Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon

[Steve]

Won't be easy to get on the 70D or 7D Mark II either.

If they eventually get it working on the 7DII, I would be very tempted to trade in the 1D just for dual iso. That looks pretty amazing.

 

[Etienne]

Won't be easy to get on the 70D or 7D Mark II either.

If they eventually get it working on the 7DII, I would be very tempted to trade in the 1D just for dual iso. That looks pretty amazing.

Does anyone have a link to good dual iso shots? I haven't seen any. The resolution is cut in half, the skin tones look to be badly damaged (and hard to repair because there's only one shot) in the shots I've seen, and you will see moire and aliasing in both shadows and highlights. Since skin tones seem to a problem, this will mostly be "useful" for still shots, but you can't do near as much with the photo in editing as you can with an ordinary HDR shot, which gives you several shots to layer in addition to the HDR composite shot.

Dual ISO is a clever technical achievement, but not useful yet, IMHO. Maybe it will be useful when there's a 45 MP sensor, and a solution for moire, aliasing, and skin tones.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Cooking the RAW is probably going to be a standard practice now.

I sure hope not.
It is one thing that SOny really need to be taken to task for. Soon enough it will cause out and out serious damage and it creeps up in greater and greater degrees.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

To get some idea of what DSLR video users think of Canon, read this interview on eoshd and the associated forum comments:

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7178-canon-interview-at-photokina-2014-7d-mark-ii-magic-lantern-and-moire/

It is fairly clear that the video community thinks that the 7D2 (as well similar Canon products) are a fail. The Canon reps seem pretty clueless about the needs of the community, although I suppose that might be because they have been placed in a situation where they have to sell pigs ears and pretend they are silk purses

Forum commenters don't necessarily represent "the video community". People who dislike something and complain like to be heard, and forums give them a rich opportunity to that and to commiserate with others who are like-minded. People who are happy with a product typically just buy it and use it a lot; they don't feel as compelled to talk about it.

Pretty much *every* successful Canon camera has been met with an amazing outpouring of complaints and criticisms on internet forums, and yet has been successful in the actual market. If people aren't complaining about the features, they're complaining about the price or the timing or something. If you read internet forums, nothing is ever enough. Every product is bashed as "that's what its predecessor should have been" or "it should include the same features as the more expensive model" and so on.

They are being hit hard in the DSLR video segment. It's not forum nonsense.
And what of Panasonic saying that the GH4 has sold 3x more than expected in many markets because their main competitor did push video forward? Maybe those sales could've been all Canon just about?

 

[Mork]

Cooking the RAW is probably going to be a standard practice now.

I sure hope not.
It is one thing that SOny really need to be taken to task for. Soon enough it will cause out and out serious damage and it creeps up in greater and greater degrees.

I doubt that.
The signal is processed anyway. Why not cleaning it up a bit?
The endresult matters.
I don´t see them doing full NR in camera for RAW files.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

That's why I talk about facts and relevant facts. For most non-engineer, non-scientist photographers, the relevant facts are the photographs they make. That's where Canon has been delivering great stuff — that's where their sensors deliver beautifully — albeit not for every photographer or for every task. We see the results in photojournalism, advertising, movies, etc. every day. For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

You seem to forget that the only reason that many (although some like purely the tech, probably not most there though) people get into to talking about 500nm vs 180nm and so on is because they found things IN REAL WORLD SHOOTING and then when people ask why Canon can't allow you to do so and so with their sensor, it's because 500nm doesn't let them make things small enough on the sensor to get the sensor read cleanly.

 

[Steve]

Does anyone have a link to good dual iso shots? I haven't seen any. The resolution is cut in half, the skin tones look to be badly damaged (and hard to repair because there's only one shot) in the shots I've seen, and you will see moire and aliasing in both shadows and highlights. Since skin tones seem to a problem, this will mostly be "useful" for still shots, but you can't do near as much with the photo in editing as you can with an ordinary HDR shot, which gives you several shots to layer in addition to the HDR composite shot.

Dual ISO is a clever technical achievement, but not useful yet, IMHO. Maybe it will be useful when there's a 45 MP sensor, and a solution for moire, aliasing, and skin tones.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2671575@N25/

Here's a flickr group with some shots. Its mostly landscapes and there is definitely still noise in the image, though it seems more uniform. I'm not seeing the moire you're referring to but the one shot of the kid does seem a bit weird in the skin tones when zoomed in. I think a lot of these are set to 100/1600 just to see what it can do and maybe its better at like 100/800 or 100/400? Not really sure.

