DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II

[quod]

That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

I agree 100%. Lower noise at base ISO would be a great selling point. It would not take away from the unique features of Canon's other pro/prosumer cameras. It seems a bit odd that people are getting worked up over a vague statement like "lower noise floor," which means nothing on its face.

 

[SwnSng]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.

 

[bmwzimmer]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

True but they have to keep selling the 5D3 alongside the 5DS/R for another 7-8 months or so before the 5D4 is even announced and perhaps 10 months before its on sale...

 

[jrista]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.

The difference here is that BMW was protecting a MORE EXPENSIVE car model. The 5Ds is more expensive than the 5D III, by quite a margin given actual street prices. It makes no logical sense for Canon not to upsell the better, improved 5Ds as much as possible, despite potentially slightly different markets. Canon should be trying to sell the $3700 part as much as humanly possible over a $2500-$2800 (street prices) part. For a lot of potential Canon customers, more REAL dynamic range (none of this "lower noise floor" without any word on FWC crap) is something GREATLY desired. Canon could bag a significant number of sales before the thing even hits the streets just by stating that they actually improved dynamic range by two stops, instead of pussyfooting around the issue.

 

[Maui5150]

I guess that's a good news for Landscape photographers !

Studio photographers as well. I shoot in a variety of situations, and 95% is ISO 3200 or better and of that the majority is ISO 1000 or better

I will wait until the bodies are out in the wild, but the too big ifs for me are IF the DR is better AND IF the Color accuracy is improved, then this has the makings of a real solid camera and a beast at 50MP.

This is especially true if I get the same noise performance as I do out of my 5D MK III.

This to me is lining up to be a solid Studio / Landscape camera

 

[Don Haines]

That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

I agree 100%. Lower noise at base ISO would be a great selling point. It would not take away from the unique features of Canon's other pro/prosumer cameras. It seems a bit odd that people are getting worked up over a vague statement like "lower noise floor," which means nothing on its face.

Agreed!

There are several compelling reasons why people would still get a 7D2 instead of a 5Ds...
Better sealing!
Tougher build!
Higher frame rate!
Better high ISO performance!
Lower cost!

If you want an action camera, it is an easy decision to make.

On the other hand, if you want a landscape camera, it is just as easy of a decision in the other direction.

There is a market for both and the consumer, with more choice, comes out the winner.

 

[SwnSng]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

That would be the nice way to read it. However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.

The difference here is that BMW was protecting a MORE EXPENSIVE car model. The 5Ds is more expensive than the 5D III, by quite a margin given actual street prices. It makes no logical sense for Canon not to upsell the better, improved 5Ds as much as possible, despite potentially slightly different markets. Canon should be trying to sell the $3700 part as much as humanly possible over a $2500-$2800 (street prices) part. For a lot of potential Canon customers, more REAL dynamic range (none of this "lower noise floor" without any word on FWC crap) is something GREATLY desired. Canon could bag a significant number of sales before the thing even hits the streets just by stating that they actually improved dynamic range by two stops, instead of pussyfooting around the issue.

Good point. My hope is that they have improved on the banding issues when lifting shadows over thr Mkiii. If they did that it would be enough for me to consider a pre-order. If not, then i'm going to most likely wait and see what the 5dmkiv is going to offer. I know it's wishful thinking but I hope Ken Rockwell's guess that the mkiv will be 36MP happens to come true.

 

[privatebydesign]

Too many conflicting statements by people at this point. Too bad we have to wait months before anyone can actually get their hands on one to do any testing, and probably months longer for the major testing outlets to perform their tests and provide some useful information. :\

There are no conflicting statements anywhere, at least not from official Canon sources.

Indeed the identical wording was used on two continents with one specifically saying "Canon are telling us". The other enlarged his "equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms" comment and specifically said "but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights". There is no contradiction in these comments.

What they mean by equivalent when used in a sentence with 'in traditional measuring terms' is the only bit open to interpretation, and I am not interested in the forums pontifications only the fact that Canon have said there is a difference. How much and how useful that difference might be to me will have to wait until I get a challenging RAW file to play with.

