Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon

[Tugela]

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

 

[3kramd5]

Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing?

I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work. To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them. But, that's me.

Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS. PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera. The cart is before the horse, no?

Just food for thought.
Brian

No.

I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me. The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.

That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.

I think you guys are probably in the minority. I read "I want it to look like what I saw" quite often, but then the people writing it load up their flickr streams with razor-thin DOF and desaturated images, water blurred to a fog and polarized skies. Things I have personally never seen in real life.

 

[Etienne]

Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III

 

[AvTvM]

interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look.
Which is not necessarily the way I saw a scene. Or imagined it. Or what the scene would have looked like to some other people.

Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing?

I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work. To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them. But, that's me.

Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS. PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera. The cart is before the horse, no?

Just food for thought.
Brian

No.

I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me. The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.

That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.

I think you guys are probably in the minority. I read "I want it to look like what I saw" quite often, but then the people writing it load up their flickr streams with razor-thin DOF and desaturated images, water blurred to a fog and polarized skies. Things I have personally never seen in real life.

 

[Marsu42]

interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look.

This is a really interesting point, unfortunately buried ot in a trash talk "dr / high res" thread so few people will join the discussion.

Personally, I am with the previous poster because I find that postprocessing is needed to create an accurate resemblance of what I saw and felt - this means directing the view, modifying the colors not to be over the top and giving a feel of direction/movement even in a still shot. Thin dof *does* help to achieve this, but how thin depends on the output/view size and it mustn't be there just to demonstrate you're able to afford a f1.2 lens on a ff.

 

[zlatko]

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.

 

[zlatko]

interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look.

This is a really interesting point, unfortunately buried ot in a trash talk "dr / high res" thread so few people will join the discussion.

Personally, I am with the previous poster because I find that postprocessing is needed to create an accurate resemblance of what I saw and felt - this means directing the view, modifying the colors not to be over the top and giving a feel of direction/movement even in a still shot. Thin dof *does* help to achieve this, but how thin depends on the output/view size and it mustn't be there just to demonstrate you're able to afford a f1.2 lens on a ff.

Post-processing is an integral part of photography and has been from the start. I think the point was about the degree to which people push the post-processing, and the degree to which they rely on post-processing to the exclusion of other techniques, and then complain that a sensor can't withstand their special needs for extreme post-processing, and then finally conclude that it's a bad sensor.

 

[AvTvM]

yes it is interesting. Once I got the image on my screen, THAT is what I work with, no matter what I or others may have originally seen on scene when capturing the image.

Thin DOF .. only to some extent for me. I will move from APS-C to FF soon, to get thin enough DOF from f/28 zooms. To me, f/2.8 on FF provides enough power to control DOF. Shooting even wider open makes things unnessarily more difficult to me - AF hit rate suffers and I am forced to pay inordinate amounts of attention to exactly place the focal plane on the forefront of the eyeball rather than on the eyelashes or too far back etc. ... it seriously distracts me from capturing the right moment, the right image overall. I don't want to be a "photo mechanic", no dial twister, no knob turner, no "camera operator", but rather an observer, a seer and a capturer.

And thin DOF requires fixed focal lenses. Potentially even very expensive ones, that I rarely ever use. Don't really like those 1-trick ponies. 3 f/2.8 zooms on FF is all I need. Holy trinity and be done with. Actually for 16-35 the f/4 would do for me.

btw. I don't use PS. Hate the guts of the UI of that program. Lightroom only and whatever is possible with it. v5 is pretty good already.

 

[Tugela]

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.

No one is going to buy a Canon camera for video. They might buy them for stills, but if video is important they will buy a Panasonic or Sony (and perhaps a Samsung, depending on how that camera turns out). The EOSHD community caters specifically to that demographic, so the fact that the camera is met with such disappointment there should tell you something, if you are prepared to listen (and, it seems, many here are not prepared to do that).

 

[Marsu42]

I will move from APS-C to FF soon

... "soon" ? You were the one waiting for a good Canon sensor in the famed 5d4, weren't you? Good luck with that

And thin DOF requires fixed focal lenses. Potentially even very expensive ones, that I rarely ever use. Don't really like those 1-trick ponies. 3 f/2.8 zooms on FF is all I need. Holy trinity and be done with. Actually for 16-35 the f/4 would do for me.