 

[zlatko]

That's why I talk about facts and relevant facts. For most non-engineer, non-scientist photographers, the relevant facts are the photographs they make. That's where Canon has been delivering great stuff — that's where their sensors deliver beautifully — albeit not for every photographer or for every task. We see the results in photojournalism, advertising, movies, etc. every day. For most photographers, the answer to the whole problem of the 500nm process is, "Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

You seem to forget that the only reason that many (although some like purely the tech, probably not most there though) people get into to talking about 500nm vs 180nm and so on is because they found things IN REAL WORLD SHOOTING and then when people ask why Canon can't allow you to do so and so with their sensor, it's because 500nm doesn't let them make things small enough on the sensor to get the sensor read cleanly.

I haven't forgotten that at all. That's why I said "most photographers". I know there are photographers who would benefit from a different/newer sensor. If you have problems with the sensor in real world shooting, then you're one of them. But there are many photographers who don't have that problem in real world shooting and who are happy with their photos. For them, talking about 500nm vs 180nm is like talking about deep sea creatures or moon dust — facts that are just not that relevant to their photography. For them, arguing about 500nm vs 180nm is like arguing about which robot is used at the Toyota factory vs. which robot is used at the Honda factory. While that argument may be very important to some people, it's not going to figure into most people's car buying decisions.

If 500nm vs 180nm were as critical as some people make it out to be, then usage of Canon cameras would have dropped off to zero in photojournalism, advertising, editorial, fine art, movie-making, etc. That's far from the case. Instead, highly skilled and talented people are choosing to create with Canon. They know the results they get — that's what matters to them — and if they even know about 500nm vs 180nm then it's not like some brick wall that gets in their way.

 

[lo lite]

Well, look what I saw this morning

Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.

Well, you didn't examine my "screen shot" closely, didn't you? Otherwise, and if you'd really had read the text in it, your reply would have been different.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Well, look what I saw this morning

Weasel words like "soon" remind me of the current "year of the lens", only to just hear that new L primes have been moved far into 2015. I do believe Canon will sell a very expensive studio high-mp 1dxs soon, but I don't see them replacing their whole current lineup with 6d and 5d3 anytime "soon" with high-mp updates.

The 6D and the 5DIII are still sold well. The pricedrop phushed both cams again. Maybe there is an near replacement, but i do not think so too. Another reason why Canon will hold such a replacement back, is the 7DII. I think, they will wait until the 7DII hype is over (let us say 1 year), then maybe they announce an successor of the 6D or 5DIII. An near announcement of an very high priced 1DXY will not depress 7DII sales.

Remember he difference between being announced and being release. In the year of the 1dx, the 1dx was announced in November, and the 5d3 wasn't announced until March - but the 5d3 was released and available within a month of announcement while the 1dx wasn't avaialble fort he general public to buy until summer of that year. If they follow their own history, yeah, we may very well see the official announcement for the studio soon, that is of course if this thing is gonna be around by the summer of 2015.

Also, I am kind of hopeful that they will split the line - have the 5d series be about event work, low light work, and then have a big mp body in a 5d style shell. This won't interfere with either because this would hopefully be a totally different beast --- I would be real happy with a 40 MP canon that only has a burst rate of 2 fps. If i were to ever buy such a camera, maximum burst rate would not be a big concern to me (do you really need 10 fps to shoot a landscape image, or a model in a studio shoot (would your strobes ever have a chance in hell of keeping up with 10 fps?????). the 1 series big mp would get a larger buffer and thus greater fps, but even there i don't see the point ---splitt he lines I say...I would love to have the extra bump for about 20% of my work - the remaining 80% though will never see print, or if it does, it's a 4x6 or in an album...so all that extra mp just means extra HD space is needed....

Yesssss, this would be a senseful decision, if Canon does so. Agree and hope that it comes true...
I would like to see an "low Fps" camera with an superb IQ and some more MP. And for sports the 7DII, as I do not want to spend 6000€ for an body....

i think you misread what i said a tich, i want the 5d4 to focus on improving the basic stuff in the 5d3 - and unlike others here, I actually don't really need it to be a revolutionary upgrade - it can be an incremental evolutionary upgrade across the board improved AF (it doesn't need much, just add more cross points and the -3EV center point, incremental evolutionary upgrade), A digic 7 may help the IQ woes at lower ISO, I'd be happy with 22MP too - again file size for some of us is an issue (hence why I'd loveto see a split in the lines), increase that sync speed to at least 1/250th - more would be great though (like 1/500th), add that built in intervalometer !!!!