 

[deleteme]

I see the 5DS as being targeted to existing Canon system users. Not first time buyers of high resolution DSLR.

The 5DS will not outsell the Nikon D810 unless:

I believe you should put more thought into the above. Canon system users outnumber Nikon system users. The D810 is a very modest update to the D800, released only ~1 year later, so Nikon users who wanted a high resolution camera bought the D800 and are less likely to buy a D810. Frankly, I can't see how the 5Ds would not outsell the D810.

I agree and moreover I think we will see a number of Nikon users jump ship AGAIN chasing MP.

 

[MrToes]

That is very welcomed news! If it is true!?

 

[jrista]

Good point. My hope is that they have improved on the banding issues when lifting shadows over thr Mkiii. If they did that it would be enough for me to consider a pre-order. If not, then i'm going to most likely wait and see what the 5dmkiv is going to offer. I know it's wishful thinking but I hope Ken Rockwell's guess that the mkiv will be 36MP happens to come true.

Personally I'm in the market for a landscape camera. As such, I am not interested much in marginal reductions in banding or reductions in dark current. I can put more actual dynamic range (the ratio between maximum pixel signal and pixel read noise) to work in landscape photography. My 5D III does fine for birds and wildlife at high ISO, so I don't care about the high ISO performance of the 5Ds. I would use it pretty exclusively at ISO 100-200.

I am pretty sure I know what Canon is talking about with regards to lower noise floor. It sounds like Canon is still using their 500nm process, and measurements of Canon cameras over the years have shown that however they build their system, smaller pixels have lower read noise. The problem is that because they are still consuming so much die space with transistors and wiring thanks to their ancient 500nm process, they suffer significant losses in terms of photodiode area (i.e. photodiode pitch to actual full pixel pitch ratio is small). Photodiode area is what affects FWC...greater area, higher FWC...lower area, lower FWC.

Both read noise and FWC are directly linked to photodiode and pixel area...so they both grow or shrink together. THAT is why Canon can have lower read noise with the small 4.1 micron pixels of the 7D II, but not actually have higher dynamic range than the higher read noise of the 6.5 micron pixels of the 6D. Dynamic range is the ratio between FWC and read noise. If they both shrink and grow with each other, the ratio remains the same, DR remains the same. Increase FWC or reduce read noise, or both, and the ratio increases, and DR increases. You need the ratio, the range between read noise and signal saturation, to GROW in order to have increased DR. With more FWC at the same read noise, you can gather more light before the highlights clip...and not need to reduce exposure (not need to shift exposure down to make more room for the highlights). Similarly, with lower read noise and the same FWC, you can gather the same amount of light before the highlights clip, but the lower read noise means you don't lose as much in the shadows. Increase FWC and reduce read noise and you gain at both ends! Leave them the same, or reduce either or both, and you lose DR.

Other manufacturers have solved this problem a few ways, but one of the key improvements with other manufacturers is that they use 180nm, 130nm, 90nm or 65nm processes. Sony has used 180nm and 90nm processes, Samsung currently uses a 65nm process. That means Sony transistors take up 2.7x to 5.5x less space, and Samsungs transistors take up 7.7x less space, on the sensor die, than Canon transistors. It's basically taking a fat border of transitors from around each pixel, and replacing it with a thin, thinner, or very thin border. That leaves more area in the center of the pixel for photodiode (light sensitive photon-to-electron conversion surface area). Canon could very likely realize immediate gains if they would just drop their ancient 500nm process and move to 180nm process. That might gain them a stop right there. If they could figure out a way to flatten their read noise curve like most other manufacturers, that could gain them a stop or more.

So long as they do not do those things, however, I don't foresee Canon actually gaining on the read noise front. The day Canon releases a camera with either the same read noise and a meaninfully larger FWC, or meaningfully lower read noise and the same FWC, or higher FWC and lower read noise (doubtful in the foreseeable future) is the day we will finally see a real-world increase in dynamic range.

 

[V8Beast]

Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.

I always love a good car analogy ;D The Taco Bell analogy from a few days ago was a good one too, but I digress At any rate, car manufacturers have many different reasons for underrating their advertised horsepower figures, none of which would apply to a camera manufacturer.

