Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon

[tomscott]

No offence AvTvM your the type of customer that won't be happy with any camera.

 

[Ivar]

+1

Even though I don't always agree with Jrista I consider accusing him of being a troll an insult. Very uncalled for. He is going to extremes to substantiate his arguments with knowledge and facts.

It is only fanboys who have a problem with this and to hear repeatedly, that Canon's sensors are not nearly as good as they could and should be. It hurts their ears and their egos. That's why they call it DRoning.

 

[unfocused]

No offence AvTvM your the type of customer that won't be happy with any camera.

So true. So very, very true.

 

[unfocused]

However, I AM one of a group of people here who are regularly treated like idiots and fools writing useless words because we want more DR in a Canon camera.

A complete - if utterly predictable - misrepresentation of the truth of the matter.

You're not treated that way because you want more DR.

You're treated that way for banging on, and on, and on, and on about it, to the level of trolling.

And - for what it's worth - the only thing more deserving of criticism than a troll, is a troll who has the bare-faced cheek to present himself as a victim because his trolling attracts the oh-so-predictable reaction from others...

Well, Keith you can expect to be pilloried for your observation but you are exactly right. The "Victim" act has gotten old. Unfortunately, judging by some of the responses here it seems to work on some people.

 

[Orangutan]

As I said, there are plenty of things he could have responded with, without responding with a load of BS. He could have said he thinks Canon sensors are excellent and meeting the company goals for IQ or something along those lines, and I wouldn't have had a problem. No one would have had a problem with that. He shouldn't have feigned lack of knowledge about where the measurements for DR come from...he knows damn well where they come from...because they come from everywhere.

A long time ago a philosophy professor told my class that, if we're ever asked to do a self-evaluation, always give a perfect score. What works for philosophy also works for business.

He's just not going to say anything different, even if he knows different.

 

[AmselAdans]

It is only fanboys who have a problem with this and to hear repeatedly, that Canon's sensors are not nearly as good as they could and should be. It hurts their ears and their egos. That's why they call it DRoning.

I indeed have a problem to hear the DR topic repeatedly.
Why?
1) Because nothing, absolutely nothing is added by another lengthy rant by someone who is not satisfied with one aspect of a highly complex product.
2) placing one's indivdual needs (very high DR) above the needs, wishes and interests of almost all other forum readers, by hijacking almost every thread with this issue, is just inpolite or as mentioned above... just trolling.
3) I waste (yes, waste) too much time by scrolling across deserts of text full of whining about DR while looking for the posts, which are related to the ACTUAL thread topic.
4) this is getting too meta. We already have a thread that discusses discussions about DR in threads. And here its starting again.
5) I don't like that sometimes personal insults result out of these discussions. Be nice to each other. Have a laugh sometimes, don't take your opinion too important and remember if its worth to make somebody feel unhappy, just because of some black painted box, which magically captures images.

Solution?
1) open some dedicated threads for discussing DR
2) accept, that opinions differ (some cannot live with the DR of canon sensors; some see DR shortcomings, but aren't heavily handicapped by this; some are just fine with DR) and try not to convert people. It's not about denying facts, I think most people here agree, that other sensors may provide better results in terms of DR or noise. But everybody is free to decide whether he thinks that this is important or not


and just because I can't get the image out of my head:
*ding dong*
"Yes? Hello?"
"Good Morning Sir. Do you have time to talk about DR, the bearer of IQ?"

 

[chauncey]

I gotta say up front that I'm a news junkie and watch tons of interviews...DPReview's interview was just about the absolute worst that I've ever read. I was as if both of them was reading from a script, sans any kind of follow-up questions.

It would be interesting to see some sort of sales breakdown and cost analysis of Canon products...they do sell the most. Trying to please the folks like us might not rate that high on their priority list.

 

[HarryWintergreen]

This interview is a joke.

Asked why it took so long to update the 7D he has to ask his engineers.