I understand f2.8 happens to be the sweet spot for zooms between size/weight and max open aperture. But on ff, my f4 zooms produce a dof thin enough for the 6d's af system to struggle, and they're small, light and cheaper. As we know, it simply depends on the camera-subject-background distance relation and f2.8 on a wide angle won't help you at all if your subject is standing in front of a wall.

 

[Lee Jay]

No one is going to buy a Canon camera for video.

I will. My primary application is to shoot videos of the very high speed subjects of which I shoot stills. First, I don't want to have to have two separate systems and, second, dual-pixel focusing should make shooting those movies of the high speed subjects much more doable.

 

[3kramd5]

interesting. I postprocess my images to make them look the way I want them to look.
Which is not necessarily the way I saw a scene. Or imagined it. Or what the scene would have looked like to some other people.

Exactly.

And I shoot thin (macro) DOF sometimes. But even my f/2.8 portraits don't look on screen/print the way the model and particularly what's behind the model looked when I saw them.

I also blur moving water, use polarizers, etc.

If every photo I shot looked like what I saw, I'd have a pretty boring library

 

[RodS57]

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.

You sound just like me. One of us should go look in the mirror. ;D

Back on topic: I don't see why people are venting because of the interview. The gentleman that was interviewed was allowed to give the interview because he has the one required skill - he can talk for hours and say nothing.

Look at the 7D2. Right up to the official announcement there was no concrete information regarding specs. Even now, weeks after the announcement the camera is still a mystery. A UFO = unidentified fotographer's object.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Back on topic: I don't see why people are venting because of the interview. The gentleman that was interviewed was allowed to give the interview because he has the one required skill - he can talk for hours and say nothing.

+infinity!
It is hilarious that pages after pages are being filled discussing some predictions that can be guessed by anyone with half a brain and some claims any big market leader is bound to make.
It is also quite disappointing to see some of the best contributors of this forum argue for argument's sake.

 

[zlatko]

@jrista. I get it. You're an engineer or a scientist, right? Your entire post is about the fabrication of sensors and is based on terminology that non-engineer, non-scientist photographers don't use. You are very, very interested in the fabrication of sensors. You know all about how they're made, how they work, how they're measured, etc. You know the language of sensors, the theory of sensors, the history of sensors, etc. That is awesome and as it should be. You could probably go to the Sony sensor factory and understand how everything works, and you could have a great conversation with their engineers and scientists. It's like a chemist knowing all about the chemistry at Kodak or Polaroid. Very cool.

Obviously, that's not my perspective on photography. So let's suppose you are correct in every technical detail that you cite. Does it matter? If you're making sensors, absolutely. If you're making photographs the way the vast majority of photographers make photographs, both pro and amateur, none of that matters as much as the quality they see in their own photographs. For them, that is the test of a good camera (and the sensor inside it). They don't need to ever know about or speak about fabs, 500nm processes, nanometers, die spaces, 200mm wafers, linear signals, silicon, or the like. If you're speaking to engineers and scientists, that's the stuff to talk about. If you're speaking about photography as most people practice it, that stuff is all deep "under the hood".

Most photographers use their cameras in the way that most drivers use their cars. They don't build them or need to know the ins and outs of what goes on at the factory. Drivers don't need to argue about which robots Ford should be using, etc. Yes, the workings of the factory are essential facts for people at the factory. But they are utterly irrelevant to the typical photographer's understanding of how to operate the camera/sensor. Whether using Canon, Nikon, Sony, or something else, highly renowned, skilled and successful photographers around the world are producers of photographs and connoisseurs of photographs. They are not producers and connoisseurs of sensors, wafers, nm processes, quantum efficiency, and the like.

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?"

 

[Woody]

Canon's G7x sensor is from the original RX100 or the RX100 mk II, not the same as in the RX100 mk III

Do you have a link to prove this?

Also, according to DXOMark, the RX100 Mk 1, 2 and 3 sensors are nearly identical in performance with Mk 1 only being very slightly behind for low light ISO.

 

[AvTvM]

It would be so much more ideal to just have Canon deliver the goods...a kick-ass sensor paired with their wonderful ergonomics and all the lenses I already own.

+1 ... exactly!

 

[keithfullermusic]

Out of curiosity, is it possible to put a nikon sensor on a canon camera?

 

[privatebydesign]

"Well, that's no problem. Did you look at the photographs?"

