DPReview Interview with Chuck Westfall of Canon USA

[bholliman]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

Canon has always been very conservative with their claims for new products. I'm willing to withhold judgement until we have seen some hands-on testing. It certainly sounds like there will not be a significant DR improvement, but there might be a small one.

 

[mycanonphotos]

Total BS why Canon kept the ISO level lower..."testing". It's all marketing, at a whopping 50Mp you can bet the next 5Ds and 5Ds R wont have more MP's just a much better DR and better ISO..But not by much...perhaps a few added features...the 5D4 should have some serious features added coming down the pipe...

 

[Sporgon]

I think that the people who once get the taste of Zeiss lenses continue to buy those lenses.

I agree with you there !

But still small numbers compared with even the top end EF lenses.

My partner in Building Panoramics has some business with the UK agent, Robert White, so I have a fair idea.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

 

[PureClassA]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

Yes! That was an important line I picked up on as well. I don't know was "traditional methods" mean to him vs. what we have now. But Pulling Shadow Detail is what we all seem to talk about when debating DR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww6QGpryrLM&feature=youtu.be

Northrup discusses the effect in the 7D2 and what it means when upscaled to a 5DS size sensor. I'm starting to think we may be a bit more surprised than we expect. Time will tell.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Architectural and interior photographers also want more dynamic range. I was definitely a buyer for a 5Ds or the R. When I saw it has the same dynamic range as my 5D2 and three frame auto bracketing they lost my purchase. The 17tse and 24tse are they only reason I wouldn't switch to Nikon. I guess I will wait to see if they bring the DR up on the 5D4. Very disappointed in what this camera could've been in sensor technology.

Where did you see that, as in where are the DR comparison images that demonstrate that?

It seems to me Canon are being very conservative with the claims for these cameras, they often are, but they are saying whilst the DR is similar to the 5D MkIII there is less noise and more latitude in the shadows and highlights, who knows what that means, we don't.

Until we start actually seeing independent tests, hyperbole and emotional garbage is best left in the bin where it belongs.

And this is what I had suggested Chuck Westfall's comparisons might lead to: people becoming biased even before they try out the camera. That is happening, if you look at the forum responses. If he didn't say what he did, people would have waited till the reviews come out, or better, tried it out themselves.

Drawing anecdotal comparisons with the 5DIII in terms of DR and 7DII in terms of noise (the latter, with a flawed reasoning) is only going to instigate the haters. As you said, it doesn't tell us much- so why make statements that are not informative, and potentially confusing? It is very nice to be conservative and all, and then give everyone a pleasant surprise, but I am not sure that is a sound marketing strategy.

Unlike msm and others {"We just want the best product for our needs, and do not care who makes most money.") I do want Canon to make money- not because I am a shareholder, but because I intend to use Canon equipment for a long time, and want them to stay market leaders. If I have to pay $ 500 more today in the short term to ensure I don't have to switch altogether to a less optimal system, I am happy to make that investment.

 

[skoobey]

How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?

This is a STUDIO CAMERA. So, product photography, commercial photography!

Learn you market.

I don't know. How many are there? Read the Luminous Landscape forum and they are using cameras & lenses that cost that much and much more, for landscape, product, commercial, and whatever. Some landscape photographers are willing to pay a lot for resolution. Camera makers know their market better than internet commenters do.

Exactly my point. Some landscape photographers are able to pay that much, but every commercial photographer is willing to do so.
But, because all these high-end marketing executives are wanna be photographers who got absolutely no idea what market wants or needs, it's left up to the engineering department to their job as well.
This camera is a great proposal, and if you look at it's features it's clearly meant to battle MF offerings. It doesn't need *** and wifi to do so, because those cameras don't have those features, either. It is a great landscape camera, but mentioning wedding photography and stupid things like that???? Come on, it's the worst possible camera for the job. Low shutter count, large files, small frames per second count... 1DX is a camera for that.

This is a studio camera, just like MF cameras, it absolutely works as a landscape camera, but it's buyers are likely commercial photographers, and landscapes are just one part of their job. No decent wedding photographer is going to buy this, unless it's a shoot for the cover of a magazine.

 

[Eldar]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

He he, so maybe I´ll have to reconsider after all. If shadow detail and noise turned out to be improved after all, then ... :

 

[Sporgon]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

Thanks for that link, I missed that.

Interesting.....

 

[privatebydesign]

Architectural and interior photographers also want more dynamic range. I was definitely a buyer for a 5Ds or the R. When I saw it has the same dynamic range as my 5D2 and three frame auto bracketing they lost my purchase. The 17tse and 24tse are they only reason I wouldn't switch to Nikon. I guess I will wait to see if they bring the DR up on the 5D4. Very disappointed in what this camera could've been in sensor technology.

Where did you see that, as in where are the DR comparison images that demonstrate that?

