DPReview Interview with Chuck Westfall of Canon USA

[privatebydesign]

This is a major disappointment! We wait all of this time for an upgrade and the Dynamic Range remains less than Nikon.

Then buy a Nikon. Nobody cares.

But it seems that all you naysayers might well have some backpeddling to do soon as the suggestions that shadow performance are improved seem to be gaining traction.

But none of us will know for sure until we have challenging RAW files to play with.

Now, as before, Chicken Little..........

 

[privatebydesign]

Let me make this simple by working though it...

The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.

Measured by what method?
...

Why don't you write an email or letter to Chuck and ask him how he measured the DR of the 5D3 and 5Ds in order to make the statement that he did? Come back and let us know what he replies with.

He, Chuck Westfall, didn't measure anything. Canon told him to say exactly what he said, and that was "Canon is telling us......equivalent to the 5D MkIII" They also told Mike Burnhill to say exactly the same thing, and he did. I am sure every senior Canon tech around the world was told to use the same expression.

Exactly:
"The sensor’s design also enables the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R to offer the same wide dynamic range as the EOS 5D Mark III."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/inside_the_eos_5ds_and_eos_5ds_r.do?utm_content=buffer4aed0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Which strikes at the very heart of the question, 'what is dynamic range, how is it measured, and who decides the subjective nature of the results?' Because it seems, when you listen to the CPS reps and read the earliest reports from users, that there is turning out to be a difference in shadow noise. Do you consider shadow noise to be a DR limiting factor?

 

[Sporgon]

This is a major disappointment! We wait all of this time for an upgrade and the Dynamic Range remains less than Nikon.

How do you know that ? In use you're splitting hairs in dynamic range; the difference is in the shadow end latitude. How useful that is to you depends largely on whether or not your mother sat you in front of The Simpsons all day so you now view the world as a shadowless cartoon.

Of course under exposing to retain strong highlights - the sun basically - and then pushing your tone less shadows will give the uneducated the impression they have greater dynamic range.

Said it before and I'll say it again: the inclusion or not of an Exmor type sensor will have no influence whatsoever in my decision to purchase a 5Ds or r or not.

 

[pharding]

Then buy a Nikon. Nobody cares.

But it seems that all you naysayers might well have some backpeddling to do soon as the suggestions that shadow performance are improved seem to be gaining traction.

But none of us will know for sure until we have challenging RAW files to play with.

Now, as before, Chicken Little..........

I can assure you that Canon cares. DP Review said the dynamic range is the same as the previous camera. This means that Nikon and Sony 35 mm cameras still have a higher dynamic range than Canon.

 

[privatebydesign]

Then buy a Nikon. Nobody cares.

But it seems that all you naysayers might well have some backpeddling to do soon as the suggestions that shadow performance are improved seem to be gaining traction.

But none of us will know for sure until we have challenging RAW files to play with.

Now, as before, Chicken Little..........

I can assure you that Canon cares. DP Review said the dynamic range is the same as the previous camera. This means that Nikon and Sony 35 mm cameras still have a higher dynamic range than Canon.

Canon do not care if you, personally, buy one, or none, of their cameras, that isn't how the free market works, so get over yourself.

As for the DR or not, as Sporgon says, at this point it is conjecture and semantics, DPReview DO NOT KNOW, they have not had a camera or even a RAW file yet to test.

I predict a slew of antagonistic threads about the definition of DR and the assumption that that means shadow lifting ability, which I have argued about before. I strongly suspect that Canon are being truthful, by traditional measures the DR is the same, but it does have lower noise in the shadows that results in improved shadow and highlight editability. Does that equate to improved DR? Not on a technical level as Canon understand it. Is it potentially a good step forwards in Canon sensor performance? Quite possibly.

But until we have challenging RAW files we are all just speculating.

Now carry on Chicken Little, the sky is falling.............

 

[Loswr]

I can assure you that Canon cares. DP Review said the dynamic range is the same as the previous camera. This means that Nikon and Sony 35 mm cameras still have a higher dynamic range than Canon.

So what? Canon sensors have had less low ISO DR than their competitors since circa 2009; Canon was the market leader then, and remains the leader today. Your assurances aside, why should they care?

 

[dufflover]

Well I imagine this is the last straw for the last of the "Canon waiters" who wanted to see what they had in their high MP model or even those waiting for signs of the start of a "fresh" sensor. Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything. But like I said I think this group is rather small now with so much timing passing in both FF and the Crop sensor update space most of the people who want more DR over other features woulda-shoulda gotten a Nikon or Sony ages ago.

 

[Loswr]

Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything.

So a 230% increase in resolution is a 'tweak'. ???

