End of the APS-H sized CMOS?

[hlphoto]

@ neuroanatomist: Now go out and shoot the 1Ds Mk2 at ISO 1600 next to a 1D Mk4 and tell me how much is left out of your IQ. Also check out the DR on the Nikon D90/D7000 sensors as measured by DxO and compare that to 5D Mk2/1D Mk4/D3s/D700.

IQ is only partly measurable will be your only conclusion.

 

[Loswr]

@ neuroanatomist: Now go out and shoot the 1Ds Mk2 at ISO 1600 next to a 1D Mk4 and tell me how much is left out of your IQ....IQ is only partly measurable will be your only conclusion.

Looking at the equivalent images from the DPR reviews, the 1DIV seems less noisy at ISO 1600 than the 1DsII.

The DR issue (or less-DR-than-there-should-be, in the case of Canon's sensors) is pretty well known.

 

[Terry_157]

Rethink: APS-H for Semi Pro Applications - Serious Amateurs

I've done my best to follow the APS-H discussions on the forums. Today, I shoot with a Canon 7D (APS-C) and have three lenses, 24x70mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8 and 100MM f/2 and plan to purchase over time, a number of L series lenses.

So far, although the 7D is not the perfect camera, I am well satisfied with my investment and have had some outstanding results and a few mishaps but most of those are user error. I do see some noise on occasion but this is an $1,900 camera vs. $8,000 FF so I have learned to live with it. I see some minor issues with color from time to time and would like to see Canon improve color quality etc.

For the limited amount of video work I do, this is fine as I am not intending to use this as a video professional. I do however, as I grow in skills and lens assets, to eventually have a part time studio and be paid for my work. So, I study a great deal.

Sure, I would love to have a 32+ mega pixel FF but again, $8K is a huge investment. $5K for me for a body is about my limit right now unless I win the lottery. So, APS-H is a viable format for my needs.

The limit I see vs. FF is wide angle and perhaps more noise vs. FF. Sure, you can argue the image quality for a FF is better but if you are shooting with an L-Series lens vs. standard, you get darn good results. If image is that critical, I would go to Medium Format as an option for landscape (or 4x5) and use a Medium Format for Studio work for portraits etc. The Leica S2 is a fine camera for those applications as example as are others. But, now you are getting into serious money. That is more than I paid for my Chevrolet Impala.

I do not wish to see Canon kill the APS-H. I would like to see higher quality images with less noise (improved low light sensor), better color quality in that format vs. another mega pixel war with Nikon. I also would like to see an APS-H with NO VIDEO as I have that covered and really, don't need it at this point. It is just overkill and more camera weight and distractions for still work I wish to do. I also have a Nikon p7000 for point and shoot and like Nikon as a company. I like that they focus more on the quality of image and color quality vs. meta pixels which I think is smart. But, trying to figure out their FX lens line is a challenge for D700, D3s and D3x.

So, here is my wish list for a camera:

1) 24 mega pixels - APS-H format with emphasis on larger pixels in an improved sensor with less noise - improvements in color quality. (image benchmark as close as possible to Nixon D3X today - yes I know it is FF)
2) 5 fps or better.
3) No video please!
4) 51 AF points or so -- as good of an AF system as possible.
5) CF Type II slot (two) 128GB or better each.
6) Two DIGIC 5s
7) Thunderbolt technology developed by Intel (under the code name Light Peak)
8) Far Better Canon post processing software vs. what they have to day with perhaps a cross licensing agreement with other software vendors. Perhaps create a "Lite" Version of other post processing tools and allow upgrades if user is willing to pay for such. When you pay $5K for a camera, we deserve better software. As I am a founder of a software publisher firm, I am not pleased with Canon software nor its user interfaces. I think it needs significant remake including making updates easier and simple. I think it is very poorly designed and a pain to use vs. other tools out there.
9) Include a viewfinder viewer (to block direct sunlight) as an attachment for outdoor use as part of camera. Seeing the viewfinder in daylight conditions at times has its challenges. And, eye pieces as part of base package for those of us that wear glasses. I just think some things should be FREE and included in camera when you are paying $5K+.
10) Dual Battery built in body of camera with a dual battery charger included. This way, if you wish to add WIRELESS, you can use it with two batteries built into body vs. one as that is a separate attachment as is the dual battery set up now. These puppies eat power like mad and need it. Oh and include the two batteries FREE! ($5K package)
11) Decent camera strap please instead of going after market. Geez, what Canon provides is a throw away. When you wear the darn thing all day or night and you want that investment on your body to be secure, then provide a better strap. I just think the strap they provide in the box is cheap and this is not a pocket camera.
12) I've read about 7D Mark II and sounds great as a naming convention but I think it should be in a APS-H format vs. APS-C for Pro, Semi Pro and prosumer use as a market.