1) The Society of Automotive Engineers is a third-party entity that certifies the horsepower output of each new car engine through its own independent lab testing. Since the marketing material for new car models are often produced well in advance of this certification, manufacturers will intentionally underrate their published horsepower figures. If the SAE's official hp rating turns out to be lower than a manufacturer's claims, you have yourself a PR disaster

2) Unlike with camera sensors, any new car buyer has the ability to dyno test their cars at a third-party facility with a very high degree of accuracy. If there's a gross disparity between real-world hp and a manufacturer's advertised hp, the manufacturer could very well get sued. This is exactly what happened to Ford when the 1999 Mustang Cobra didn't produce anywhere near its advertised horsepower.

3) Generally, the production update cycle for new car models is much longer than with a camera body. Manufacturers will sometimes underrate horsepower figures early in the production cycle, then advertise their true (higher) hp figures later during the production cycle. This gives consumers the impressive that the current model hasn't entirely stagnated. For instance, the engine in the 1997-2004 Corvette always produced 350 horsepower. However, GM rated the early models at 345 hp, and the later models at 350 hp.

Did anyone actually read all that ;D? If you did, I don't see how any of these strategies would apply to Canon sandbagging the true DR potential of the 5Ds, but then again we'll have to wait for raw files to draw any conclusions.

The 1DX is the only model where the "protection" theory would apply (since the 5D3 is cheaper), but it's targeted at such a different demographic that I don't see how boasting about the 5Ds' improved DR (if it is improved) would cut into 1DX sales. Whatever the 5D4's specs turn out to be, I don't see many people cross-shopping it with the 5Ds due to the latter model's limitations at high ISO and slower FPS.

 

[privatebydesign]

I see the 5DS as being targeted to existing Canon system users. Not first time buyers of high resolution DSLR.

The 5DS will not outsell the Nikon D810 unless:

I believe you should put more thought into the above. Canon system users outnumber Nikon system users. The D810 is a very modest update to the D800, released only ~1 year later, so Nikon users who wanted a high resolution camera bought the D800 and are less likely to buy a D810. Frankly, I can't see how the 5Ds would not outsell the D810.

I agree and moreover I think we will see a number of Nikon users jump ship AGAIN chasing MP.

That is a good point, in one swoop Canon have significantly bested the D810 in MP and the 14-24 in FOV.

 

[Stu_bert]

Good point. My hope is that they have improved on the banding issues when lifting shadows over thr Mkiii. If they did that it would be enough for me to consider a pre-order. If not, then i'm going to most likely wait and see what the 5dmkiv is going to offer. I know it's wishful thinking but I hope Ken Rockwell's guess that the mkiv will be 36MP happens to come true.

Personally I'm in the market for a landscape camera. As such, I am not interested much in marginal reductions in banding or reductions in dark current. I can put more actual dynamic range (the ratio between maximum pixel signal and pixel read noise) to work in landscape photography. My 5D III does fine for birds and wildlife at high ISO, so I don't care about the high ISO performance of the 5Ds. I would use it pretty exclusively at ISO 100-200.

I am pretty sure I know what Canon is talking about with regards to lower noise floor. It sounds like Canon is still using their 500nm process, and measurements of Canon cameras over the years have shown that however they build their system, smaller pixels have lower read noise. The problem is that because they are still consuming so much die space with transistors and wiring thanks to their ancient 500nm process, they suffer significant losses in terms of photodiode area (i.e. photodiode pitch to actual full pixel pitch ratio is small). Photodiode area is what affects FWC...greater area, higher FWC...lower area, lower FWC.

Both read noise and FWC are directly linked to photodiode and pixel area...so they both grow or shrink together. THAT is why Canon can have lower read noise with the small 4.1 micron pixels of the 7D II, but not actually have higher dynamic range than the higher read noise of the 6.5 micron pixels of the 6D. Dynamic range is the ratio between FWC and read noise. If they both shrink and grow with each other, the ratio remains the same, DR remains the same. Increase FWC or reduce read noise, or both, and the ratio increases, and DR increases. You need the ratio, the range between read noise and signal saturation, to GROW in order to have increased DR. With more FWC at the same read noise, you can gather more light before the highlights clip...and not need to reduce exposure (not need to shift exposure down to make more room for the highlights). Similarly, with lower read noise and the same FWC, you can gather the same amount of light before the highlights clip, but the lower read noise means you don't lose as much in the shadows. Increase FWC and reduce read noise and you gain at both ends! Leave them the same, or reduce either or both, and you lose DR.