When I look at photographs taken with the D800 and D810, I see a quality to shading, shadows and the way detail fades into those shadows that I very rarely if ever see in Canon images. It's something I really love. It often has nothing to do with shadow pushing...but it does have everything to do with DR.

Yeah, I look at a lot of photographs. One of the best examples is Marc Adamus' work...he has some more recent photos taken with the D800 that have this amazing quality of light and shadow to them. His work is phenomenal, but there are just nuances to his newer work that are mind blowing. Most of it is his skill as a photographer, but the rest is the improved technology in the gear he now uses. There are some other landscape photographers on 500px that I follow who moved from the 5D II to the D800, and that same aesthetic has shown up in their work...a beautiful soft shading and tonality that I think is very difficult to achieve with Canon cameras. So yeah, of course I look at the photographs. I'm very analytical...so I pick everything apart. It's entirely possible I see things that the average Joe isn't going to see...but, I know other people see it, too. Otherwise they wouldn't have moved from Canon to Nikon for their landscapes.

Most photographers who are interested in using the level of gear where the lack of DR might be an issue are also more likely to be using RAW, to understand the differences that more DR offers, and to enjoy the benefits of cameras with more DR. Sure, your average Joe buying a Rebel or a Dxxxx series camera aren't going to give a crap...they point, they shoot, and they use the kit lens. I've never cared about that end of the market. It's a dime a dozen, and the turnover is high. I care about the high end market, the enthusiast/semi-pro/pro gear. Where differences in sensors can matter. A LOT of landscape photographers have D800s and D810s now. A couple years ago, it was mostly 5D II on 500px...more and more, it's D800, D810, D600/610, A7r. The 5D III still has a presence, but Nikon cameras have made huge inroads into the landscape photography scene. Which isn't surprising...more DR brings huge benefits to landscape photographers.

So, I'm not inclined to believe that most photographers just point and shoot and accept what comes out of the camera. I think most novices buying their first or second DSLR, which is likely to be a Rebel or Dthousands Nikon are...but I think the people who would actually know about DR are going to understand the differences, the benefits, and if they want more, they are going to know how to use it. Nikon went from lagging Canon in market share by at least 15% to lagging them by a mere 5% or less, with the majority of those gains being made in...2012. The year the D800 was released. Not everyone finds DR to be a meaningless feature. People like myself who don't want to have to fiddle with bracketing and layers of stacked GND filters are looking for better alternatives, and were finding them...and spending our money elsewhere. I think a lot of ex-Canon people, or people who have blended kits, would prefer Canon provide them with a camera that has both a high end high DR sensor embedded inside the ergonomically wonderful bodies we love from Canon. Were stuck looking elsewhere for someone to service our needs, and for those who don't want to or don't have the money to add a D810 and a few Nikon lenses to our kit (which can rapidly approach $8-10k if you pick up a few lenses), were kind of stuck with the early-generation A7 series from Sony, which have plenty of room for improvement...but which offer the DR were looking for. I'd so much prefer not to have to do that...wade through a few generations of Sony A7 series cameras until they finally get everything right. It would be so much more ideal to just have Canon deliver the goods...a kick-ass sensor paired with their wonderful ergonomics and all the lenses I already own.

I believe you trust your judgment too much, especially with the knowledge of EXIF and the photographers gear. I suspect that a decent photographer could shoot with either Nikon or Canon and show you images and you wouldn't have a clue which was shot with which. This isn't a personal dig, if you noticed I normally leave threads now when somebody takes a huge swing at me, it is an honest observation of human psychology. We all do it, but normally fail double blind tests.

Post processes, including different RAW converters, make vastly more difference to the final image than any difference in system. Pretty much any system deficit can be worked around when using the other system if absolutely needed.

 

[The Flasher]

... I am not in the market for the 7d2 nor the 1dx nor the 5d3, for me the 6d has just been the most amazing commercial tool ito features and price/quality ratio. The lamented low 'dynamic' range everyone complains about has been a non event practically speaking in my experience. The 6d sensor has an amazing ability to capture highlights, which are more important to me than shadow detail....I am not really into HDR looking images...[/quote]

I'm in the exact same boat as you. I bought a 6d as a stop gap measure until canon releases a high MP body, and have been surprised at how great this camera really is. Commercial client to hold a tablet and review images as we shoot. Great image quality, light in the hand, etc. My hope for 6D2 would be a flip screen and second SD slot.

J