Compare this to the interview of the Fuji rep (compared to the Canon rep obviously a younger man): "To be honest we’re pretty clear about what we need to do, and I think we’re moving in the right direction."
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1289445414/photokina-2014-fujifilm-interview-over-the-past-few-months-i-ve-been-getting-more-confident

 

[Old Sarge]

However, I AM one of a group of people here who are regularly treated like idiots and fools writing useless words because we want more DR in a Canon camera.

A complete - if utterly predictable - misrepresentation of the truth of the matter.

You're not treated that way because you want more DR.

You're treated that way for banging on, and on, and on, and on about it, to the level of trolling.

And - for what it's worth - the only thing more deserving of criticism than a troll, is a troll who has the bare-faced cheek to present himself as a victim because his trolling attracts the oh-so-predictable reaction from others...

Well, Keith you can expect to be pilloried for your observation but you are exactly right. The "Victim" act has gotten old. Unfortunately, judging by some of the responses here it seems to work on some people.

I stay out of most of these threads because, quite honestly, I'm just not smart enough for them. But I have observed a few things. DR problems are, as someone has noted, as old as photography. You think Canon sensors are bad, try shooting a high contrast scene with a lot of red using a slow orthochromatic film. IOW, there have always been challenges. Even though I am not the sharpest knife in this drawer, I have been able to learn some things from reading jrista's posts (only a few things, refer back to my first sentence). I also have learned from reading Keith or Neuro's responses, along with others. I think one of the problems is that every thread (at least those that seem to interest me) deteriorate to the exact same DR discussion and then further deteriorate to those who are fond of the (excellent) exmor sensors being referred to as DRones and those of us who like the excellent ergonomics and function of the Canon bodies as "fanboys." (I'll accept the fanboy title since I have been using Canon cameras exclusively since switching to digital and, along with a Leica, a couple of Bronicas and an old Speed Graphic, for many years prior to that switch).

I'm not sure there is a solution to the issue. Certainly a better sensor would be nice in the Canon body. But I am to old, and poor, to switch systems. I get a lot of pleasure out of my photography, though my pictures are not usually at the level of those taken by jrista, keith, or others who are more active. So I will just muddle along with what I have (and the 7DII that is on order). And I will thank all those that have helped educate this old man while asking you all to tone down the rhetoric toward each other. Most of you have some great points to make, don't let them get lost in the rhetoric.

 

[TeT]

in looking at DR... Is it just more at ISO 100 to 200 that you all want or higher consistent DR across the whole range..? Some of the higher DR cameras really start to drop off as ISO increases...

 

[MichaelHodges]

"One thing we know from our own testing is that Canon DSLR sensors can’t quite compete with some modern sensors from Sony in terms of dynamic range. How important to you is developing sensor technology?

We are very focused on getting the best image quality. I’m not sure what measurements you’re looking at but when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best.

My ideal camera is one that can take a picture in any environment from complete darkness to the brightest sunshine.

So in your opinion your sensors are currently the best [DSLR sensors] on the market?

Yes. In the EOS 7D Mark II for example the sensor we’ve used is improved compared to the previous generation, especially at high ISO and in shadows. There’s less noise."

Wow. So in a question of "best sensors", Canon reps reference the 7D II? Does the 70D even crack the top 100 at DXO?

 

[AvTvM]

No offence AvTvM your the type of customer that won't be happy with any camera.

wrong. I bought the Canon EOS 7D the first day it became available, paid full MSRP and was *quite happy* with it until I sold it 2 months ago. It was clearly *the best* APS-C camera when it came out in fall of 2009 and it did not cost an arm and a leg or a kidney. Do you see any Canon offering in 2014 which manages to score on both of these 2 parameters. I don't.

I'll be happy again with a Canon camera, once it is a "best-in-class" FF-sensored MILC in a body sized liked Sony A7 ... plus matching lenses ... at reasonable prices. 8)

And no, I am not the only one, who wants this. ;D

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Just how many interviews do you think aren't scripted or where question matter is agreed on beforehand?