Other manufacturers have solved this problem a few ways, but one of the key improvements with other manufacturers is that they use 180nm, 130nm, 90nm or 65nm processes. Sony has used 180nm and 90nm processes, Samsung currently uses a 65nm process. That means Sony transistors take up 2.7x to 5.5x less space, and Samsungs transistors take up 7.7x less space, on the sensor die, than Canon transistors. It's basically taking a fat border of transitors from around each pixel, and replacing it with a thin, thinner, or very thin border. That leaves more area in the center of the pixel for photodiode (light sensitive photon-to-electron conversion surface area). Canon could very likely realize immediate gains if they would just drop their ancient 500nm process and move to 180nm process. That might gain them a stop right there. If they could figure out a way to flatten their read noise curve like most other manufacturers, that could gain them a stop or more.

So long as they do not do those things, however, I don't foresee Canon actually gaining on the read noise front. The day Canon releases a camera with either the same read noise and a meaninfully larger FWC, or meaningfully lower read noise and the same FWC, or higher FWC and lower read noise (doubtful in the foreseeable future) is the day we will finally see a real-world increase in dynamic range.

And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...

Fortunately (?) there may not be any significant change in Sonikon sensors in 2015 either, but there will be a 50MP body from both of them....

 

[jrista]

And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...

Aye, a shrinking market would certainly put a damper on investments, however Canon already has a 180nm fab. From what we do know, it was used to manufactuer their P&S sensors in high volume. The P&S market has crashed already, and Canon couldn't possibly be at full capacity on that second fab. They are clearly still investing some money (a billion and change or so?) in R&D on the photography side of things. Most of that seems to be going to lens innovations, but some has gone to sensor innovations. Canon should be able to move some fabrication off their ancient 500nm fab and onto their 180nm fab without actually having to invest a billion or so into a new fab.


Sounds like a win-win to me, and to some others...the curiosity is that they simply haven't done it. I cannot fathom why...but from Canon's own mouth, they stated that they see a big reason for the shrinking DSLR market being lack of technological innovation. Again, seems like a win-win for them to utilize freed up capacity on their 180nm fab (which is a 300mm wafer fab that can apparently produce sensors on a copper wiring process, which is competitive with what Sony is doing) to improve their technology.

Fortunately (?) there may not be any significant change in Sonikon sensors in 2015 either, but there will be a 50MP body from both of them....

I'd call it unfortunate myself. The more pressure other companies can put on Canon from a technological-through-IQ standpoint, the better. It's not so bad for SoNikon though, as they are already ahead of the curve when it comes to eeking out as much IQ as possible from their current sensor technology. I think Sony is in a much better position to create a 50mp body that gives closer to medium format class IQ than Canon is.


I am very interested to see if Canon has increased FWC while lowering read noise, or whether the lower read noise is simply a consequence of smaller pixels, and paired with a similarly smaller FWC. It seems read noise varies more linearly (not exactly, but more closely) with pixel size, while FWC varies with area. If we divide the 6D read noise of 26.4 by the 7D read noise of 12.9, we get 2.05. As far as FWC goes, the ratio of pixel areas between the 6D and 7D II is 2.513 (sqr(6.5)/sqr(4.1)), the FWC of the 6D is 74256e- and the FWC of the 7D II is 29544. Divide the FWC of the 6D by the area ratio, and you get 29,544.22.

 

[K-amps]

But remember, better at Low ISO, worse at higher.... You can't get something for nothing......

Very true and if it does have 2 stop at 100, I might hit the pre-order button.... I already have a 5d3 for the high iso.
I am primarily a landscape guy.... usually shoot at base iso. This would be an excellent product IF that is the case.

 

[Don Haines]

And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...