It seems to me Canon are being very conservative with the claims for these cameras, they often are, but they are saying whilst the DR is similar to the 5D MkIII there is less noise and more latitude in the shadows and highlights, who knows what that means, we don't.

Until we start actually seeing independent tests, hyperbole and emotional garbage is best left in the bin where it belongs.

And this is what I had suggested Chuck Westfall's comparisons might lead to: people becoming biased even before they try out the camera. That is happening, if you look at the forum responses. If he didn't say what he did, people would have waited till the reviews come out, or better, tried it out themselves.

Drawing anecdotal comparisons with the 5DIII in terms of DR and 7DII in terms of noise (the latter, with a flawed reasoning) is only going to instigate the haters. As you said, it doesn't tell us much- so why make statements that are not informative, and potentially confusing? It is very nice to be conservative and all, and then give everyone a pleasant surprise, but I am not sure that is a sound marketing strategy.

Unlike msm and others {"We just want the best product for our needs, and do not care who makes most money.") I do want Canon to make money- not because I am a shareholder, but because I intend to use Canon equipment for a long time, and want them to stay market leaders. If I have to pay $ 500 more today in the short term to ensure I don't have to switch altogether to a less optimal system, I am happy to make that investment.

Both Westfall and Burnhill, Canon point men in different countries for this launch, used exactly the same wording, "equivalent to the 5D MkIII" they did that because they were told to. Westfall said it because Canon told him to say it, so you can hardly point a finger at him for saying it!

The haters need no instigation, they truthfully don't, sit them in a rose garden and they will tell you it smells like manure, then go on to point out that they are sitting in the manure. Their lemons suck, mine make great lemonade. Their glass is half empty, I have a glass and it has something it.

I make a living selling photographs I take with a seven year old body, they can't take pictures of anything because they don't have the DR, MP, AF, EVF, flip screen, WiFi, ***, blah blah that another model does.

Sure everything can be improved, but crying about 'no improvement over my 5D MkII' when we ignore all the other massive improvements over the 5D MkII, we don't have a release date for months and no downloadable and editable RAW file for a long time, is kinda weak.

 

[sagittariansrock]

...

Both Westfall and Burnhill, Canon point men in different countries for this launch, used exactly the same wording, "equivalent to the 5D MkIII" they did that because they were told to. Westfall said it because Canon told him to say it, so you can hardly point a finger at him for saying it!

The haters need no instigation, they truthfully don't, sit them in a rose garden and they will tell you it smells like manure, then go on to point out that they are sitting in the manure. Their lemons suck, mine make great lemonade. Their glass is half empty, I have a glass and it has something it.

I make a living selling photographs I take with a seven year old body, they can't take pictures of anything because they don't have the DR, MP, AF, EVF, flip screen, WiFi, ***, blah blah that another model does.

Sure everything can be improved, but crying about 'no improvement over my 5D MkII' when we ignore all the other massive improvements over the 5D MkII, we don't have a release date for months and no downloadable and editable RAW file for a long time, is kinda weak.

I guess that's true.
Anyway, a good way to get rid of the frustration from reading these posts is to go out and shoot some pictures, and today is a beautiful day for that.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

He he, so maybe I´ll have to reconsider after all. If shadow detail and noise turned out to be improved after all, then ... :

Just trying to add a little light into your day after yesterdays disappointment Eldar!

Another thing you might chew on, in that same video Burnhill points out that the noise is the same as the 7D MkII, but he means on a per pixel level, that means the 5DS/R have a minimum 1.3 stop noise advantage over the 7D MkII, at all iso's at a same image level.

Now there are arguments to be had about how that might actually translate, but the DR crowd always points to the downsample normalisation method, I believe if we do that then for a same framed image the new cameras should realise that 1.3 stop noise advantage, even at base iso.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

Thanks for that link, I missed that.

Interesting.....

The devil is always in the details!

I am sure DxO will rape it as it doesn't start with N or S, I am also sure many working photographers, pro and amateur, will absolutely love it.

At this point I kind of wish I had a need for one of them, I can't justify toys, but I believe these are the kinds of cameras that will separate the photographers from the gear junkies and weekend warriors, not dissing any group, but I believe this will push photographers techniques, I can't wait to print some of the 50MP files!

 

[fragilesi]

And what, the world revolves around what sells or doesn't sell in the USA?

The 6D is also the second-best selling FF dSLR at Amazon Germany.

The point is, for all that some people complain that the 6D is 'crippled', it's very popular for a FF camera, in large part because of its (relatively) low cost. I've done my share of complaining about the 6D's AF system, but as we know, Canon doesn't care what I think...

I'm sure they do

But isn't it odd with some people that whatever Canon do well in somehow doesn't count whereas the one thing people seem to think they do badly in (Low ISO DR) is somehow so important . . .

 

[Sporgon]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

Thanks for that link, I missed that.