Especially when every word is recorded and analyzed (over analyzed)?

Especially when not only reporters but the people who read/watch the interview are just waiting for any mistake or even hesitation and use it against them?

I am surprised that anyone even talks to the press these days.

 

[heptagon]

in looking at DR... Is it just more at ISO 100 to 200 that you all want or higher consistent DR across the whole range..? Some of the higher DR cameras really start to drop off as ISO increases...

High DR at high ISO is physically NOT POSSIBLE.

Currently, Sony sensors that Nikon uses have a slight disadvantage at ISO >1000 but that seems to be fixed with the A7R. With these sensors you could basically shoot everything at ISO100 and lift in post which gives a lot of headroom to recover highlights.

The only way to gain some significant quality at high ISO is the use of layered sensors with higher quantum efficiency. With Silicon only this seems not possible but there are other material combinations in development which will make this possible in some years.

What can be done with current technology is a) higher pixel density (up to the 200-800 MP range for full frame) and b) lower ISO for even more dynamic range.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Especially when every word is recorded and analyzed (over analyzed)?

True, but this response is often associated with lack of information, transparency, and directness in communication.

 

[tomscott]

So basically you will only buy a product when they beat the opposition in all aspects?

It won't happen. There are always pros and cons.

What baffles me is you say your happy or were happy with the 18mp sensor which was a dog when it came out and your still using it and saying how bad the FF sensors are when they are a such huge improvement your almost kidding yourself.

Should try them before coming to your conclusion. I also don't think the 5D is poor value and wouldn't hesitate buying another one I think its the best camera Canon has ever produced and is currently one of the best available as a whole unit, for the event photographer it is pretty much perfect (which is where the main economy of photography is) The 6D is also great value, in the right hands they make and will continue to make incredible imagery.

 

[heptagon]

I indeed have a problem to hear the DR topic repeatedly.

Another solution would be to accept that Canon cameras only provide 2nd grad sensors for photos below ISO 1000 and high resolution photos. Sure, this is good enough for journalists and they are not here to complain. Sure, Birders can use crop cameras and teleconverters (along with the associated loss in image quality). But what about enthusiasts who save a big chunk of money to buy the best camera system they can afford? Could they live with a 5D Mark I? Has that camera gone bad over the years? No, they want the best. Canon has some of the best lenses with the best resolution but no full frame camera to go with it. I mean the cameras are not bad, they don't get worse over time but people want the best and Canon sensors simply are not the best anymore. We could say they are second best, but virtually any other manufacturer now uses better sensors for their new models. Sure, focus systems are important and if you have time you can light the scene and stitch your panoramas and do multiple exposures for HDR. But why not use the technology that is on the table. Why not give the users what they want? Why not simply buy the same Sony sensor as Nikon does for a studio/landscaping camera? Take the 5D3, rip out the old Canon sensor and put in the Sony sensor. It's not THAT hard to do for Canon. They had years of time and the only thing holding them back is greed for money because people are reluctant to switch. But trust me, nobody switched back from Nikon because of the sensor. Many things are different or wrong with Nikon systems but the camera sensor is not one of them.

 

[AvTvM]

So basically you will only buy a product when they beat the opposition in all aspects?
It won't happen. There are always pros and cons.

What baffles me is you say your happy or were happy with the 18mp sensor which was a dog when it came out and your still using it and saying how bad the FF sensors are when they are a such huge improvement your almost kidding yourself.

The 7D sensor maybe was a dog even when it came out. It was still better than Nikon D300s and any other APS-C camera on the marekt at the time. The 7D was unequivocally THE BEST APS-C camera when it came out in fall of 2009, that's why I bought it. It's sensor was surpassed pretty soon thereafter, of course.

I am fully aware that the 5D III sensor will give me much better IQ than the old 18 MP APS-C sensor. But, I will not settle for this. I want more, I want the best my money can buy and I want it in a smaller package.