 

[3kramd5]

Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything.

So a 230% increase in resolution is a 'tweak'. ???

I for one am glad that they didn't "tweak" the body. I can use all my stuff as is.

 

[bholliman]

Amazing how many people are bashing these new cameras before we have even seen any test results.

 

[MichaelHodges]

As a long time Canon customer, I'm not thrilled with the apparent complacency.

Not sure why they would release a 50MP sensor that can't at least match the competition in dynamic range, or release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.

Someone is sleepwalking over there.

 

[Loswr]

...release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.

Someone is sleepwalking over there.

Did you miss the part about 11-24mm?

Oh, you wanted 11-24mm f/2.8. Here, carry this instead.

You'd likely need this to pay for it...

 

[zlatko]

As a long time Canon customer, I'm not thrilled with the apparent complacency.

Not sure why they would release a 50MP sensor that can't at least match the competition in dynamic range, or release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.

Someone is sleepwalking over there.

Why stick with a brand that is so complacent and sleepwalking? Just go buy the competition's fabulous equivalent products, such as their high res 50mp cameras with anti-flicker technology, 7D2 with anti-flicker technology, 11-14 zoom, 8-15 zoom, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, 17 T-SE, 400/4 DO, 85/1.2, 24 pancake, 600RT-EX, ST-E3-RT, etc. Good thing the competition is not complacent about anything.

 

[tron]

...release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.

Someone is sleepwalking over there.

Did you miss the part about 11-24mm?

Oh, you wanted 11-24mm f/2.8. Here, carry this instead.

You'd likely need this to pay for it...

Hey you exaggerate a little but basically yes it would be heavier and pricier. But it would be a dream landscape astrophotography lens... :-\

 

[PureClassA]

Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything.

So a 230% increase in resolution is a 'tweak'. ???

Apparently to some people, yes.

 

[jaayres20]

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.

I am a pretty decent wedding photographer and I will definitely be buying one of these in June. It will go along great with my 1DX!

 

[PureClassA]

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Read the post on Sunday Feb 8th (today) regarding DR performance of the 5DS. Mentions pretesting puts it about 1.5 - 2 stops better than the 1DX at low ISO which according to DxO is 11.8 stops.... If this is correct, we are looking at low ISO DR on this 5DS between 13 and 14 stops.... Did things get more interesting for some of you again?

 

[Eldar]

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Read the post on Sunday Feb 8th (today) regarding DR performance of the 5DS. Mentions pretesting puts it about 1.5 - 2 stops better than the 1DX at low ISO which according to DxO is 11.8 stops.... If this is correct, we are looking at low ISO DR on this 5DS between 13 and 14 stops.... Did things get more interesting for some of you again?

Something tells me that we should wait for some RAW-files to play with, before we are too conclusive. From what it seems, some have decoded the available information and concluded that we will indeed get better noise performance and if this DR information is correct, then it's suddenly a much more interesting camera.

 

[zlatko]

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.

The 1DX is a fantastic camera, but I much prefer the 5D3 and 6D for weddings to anything as large & heavy as the 1DX. The 5DS would be a *great* wedding camera too. "Worst possible for the job"? I don't know how anyone can say that. The estimated shutter count is fine for a number of years, and shutters are not that expensive to replace. Large files of the 5DS are absolutely no problem because the raw file size is variable, so you have large when you want large and medium and small when you don't want large. Frames per second is perfectly adequate for weddings. A wedding is not the Olympics or professional sports. It's no surprise that previous 5D series cameras have been extremely popular for weddings (with the same or similar shutter count and frame rate). And the 5DS now brings the possibility of shooting very high res square photos, similar to some wedding cameras of the film era.

 

[PureClassA]

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Read the post on Sunday Feb 8th (today) regarding DR performance of the 5DS. Mentions pretesting puts it about 1.5 - 2 stops better than the 1DX at low ISO which according to DxO is 11.8 stops.... If this is correct, we are looking at low ISO DR on this 5DS between 13 and 14 stops.... Did things get more interesting for some of you again?

What is better? The shadows?

Or is there actually 1.5 - 2 stops more DR?

If it is the latter than Canon are telling Chuck and others to lie about the camera's performance.

Not necessarily.... Remember, it was said it had similar DR to a 5D3 "by tradititonal measurements". This is a camera that has clearly been plugged as one specifically tuned for Low ISO. I asked the question a few days on here "what does that mean?" Could traditional measure be an overall averaging of performance across the ISO range? If so are the upper ISOs so "bad" by comparison to base that the average is skewed? I really dont know. Im just asking to provoke thought and debate. But taken at face value its suggesting base ISO coukd see 13-14 stops when it comes to pulling shadows at least