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF. But yeah, I would totally love to have a big mp body with more DR for ---like I said in the original post about 15-20% of my work. Posed shots with bride and groom in midday light, the first dance, the rings and the engagement shoot is where that would be used. For the rest though (that 80-85%), no need at all for big mp or more DR - the snapshot of uncle tim and aunt jane won't be printed to 30x40, if it is printed it would be a 4x6.

What would be bada$$ --- if canon could find a way to turn pixels off for mraw and sraw (as opposed to the lossy way they are converted. Then I would be begging for the 5d4 to be big mp's. But without that, nope, i'd rather have the workhorse and the fine art body as it were. That's just me though....

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Honestly, if the pro DR crowd wasn't always on their soap box in every topic here, telling us all that we're just plain idiots if we don't see the truth of the holy grail in the exmor sensor andthat canon sensors are just plain so terrible that it would be a miracle to ever get a decent shot (some have said here in the past that the only thing canon files are good for is posting to social media@!!!). It's rather preachy, like religion.

This is pretty much how I feel. It seems to have got worse over the last few months. Like, if only they shout enough, we'll see the light. How can we not? It's so blindingly obvious! But it's just not a priority for me. I don't like being called a fanboy or an apologist by association just because I'm not upset about the same thing some other people are.

what i love is how it's now....if we aren't crying about how bad canon is then we are anti DR...like we want less DR...lol. If canon is watching this forum or other forums then the math geeks would find that many don't care, some have reasonable needs, and then there are like 5-10 people that post so much that it makes it seem like hundreds want want want...but when it comes down to it, money talks. if the haters were serious they'd not be hating and just be buying a sony or a nikon. they aren't switching ,in fact many are getting their toes wet with the A7r and not liking it ....lol. But, even jrista loves the DR doesn't but like the A7r enough to buy...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

The important thing is Canon's admission its customers need more MP.

I wouldn't interpret it this way, imho Canon just stated the obvious - *some* (select) applications like studio or maybe landscape work might need higher resolution, just as higher dynamic range only benefits just a part of photogs. In no way they're up to questioning their past product policy, so certainly no killer 5d4 in sight.

I'm curious to understand who wouldn't benefit from higher DR?

Everybody can benefit in certain situations. But there is a difference between wanting it and needing it. Some people need it, some just want it, and some don't care. It's like having a car that can do 110 miles per hour. If the fastest you ever drive is 65 miles per hour, then you're all set as your car does a splendid job of going 65 miles per hour, and it's reliable and has a bunch of other features you like. Now your neighbor comes along and he says his car can do 150 miles per hour. Wow, that is an awesome spec, clearly better right?! So you start to feel jealous and think about buying the same car as your neighbor. But will it make a difference in your life such as when you drive to work? Well, there are in fact situations in which it may be a benefit to have the neighbor's car. But you may also rationally conclude that your car serves you extremely well and will continue to do so, even though it's "limited" to just the old-style 110 miles per hour.

I don't think anyone here is ever going to complain about an increase in DR. In fact when Canon leapfrogs Sony on DR, we will all be boasting :
I'm not jumping ship for anything I've seen yet in other DSLRs. But video stuff from Sony looks promising.

that's why i compared them to religious zealots, because even if you are in the middle, not actively pro or against...you are against because you are not gun ho pro....

 

[jrista]

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

 

[jrista]

they aren't switching ,in fact many are getting their toes wet with the A7r and not liking it ....lol. But, even jrista loves the DR doesn't but like the A7r enough to buy...

I'd buy the A7r for landscapes, since I really wouldn't need the majority of it's features. I wouldn't buy it as a general purpose camera...too many issues. Plus, I'm NOT a fan of EVFs...and that isn't a thing unique to the A7r. I'm not buying it yet because I want to see what Sony does next (which isn't far away, if they are really releasing new things in January). If they don't change anything, then I found some used A7r's for $1700, which is a lot more reasonable for a landscape-only camera than $3400 for a D810 (and more for some lenses.)