Aye, a shrinking market would certainly put a damper on investments, however Canon already has a 180nm fab. From what we do know, it was used to manufactuer their P&S sensors in high volume. The P&S market has crashed already, and Canon couldn't possibly be at full capacity on that second fab. They are clearly still investing some money (a billion and change or so?) in R&D on the photography side of things. Most of that seems to be going to lens innovations, but some has gone to sensor innovations. Canon should be able to move some fabrication off their ancient 500nm fab and onto their 180nm fab without actually having to invest a billion or so into a new fab.


Sounds like a win-win to me, and to some others...the curiosity is that they simply haven't done it. I cannot fathom why...but from Canon's own mouth, they stated that they see a big reason for the shrinking DSLR market being lack of technological innovation. Again, seems like a win-win for them to utilize freed up capacity on their 180nm fab (which is a 300mm wafer fab that can apparently produce sensors on a copper wiring process, which is competitive with what Sony is doing) to improve their technology.

Fortunately (?) there may not be any significant change in Sonikon sensors in 2015 either, but there will be a 50MP body from both of them....

I'd call it unfortunate myself. The more pressure other companies can put on Canon from a technological-through-IQ standpoint, the better. It's not so bad for SoNikon though, as they are already ahead of the curve when it comes to eeking out as much IQ as possible from their current sensor technology. I think Sony is in a much better position to create a 50mp body that gives closer to medium format class IQ than Canon is.


I am very interested to see if Canon has increased FWC while lowering read noise, or whether the lower read noise is simply a consequence of smaller pixels, and paired with a similarly smaller FWC. It seems read noise varies more linearly (not exactly, but more closely) with pixel size, while FWC varies with area. If we divide the 6D read noise of 26.4 by the 7D read noise of 12.9, we get 2.05. As far as FWC goes, the ratio of pixel areas between the 6D and 7D II is 2.513 (sqr(6.5)/sqr(4.1)), the FWC of the 6D is 74256e- and the FWC of the 7D II is 29544. Divide the FWC of the 6D by the area ratio, and you get 29,544.22.

We still don't know if DPAF is 180nm or 500nm.... It costs a lot of money to keep 2 fabrication runs open when you only have enough demand for one... just from a financial point of view, they should be migrating their FF and APS-C sensors to the smaller and newer fabrication line. One would expect to see a flurry of new releases just before that happens.... like the 70D, 7D2, EOSM-3, and new rebels causing just about the entire APS-C line to be replaced (just the SL1 and T3's to go).... and then the same thing happening to the FF models.

Things look quite suspicious at the moment...

 

[raptor3x]

Who knows, maybe Canon implemented a DualISO-like method for overcoming the read noise issue and that's why you lose DPAF even though it's essentially a scaled up 7D2 sensor. That would also go a long way to explaining the seemingly conflicting comments about how the "traditionally measured" DR is similar to the 5D3 while other sources say the noise floor has been reduced.

 

[Loswr]

I don't know that I believe that either. Why would you undersell the newer, better, more advanced, and more expensive device by claiming it is "equivalent" to an older and soon to be replaced model? The 5D IV is just around the corner, at worst Canon MIGHT lose some sales of the 5D III.

If the 5Ds is 'tuned' for low ISO at the expense of high ISO, it's likely the 5Ds would have better low ISO DR than the 5DIV and 1D X II. That would be a logical reason to downplay that aspect of the 5Ds.

However, it's almost unprecedented for marketing to hide a major new feature, which might be a key selling point, just to make old stuff seem better so....

Really? This tactic is used by BMW. The last 2 models (e90, f30) of the 335 when they went to Turbo understated the Max HP by 30+. Listed at 300 but Dyno at 330+ on average. Why? Because the existing M3 which was 10-15k more expensive had a listed and Dynoed HP of 333. They did exactly the same with the current model.

Well, it's another car analogy but a good example. What some people fail to understand is that like most major corporations, the usual goal is to maximize profit from the entire lineup as a whole, not necessarily from individual models.

 

[Ivan Muller]

Whatever the DR and however it compares I am going to get one....my 6D will take care of the high iso and wifi and gps....the mere fact that a camera like this is now available at these prices makes it, imo a must have!

Only question is 5Ds or 5Dsr....