Let the lesser cameras target the consumers and certainly Canon has more than enough camera bodies to cover that market now - I think there are holes to fill in semi pro and pro versions NOW. If they come out with an 18-270mm f/3.5 lens (L series please?), I would buy it and put on my current 7D and use the many L Series lenses I plan to buy for the new APS-H camera and shoot with both. The 85 and 100MM lens I have now could then go on the old 7D as I will go with the higher end L Series primes etc.

If I am going to pay $8,000 plus and "If" Canon wishes to keep my business vs. moving to Nixon D4 when it is released, they need to fill these gaps by end of August. I am going to look seriously at Nixon D4 when it is released if Canon does not address the market but I suspect and believe they will. If I do elect to pay for an $8K camera, I will look at all options and not simply stay with one brand. Canon marketing needs to get that. If they come out with an APS-H for $5K like I described, I would buy that puppy ASAP.

If I win the lottery, I may buy a Leica S2 as a new toy. (smile)

T

 

[Bob Howland]

- higher ISO than 12800 is a possibility.. but tell me, does anybody EVER use more then ISO 12800? I did once and it took ages to edit those pictures. The only reason to do so was for a stop more DOF, and if I was there again I wouldn't even try. Cut the crap Canon, forget the high ISO race;

Yes, people do use higher ISOs. Last Christmas, I wanted to photograph Yuletide re-enactors in a room lit by three candles. ISO 51,200 would have permitted me to use 1/60 @ f/2.8. I have also photographed (or rather tried to photograph) jazz musicians in similarly-lit clubs, although I would have used 1/125 @ f/2

 

[Loswr]

Re: Rethink: APS-H for Semi Pro Applications - Serious Amateurs

So, here is my wish list for a camera

I like your wish list, except I'd want at least 8 fps, and preferably 10 fps.

If I do elect to pay for an $8K camera, I will look at all options and not simply stay with one brand. Canon marketing needs to get that.

The conventional wisdom is glass before body. I suspect that most people considering investing in a new 1-series camera already have several thousand $ invested in lenses, so switching brands is not quite as simple as getting a Honda Accord to replace your Chevy Impala. I bet Canon marketing gets that quite well.

 

[AJ]

What if:

Canon were to start making FF sensors with two pixel densities: one very dense (perhaps 32 or 36 mpix) for those 3-4 fps 5D and 1Ds series cameras, and a lower density (maybe 24 or 18) mpix sensor for a 1D series camera.

The lower pixel density FF sensor would give unprecedented high-iso performance and allow huge fps. It'd be great for sports, journalism, things like that. It'd be great for video too!

Question then is of cost. Right now APS-H sensors are only put into 1D cameras. Would it be cheaper for Canon to produce two formats only? Would a low-density FF sensor cost significantly more than a APS-H sensor with similar pixel count?

Cost of a sensor is relative to the size, pixel count is not important. Canon has a good white paper explaining this.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38542576/Canon-Cmos-Wp

Production costs for a full-frame sensor can exceed twenty times the costs for an APS-C sensor. Only 20 full-frame sensors will fit on an 8-inch (200 mm) silicon wafer, and yield is comparatively low because the sensor's large area makes it very vulnerable to contaminants—20 evenly distributed defects could theoretically ruin an entire wafer. Additionally, the full-frame sensor requires three separate exposures during the photolithography stage, tripling the number of masks and exposure processes.[

True. But there has to be some savings in mass production?


Right now they can make a 5D2 for less than a 1D4. Yes I know there's a huge difference in build. But it goes to show that sensors aren't the only thing determining camera cost.


Another thought: Maybe Canon can't beat Nikon in the high-iso department unless they increase the size of the sensor?

 

[Terry_157]

Neuroanatomist,

My statement was 5 fps or better so if they could go 10 fps, all the better. Works for me.

I get the glass investment -- may not seem much but I have about $3K right now in glass due to costs of insurance etc. That is more than the $1,900 body. But, I plan to keep 7D regardless if I change brands.

But, if I was going to invest $8K for a body and go to D4, one does that before he continues to invest too much in glass so I think we are on the same page. What I have now, I am happy with.

I still think Canon is likely to bring to market new bodies by August/Sept that I will like. I also have another application that is work related that I can use the 7D for given its remarkable 200/300/400/500/600/800mm glass capabilities. For that purpose 1.6 crop factor has value.

So, I am not unhappy with Canon. I just want to see APS-H stay in tact and improve in that direction. Hopefully, meeting the specs I laid out. All in all, I may break down and get an EOS 1D Mark IV for now so we'll see what August brings.

I also just read that in test, the 7D did better than Nikon D300 with noise overall.

T

 

[hlphoto]

@ Terry: What's wrong with video in a body when it decreases the price of that same body just by being there?

@ ISO 51200 dude: But for noise only I would have opted for a 35 1.4 and shot wide open at 12800 ISO. Wonder where this high ISO hunger came from in the first place - people used to max out at 3200 B&W earlier and nobody really complained.