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me. I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality... and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

 

[jrista]

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me. I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality... and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me. I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality... and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

honestly.... 1344mm focal length... i so have no NEED for that...want...sure...i do like shooting the moon at times...but i really have no bird shooting desire...and...while i do like putting the couple far away from me at times and shooting with the 70-200...for what makes me $$$...no need at all...

on a side note...i just sold a $1000 piece that was shot on...my old 7d...don't even own that now, nor do i still own the lens i it was shot with (the old 244-70mm 2.8)....go 7d...still earning after being sold...lol

 

[jrista]

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me. I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality... and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

honestly.... 1344mm focal length... i so have no NEED for that...want...sure...i do like shooting the moon at times...but i really have no bird shooting desire...and...while i do like putting the couple far away from me at times and shooting with the 70-200...for what makes me $$$...no need at all...

on a side note...i just sold a $1000 piece that was shot on...my old 7d...don't even own that now, nor do i still own the lens i it was shot with (the old 244-70mm 2.8)....go 7d...still earning after being sold...lol

Congrats on the sale! Must feel nice.

I don't generally need that kind of focal length myself. I use 1200mm on the 5D III, but usually it's to get headshot closeups of shore and wading birds and waterfowl. I'm usually at 840mm on the 5D III and 600mm on my 7D for birds. I'm usually at 600mm on the 5D III for wildlife (much better FoV than the 7D ever offered). I've used 840mm, and even as much as 1680mm (2x + 1.4x) on the 7D for astro stuff, but at that level diffraction is really kicking in, and I'm better off with a proper large aperture telescope.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I don't want or need the 7d2 - 10 fps is way too fast..and I prefer the FOV of FF.

You can always jack the frame rate down. You have the high speed and low speed continuous modes, so when you don't want to rip out 20 frames a burst, you can always drop down to three or four per second (and I think it's configurable on the high end models...I don't think the 7D allowed it, but the 7D II definitely should).

i am sure it does, and i am sure it has a silent burst too which is throttled down...the bigger aspect is i don't need a crop body, FF has it's claws in me. I favor splitting the lines more for MP count (too much is not always needed) and low IS quality... and yeah, i'd rahter other things like higher sync speed than burst.

Yeah, I can understand that. I have uses for crop, but there are ultimately ways of mitigating the need. I can always get closer to my subjects, for example...and if I can get close enough, FF will always win. One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

honestly.... 1344mm focal length... i so have no NEED for that...want...sure...i do like shooting the moon at times...but i really have no bird shooting desire...and...while i do like putting the couple far away from me at times and shooting with the 70-200...for what makes me $$$...no need at all...

on a side note...i just sold a $1000 piece that was shot on...my old 7d...don't even own that now, nor do i still own the lens i it was shot with (the old 244-70mm 2.8)....go 7d...still earning after being sold...lol

Congrats on the sale! Must feel nice.

I don't generally need that kind of focal length myself. I use 1200mm on the 5D III, but usually it's to get headshot closeups of shore and wading birds and waterfowl. I'm usually at 840mm on the 5D III and 600mm on my 7D for birds. I'm usually at 600mm on the 5D III for wildlife (much better FoV than the 7D ever offered). I've used 840mm, and even as much as 1680mm (2x + 1.4x) on the 7D for astro stuff, but at that level diffraction is really kicking in, and I'm better off with a proper large aperture telescope.

for me...that's so the kind of stuff of...when i have extra cash to play around with sure...bu right now...i am 40 years old...3 years into launching my biz, recently married, and...i have a 3 day old son now!!!!...so yeah, i do have to clearly separate needs from wants.

 

[Loswr]

One advantage that the 7D II can offer that I don't think the 5D III or 1D X could ever really compete with is the ability to get long equivalent focal length at a faster max aperture...allowing the use of more than just the central cluster of AF points at the much slower f/8. The 7D II could achieve an effective 1344mm focal length (FoV equivalent) at f/5.6. At best, FF cameras can achieve 1200mm f/8. The added AF power the 7D II can offer at a very long effective focal length is intriguing.

That's true if your output requires more than the 7-8.6 MP you'd get by shooting the FF at 840mm f/5.6 and cropping to the APS-C FoV. Granted, the 20 MP APS-C allows deeper cropping, but in most cases the IQ will suffer from atmospheric impact at distances which would require such deep cropping.