 

[Lee Jay]

We could say they are second best, but virtually any other manufacturer now uses better sensors for their new models.

Only at low ISO. At high ISO, Canon sensors are still the best or close to the best.

 

[zlatko]

@Zlatko: Your turning a general statement into a personal issue. THAT...right there...is the problem with these forums. Stop making it personal. It's not. There is absolutely zero reason to take issue with someone elses statement like that, because you are ASSUMING something about what they have said. Your creating mountains out of molehills, like so many others here.

This whole "Not everyone is like you" argument is really getting old. It is like it's intentionally making everything personal, which is exactly what we don't need. Sure, everyone is different. But everyone also falls into groups of like-minded individuals. No one ever has truly unique wants and needs. There isn't just one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera.

Canon sensors, from a technological and fundamental IQ standpoint, are lacking. People don't seem to understand dynamic range, which is why they don't understand that statement. It isn't just a super-deep shadow thing, where there couldn't possibly exist usable data that could possibly matter to anyone who does "real" photography. : Dynamic range represents the RANGE of clean signal, from a point in the darkest tones where noise reduces information to a level of unusability, to the brightest tones where the signal saturates (the clipping point). More dynamic range affects that entire range...not just the shadows.

Shadows are usually talked about most, because recent gains on the DR front have been achieved primarily by a reduction in read noise, which affects that noise floor, the point of unusable or minimally usable information...by making it lower. However that is not the sole means of improvements on the DR front. Dynamic range has been increased at every level by increasing quantum efficiency and by increasing charge capacity. Increased Q.E. leads to lower gain, which leads to improved color...at EVERY level...shadows, midtones, highlights...even deep shadows that would otherwise be useless mush in a Canon camera. Increased FWC also allows lower gain, which leads to further improved color...again, at EVERY level.

Canon sensors have lower Q.E. and often lower (and sometimes MUCH lower) FWC than competitors sensors. The only reason Canon sensors have decent SNR is because Canon weakened the CFA, resulting in more color crosstalk and color bleed between pixels. That's where the "waxy" and often "muddy" SOOC color that has become a hallmark of Canon cameras comes from...poor color purity at each pixel. Some people like the "warmer" tone...which ironically is in large part a consequence of high color noise which is biased to red. A loss in color purity can be dealt with...it's ultimately mathematical, so it can be corrected. It's just one more thing, though, that you wouldn't have to think about with better sensor technology.

Technologically, Canon sensors DO lag behind the rest. I personally consider Canon sensor technology to be dead last...and I spend a lot of time researching sensors and sensor technology. Canon is hardly mentioned, has hardly been mentioned in the fast-paced sensor world, for years. When they are mentioned, the mentions are rather lackluster. DPAF patents simply get that...a mention, no fanfare. There are some RADICAL and truly amazing innovations occurring in the sensor world...the cutting edge is so far out there compared to where Canon is, it's doubtful Canon could ever reach it, assuming they cared to try. This is a purely technical assessment...there is nothing personal here. It's just based on some simple facts about the core technology. You can choose to take offense at this, but that's your deal. I'm not here to purposely offend you...this is just the state of the technology (which is a rather sterile set of factors, and certainly not the sole factors that have an impact on the ultimate perception of IQ for each individual.)

The notion that only Canon considers IQ as a whole is a fallacy. The Nikon D800 and D600 cameras have demonstrably better IQ, "as a whole", than Canon cameras do. There may be a few nuanced differences here and there, like warmer vs. neutral color tone or one by default preserves highlights more while the other preserves shadows more, that may cater to different preferences, but overall, Nikon cameras with Exmors in them have some of the best IQ and most flexible RAW images for DSLR cameras on the planet. Sony may be a different story...they chose to lossy-compress their "raw" images, so I don't know that the same statement can be applied to them specifically...but Canon is not the sole retainer of "considering image quality as a whole."

