drop an antagonism bomb on a thread.

I think something far more useful would be to create an online petition to Canon, and work our asses off getting as many signatures as we can from DR-hungry Canon shooters online, offline, on CR forums and anywhere else on the web, for delivery by the end of the year (and before Canon decides to actually finalize and ship a Big Megapixel camera). ;P

 

[dash2k8]

I am getting one as soon as it comes out for documentary/ENG work. We currently have a 5D3 and 60D for live events (where sitting down with a proper tripod isn't an option) and a 70D with its new focus abilities will reduce the number of shots that we miss from bad focus (zoom in 5x, focus, zoom in 10x, zoom in 1x... too late).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is little difference in IQ for any DSLR at ISO 100. You are buying features and hype.

For landscapes, more MP will give you more detail, but as MP count goes up, so does the difficulty in actually getting that extra bit of resolution. There are some who do very well with high MP cameras, but the average photographer is not obsessed with a incremental increase in resolution, the more important elements such as composition and subject, lighting, DR, etc put and IQ improvements far down the list. In fact, I don't even know how to measure something hypothetical like IQ that only exists in the mind of a photographer and is different for each of them. We can measure several parameters, and they trade off against each other, but IQ? That sounds like something DXO would assign a number to

There is a pretty huge difference at ISO100. That is actually where cameras differ the most since they are all pretty solid at high ISO now. But at low ISO some have one to THREE AND A HALF stops better dynamic range than others. For many scenes that doesn't matter at all, but for many potential scenes it could.

70D RAW file appears to show the same old DR as Canon has been stuck with since 2007 . I hope it is not their new process sensor!

\
So ... You define IQ as dynamic range?? That's the problem with the Term IQ, it is defined by different people as different things.

DR capability is great if you need it due to poor lighting conditions, but for a properly lit subject, it makes little difference.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

http://www.chipworks.com/components/com_wordpress/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Fontaine_Innovative-Technology-Elements-for-Large-and-Small-Pixel-Imaging-Devices.pdf

why do not Canon gives its sensor production to companies that are specialized ,fabless' strategy for semiconductor manufacturers, used by Aptina, Foveon, Omnivision and even some of Sony's production is much more flexible

I guess the one downside is then they'd be stuck with worse video (not that they seemed to actually want to take advantage of the huge advantage they had over the others in DSLR video and it didn't become apparent until Magic Lantern unlocked the full performance potential) and liveview and whatever MP counts the others chose. Although you think they might be able to for a league with one of them if need be, maybe even borrow and share some tech with say Aptina or something. Foveon still has certain issues, better in some ways but yes worse in others.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

There is little difference in IQ for any DSLR at ISO 100. You are buying features and hype.

For landscapes, more MP will give you more detail, but as MP count goes up, so does the difficulty in actually getting that extra bit of resolution. There are some who do very well with high MP cameras, but the average photographer is not obsessed with a incremental increase in resolution, the more important elements such as composition and subject, lighting, DR, etc put and IQ improvements far down the list. In fact, I don't even know how to measure something hypothetical like IQ that only exists in the mind of a photographer and is different for each of them. We can measure several parameters, and they trade off against each other, but IQ? That sounds like something DXO would assign a number to

There is a pretty huge difference at ISO100. That is actually where cameras differ the most since they are all pretty solid at high ISO now. But at low ISO some have one to THREE AND A HALF stops better dynamic range than others. For many scenes that doesn't matter at all, but for many potential scenes it could.

70D RAW file appears to show the same old DR as Canon has been stuck with since 2007 . I hope it is not their new process sensor!

\
So ... You define IQ as dynamic range?? That's the problem with the Term IQ, it is defined by different people as different things.

DR capability is great if you need it due to poor lighting conditions, but for a properly lit subject, it makes little difference.

I didn't say I defined it as DR. I even said that you can find many scenes where it doesn't even matter to get more DR and getting more DR would have zero bearing on image quality.

But you can also an incredible number where it would be nice to have more.
It's not right to call it poor lighting conditions, they can be perfectly fine if the camera can handle it. What may be poor lighting to avoid using a 5D2 may be wonderful lighting conditions for a D800.