Interesting.....

The devil is always in the details!

I am sure DxO will rape it as it doesn't start with N or S, I am also sure many working photographers, pro and amateur, will absolutely love it.

At this point I kind of wish I had a need for one of them, I can't justify toys, but I believe these are the kinds of cameras that will separate the photographers from the gear junkies and weekend warriors, not dissing any group, but I believe this will push photographers techniques, I can't wait to print some of the 50MP files!

That is true.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it will be interesting to see real files of practical shoots. I never up graded the 5DII to a III; added a 6 D instead. Prefer the ergonomics of the 5. The 5Ds might be the next move as long as it has mRAW and sRAW options, which I am sure it will have.

Maybe I will get to shoot rope bound and suspended maidens in from of a medieval castle - a sort of medieval bondage theme perhaps ?

 

[jdavis37]

Have to disagree. I think the only time the new 5Ds will outperform the D810 is in situations where lighting can be controlled (studio, runway, pretty much any time indoors). Outside in natural light where DR really comes into play the 810 will shine.

Exactly. Because we all know the D810 outperforms the 5DIII in any sort of natural light. : : :

I often wonder what % of forum posters are of the total camera purchasers. Until Nikon/Sony does something that makes a substantial ripple in Canon's bottom line (profit) the noise created on forums will be just chatter.

I actually have empathy for those who are not getting from Canon what they want. I understand disappointment.

But to see blanket statements like D810 is a better <pick your noun> than a 3 year old 5D3 isn't exactly factual. When 5D3 came out I rented a D800 and 5D3 and it took me very little time to discover the 5D3 was the better camera for the things I do. I will not say it is the better camera, just better for me. I prefer the look of larger pixels, one of the reasons I went to FF. Our eyes all see things differently so again each of us has to make the call of what is better for them and not suggest it is better for others.

I rarely if ever shoot below ISO 1000 and the 5D3 has never let me down there. Coming from a 7D where I was fearful above ISO400 for bird feathers, the 5D3 has easily extended me to ISO 2000 and above. Not everyone cares about ISO100-400 DR. Some of us care about faster AF, more accurate AF, how controls on camera do the things we desire to do. I care more about higher ISO so for me the 5D3 had a cleaner image than did D800 above ISO1600 or so.

But, if you really desire an EXMOR sensor the option is there to buy one versus getting angry that Canon won't deliver. Nothing even remotely suggests Canon is going to deliver a newer technology anytime soon. On 5D4.... well if they will give me 8+ fps and some AF improvements I may be in.. and not even worried about the sensor as 5D3 is already good enough for me. Just a different perspective.

 

[Orangutan]

How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?

This is a STUDIO CAMERA. So, product photography, commercial photography!

Learn you market.

I don't know. How many are there? Read the Luminous Landscape forum and they are using cameras & lenses that cost that much and much more, for landscape, product, commercial, and whatever. Some landscape photographers are willing to pay a lot for resolution. Camera makers know their market better than internet commenters do.

Exactly my point. Some landscape photographers are able to pay that much, but every commercial photographer is willing to do so.
But, because all these high-end marketing executives are wanna be photographers who got absolutely no idea what market wants or needs, it's left up to the engineering department to their job as well.
This camera is a great proposal, and if you look at it's features it's clearly meant to battle MF offerings. It doesn't need *** and wifi to do so, because those cameras don't have those features, either. It is a great landscape camera, but mentioning wedding photography and stupid things like that? ??? Come on, it's the worst possible camera for the job. Low shutter count, large files, small frames per second count... 1DX is a camera for that.

This is a studio camera, just like MF cameras, it absolutely works as a landscape camera, but it's buyers are likely commercial photographers, and landscapes are just one part of their job. No decent wedding photographer is going to buy this, unless it's a shoot for the cover of a magazine.

A lot of wedding photographers carry multiple bodies. I can imagine them using one of these for anything except the action.

 

[Orangutan]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

The 5D2/3 are measured

Measured by whom? Please post your source.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"
...

The 5D2/3 are measured at having a DR of 11-12 but having a usable DR of 10 due to noise and problems with shadows.

I don't understand your point, also usable is a subjective term.

I don't like using iso 200 or any NR, others are very happy with 10,000iso with masses of NR and masked sharpening, neither is 'right' both are just subjective. I don't crop to any significant degree from my 21MP FF sensor, others are happy to post 100% crops from their crop cameras, again, purely subjective.

P.S. Just saw your reply, Tatersall was only interested in video, and the 'usable' range is his personal and subjective opinion for the output he needed, and he only measured a 5D MkII, not a 5D MkIII.

 

[bholliman]

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.

That isn't what he said. He actually said "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII", neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with " equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........

Good catch! I missed this point in the Burnhill video. We all need to see what the results are from actual tests before we pass judgement.