That statement is also suspect, given that they really seem to be considering image quality within a bubble of their own specifications, ignoring the gains that can be made in areas they are...apparently simply uninterested in. If Canon really cared about image quality as a whole, they wouldn't be ignoring low ISO IQ, where their sensors suffer the most, and by a very considerable margin. They wouldn't be ignoring similarly significant gains being made on the high ISO/low light front as well...the 2-stop DR advantage is no longer just a low ISO thing...it's an ultra high ISO thing as well. Canon (at least, the Canon alluded to by Maeda's comments) has tunnel vision...their idea of "image quality as a whole" seems to largely revolve around upper midtones and highlights (the areas where Canon sensor IQ is fine). I say upper midtones, because it is also very easy to demonstrate that Canon lower midtones also suffer from read noise intrusion. In the grand scheme of things, I think Canon's issue is again, a technological one. I don't think they have the fab capacity to manufacture APS-C and FF parts on their (technically very superior) 180nm process...and they don't have whatever is necessary...budget or business or shareholder signoff...to build another (very expensive) fab.

I could keep lopping off pieces of the "whole" pie here...but I'll stop.

DR isn't just about shadows, it's about the entire signal. It isn't just about unusable black pixel data that no one cares about...it's about improved color fidelity across the entire signal range. It's about cleaner, smoother falloff into shadows, even if you otherwise don't touch them. It isn't just about lifting shadows, it's more often about preserving highlights (where shadow lifting MAY simply become a consequence of that preservation.) Dynamic range is dynamic range...it doesn't exist in one area of the signal or another...it defines the range within which the signal can be created, shifted around in, and processed within...as well as to the richness of that signal.

Dynamic range affects the whole signal. If you look for the differences between images with more and images with less DR, differences are there, all over the place. Sometimes they are subtle, sometimes they are obvious. Sometimes subtle is exactly what you need (such as in the case of clean, smooth shadow falloff...I LOVE that myself...I would take that over the often "scratchy" shadow falloff I get with Canon sensors any day...and that doesn't involve any shadow pushing whatsoever.) Whether they matter to you or not is indeed a matter of personal preference...but having more cannot possibly ever be a bad thing. At worst, it may simply be an unused thing, on average it will give you more flexibility in post, or reduce your workload by not requiring more complex or extreme editing procedures, and at best, it can allow you to do things in a single shot that cannot be done in a single shot when you have less DR, or allow you to do things that simply cannot be done with cameras that have less DR. It cannot possibly be a bad thing...so why take offense at comments made about DR, especially if it's something you simply don't care about?

If you don't care about DR, then just ignore those who do...and there won't be anything to take offense at. Unless you get in someones face about your assumptions about them, it's highly unlikely anyone actually cares that you don't care about the same things they do, so there is little reason to assume they are trying to force something on you that you don't want. If you get up in peoples faces about their opinions, then sure...things are going to turn personal, and your previously mistaken assumptions will become actualized. At that point, your in a death trap. You've made your assumptions come true, so now you really do have something to take offense at, and thus things spiral endlessly.

NO, I am not "turning a general statement into a personal issue", nor am I "taking offense". Nor am I saying there is just "one single person on the face of the planet who wants more DR in a Canon camera". These are points I am not making, yet these are points to which you've addressed your long reply.

I tried to be clear in specifying what I am disagreeing with (not "taking offense"). I disagree with statements like:

"Canon sensors, from a technological and fundamental IQ standpoint, are lacking."
"Technologically, Canon sensors DO lag behind the rest."

You keep saying these things as if they are some universal truth. They aren't. They are true for certain photographers in certain situations, not for everyone. There are plenty of photographers who don't perceive this "lacking" or "lagging" because their work is not about maximum DR and doesn't rely on maximum DR. For those photographers, Canon sensors are doing a great job, and they are choosing Canon sensors to do their job. The list of renowned and skilled photographers choosing and using Canon is long and deep and covers an extremely diverse range of photographic situations. You can repeat what you are saying "technologically", but it doesn't reflect what they are doing photographically.