 

[vlim]

I don't know if you've take a look at the updated preview of the 70D made by dpreview but it really doesn't look so bad at 3200 or 6400 iso... in studio and in the "real world"

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/07/canon-eos-70d-preview-updated-with-studio-and-real-world-samples

8)

 

[David Hull]

There is little difference in IQ for any DSLR at ISO 100. You are buying features and hype.

For landscapes, more MP will give you more detail, but as MP count goes up, so does the difficulty in actually getting that extra bit of resolution. There are some who do very well with high MP cameras, but the average photographer is not obsessed with a incremental increase in resolution, the more important elements such as composition and subject, lighting, DR, etc put and IQ improvements far down the list. In fact, I don't even know how to measure something hypothetical like IQ that only exists in the mind of a photographer and is different for each of them. We can measure several parameters, and they trade off against each other, but IQ? That sounds like something DXO would assign a number to

There is a pretty huge difference at ISO100. That is actually where cameras differ the most since they are all pretty solid at high ISO now. But at low ISO some have one to THREE AND A HALF stops better dynamic range than others. For many scenes that doesn't matter at all, but for many potential scenes it could.

70D RAW file appears to show the same old DR as Canon has been stuck with since 2007 . I hope it is not their new process sensor!

My guess is Canon's noise problems are not really with their sensor, but with the downstream high frequency electronics. In other words, DIGIC. It seems most other manufacturers have moved to on-die processing of some kind...Sony with CP-ADC, and others with something similar...on-die ADC. Canon supposedly had similar technology with the 120mp APS-H (the press releases explicitly called out on-die "parallel image processing", which I can only figure is ADC)...why they haven't put the technology into practice is beyond me.

because they sell cameras and have only invested in 2 fab lines which one is old and can not produce column vise ADC at the sensor = 500nm feature size, which means that it cannot be used for small pixels and =higher resolution with the accuracy needed
120mp is from fab line 2 = the compact camera line where they( Canon) can produce smaller circuits but it takes resources from the compakt line
So it is costs vs better and newer solutions in APS and 24x36
People buy anyway Canon because the brand name is so strong and they think Canon makes the best sensors
And Canon says , Who needs more than 21Mp it is the optimal amount of Mp
Right?

You overlook the fact that the sensors actually DO work and work quite well. People aren’t buying this stuff because somehow Canon has stirred some sort of marketing “fairy dust” into their morning coffee – they are buying it because it works, the cameras produce excellent images and they see people getting excellent results using the equipment. This is exactly why when the 5DIII came out (and the price dropped to a more reasonable level), I upgraded from my 5DII. I did this because I knew that the gear would do the job I needed it to do and that it would do it well, and it has.

21 MP probably is a good sweet spot when you trade off how much resolution is actually needed / used by typical photographers vs. file size, firing rate etc. 36 MP is good if you need it, but I think that most photographers do not necessarily need it (particularly when it comes at a cost in terms of storage, processing time and firing rate). And, before you start, I know all the rebuttals, disk storage is cheap etc. but huge files are with you always whether you need them or not, I am glad I don’t have to put up with them.

21 MP probably is a good sweet spot?????
remember this David

years ago some people said that 8 Mp was a sweet spot



anything Canon does look as a sweet spot, especially as long they not can compete with new sensors
Market bullsh....

At that time it probably was. I had a 20D that was about that resolution and had a firing rate around 4 FPS. It seems that right now (for Canon anyway) they seem to be able to get 22MP to work around 6 FPS using 1 CPU etc. I am not sure what they are doing in the latest stuff because they seem to be able to process 40MP at near that rate so they must have found some speed somewhere.

 

[David Hull]

I don't know if you've take a look at the updated preview of the 70D made by dpreview but it really doesn't look so bad at 3200 or 6400 iso... in studio and in the "real world"

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/07/canon-eos-70d-preview-updated-with-studio-and-real-world-samples

8)

They all look pretty good in that environment. What most of these guys are arguing about is what is lurking in the deep shadows when you try to lift these up in post. It isn't really DR either (not in the DxO sense anyway), it is more in terms of structured noise which Canon products have had more of than some of the others. All these cameras perform pretty much identically above ISO 400 which is what a lot of people are concerned with.

Canon gear is not as forgiving when you want to bring up shadow areas in post or when you want to deliberately under expose a photo (defined in this case as manually dialing in an exposure below what the meter recommends) and then compensate in post.

 

[David Hull]

http://www.chipworks.com/components/com_wordpress/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Fontaine_Innovative-Technology-Elements-for-Large-and-Small-Pixel-Imaging-Devices.pdf

why do not Canon gives its sensor production to companies that are specialized ,fabless' strategy for semiconductor manufacturers, used by Aptina, Foveon, Omnivision and even some of Sony's production is much more flexible

I guess the one downside is then they'd be stuck with worse video (not that they seemed to actually want to take advantage of the huge advantage they had over the others in DSLR video and it didn't become apparent until Magic Lantern unlocked the full performance potential) and liveview and whatever MP counts the others chose. Although you think they might be able to for a league with one of them if need be, maybe even borrow and share some tech with say Aptina or something. Foveon still has certain issues, better in some ways but yes worse in others.

well, thats not a answer regarding semiconductor manufacturers, there are facilities out there who can produce smaller cells today to Canon with Canons pixel layout, Canon are stucked by 2 own lines, one old and one more modern occupied to produce compact sensors

and please David Hull, "He is unfathomably narrow sighted" etc etc , you can interpret my texts and call me the what you want, I think people can distinguish between something that is good or better. AS with lenses as one example.
The big problem for you and some others is that Canon is not in the top regarding sensors.Your discussing can be interpreted as, why buy the best lenses,when there are others inferior imagewise but" good enough".
It seems OK to discuss lenses, AF, pictures/sec and everything else but not the heart of a digital camera-the sensor and the read out

I guess that last part was addressed to me but I am not sure what your point is. Did I actually say "He is unfathomably narrow sighted" somewhere? I don’t think so; I think it was one of the other guys that actually wrote that, I just quoted it.

I really don't have a problem with Canon being behind in sensor technology -- that seems to be your issue. Someone is always ahead and someone is always behind. My question is always, will it do what I want it to do and are the limitations that it has relatively easy to work around. If yes, then no problem, if no then I need to find a solution outside of Canon. So far, Canon has not done anything bad enough and Nikon has not done anything good enough to make me spend the money to switch. From my perspective the Nikon story is one of too little, too late. They needed to be the best in 2004 back when I took the dive on the 20D but they weren’t. This DR thing which is really only an issue for a certain narrow selection of shooting scenarios at low ISO is easy to work around, I would rather shoot fast, downloads fast, than have 36 MP.

If I were starting now, knowing what I knew when I started, I might pick Nikon however, if I were starting now, knowing what I know now, I might still pick Canon I don’t think the differences are that great.

 

[bsb03]

Looks like a good camera. I have not shot with it but I would.

 

[Marsu42]

Looks like a good camera. I have not shot with it but I would.

But on the other hand, *any* recent dslr is a good camera, starting with my very good 60d and going down to any Rebel 550d+ if you don't miss the top lcd and back dial. So while customers which aren't nailed to a system by their existing equipment have a great choice, the question if upgrading is "worth it" becomes more dependent on the specific circumstances.

 

[David Hull]

Due John Sheehy the noise floor is the same as in other Canon cameras but more pleasing, my own remarks = like 6D compared to 5dmk3
This means a little better practical DR

When I asked him to elaborate on that here is what I got:


David Hull wrote: This sounds promising. Where did you get this info can you put up a link or something or did you measure it yourself?

JS Commented: Get the ISO 100 RAWs for the black mug and napkins from Imaging-Resource for the 7D and the 70D; push 4 or 5 stops and compare. The chromatic noise of the 70D is finer with colors evenly distributed, and there is no noticeable banding. You can see the texture in the black napkins.

I had looked at the IR data and thought it looked clean but did not look at the RAWs for lack of a converter. The LR RC converter is available for anyone that wants to have a look. I may do that or may wait to see a "rear of the lens cap" shot.

This sounds promising though, the DxO measured random noise was never that much of an issue (although the Nikon fanboys will surely try to make it one). To me it was always the banding that posed the biggest problem because it was a stop or two worse than the random noise (or at least it looked to be that loud anyway).