About 1Ds Mk2 / 1D Mk4 comparison: Is it all about noise? IQ is not equal to signal-to-noise ratio! Try reducing the noise in any application. A good example is 50D / 30D. The 50D goes higher in ISO, makes about equal noise in print, but when you need to fix it in post the 30D is the easier camera to use.
I would think twice about having a 50D push 3200 ISO, but use the 30D at 3200 without a doubt. With the 7D sensor, that has gotten a lot better again. Although there isn't much less noise at high ISOs than with the 50D (and even more at and below 1600), there's more per-pixel detail and noise reduction has gone back to quite effective again.

Reducing noise reduces detail too. If the noise is hard to kill and the detail isn't, there is no point in having a camera with a little bit less noise.

 

[Bob Howland]

@ ISO 51200 dude: But for noise only I would have opted for a 35 1.4 and shot wide open at 12800 ISO. Wonder where this high ISO hunger came from in the first place - people used to max out at 3200 B&W earlier and nobody really complained.

Actually, I used a 24 f/1.4. Going to f/2.8 would have allowed me to use a 24-70 or a 70-200 IS. I was surrounded by people at the time and shooting time was extremely limited.

Nobody really complained? I know lots of people who complained...or they didn't even try to get the shot. The D3s does what I want. Why shouldn't Canon make a camera that does just as well or even better? (And, no, I'm not switching to Nikon, not with $20,000 in lenses.)

 

[hlphoto]

Nobody really complained? I know lots of people who complained...or they didn't even try to get the shot. The D3s does what I want. Why shouldn't Canon make a camera that does just as well or even better? (And, no, I'm not switching to Nikon, not with $20,000 in lenses.)

Then the question becomes what do you think is important? I would rate DR and IQ over high ISO performance or megapixels.

And yes, high ISO performance is different than IQ. I prefer the 5D Mk2 over the 1D Mk4 for image quality (in print!) all the way up to ISO 6400, ISO 12800 in some situations. Above that, I would prefer using a D3s, but then again I wouldn't even shoot Canon if it wasn't for the videomode.

 

[Loswr]

About 1Ds Mk2 / 1D Mk4 comparison: Is it all about noise? IQ is not equal to signal-to-noise ratio!

No, it's certainly not. While I know you can't really boil a sensor down to a single metric, the DxOMark overall scores are equal for the two. In fact, the 1DsII actually fares a little better than the 1DIV for ISO noise performance based on DxOMark. But my point was that the overall IQ of those two cameras is pretty similar, which is an impressive feat of technology considering that the 1DIV has smaller pixels in a smaller sensor.

 

[NXT1000]

good riddance, it is not here nor there. Just some where in between, like the 150m track race, a mickey mouse sensor size. What is the point today, if you can get good yield on full frame. If they can make a 1.6x sensor which have as good IQ as 1.3x, same noise performance, and pro body, no pro will use 1.3x. 1.3 is so has been.

 

[hlphoto]

About 1Ds Mk2 / 1D Mk4 comparison: Is it all about noise? IQ is not equal to signal-to-noise ratio!

No, it's certainly not. While I know you can't really boil a sensor down to a single metric, the DxOMark overall scores are equal for the two. In fact, the 1DsII actually fares a little better than the 1DIV for ISO noise performance based on DxOMark. But my point was that the overall IQ of those two cameras is pretty similar, which is an impressive feat of technology considering that the 1DIV has smaller pixels in a smaller sensor.

Well.. I'm not all that impressed. More impressed by what Sony has done to their sensors and/or Nikon to their software: Compare the D80 and the D7000 for noise/IQ at ISO 3200 & get scared.

 

[Eagle Eye]

Good riddance. The 1.3x has little use once a full-frame high fps camera is released. Anyone who can't afford the lenses will go to the 7D with a grip, a solid camera for sports. The 1D has always been confused as to whether it was a studio camera or a sports camera, though granted it does both VERY well. It's time to move on. I would also surmise that the next 1Ds or equivalent will have a crop mode.

 

[Loswr]

The 1D has always been confused as to whether it was a studio camera or a sports camera

It seems pretty clear that Canon has targeted the 1D series towards pros shooting action/sports/nature/photojournalism, and the 1Ds series toward studio and landscape pros. From the 1DIV white paper: "For whom is the EOS-1D Mark IV designed? To begin with, it is for the EOS-1 Series’ traditional constituency: professional photographers in virtually every category from photo- journalism and sports through nature..." From the 1DsIII white paper: "The EOS-1Ds Mark III is intended, most obviously, for professional studio photographers and landscape photographers..." Yes, they go on to enumerate other uses for those bodies after I inserted the ellipses, but that's to avoid alienating a potential customer by excluding their chosen line of work.

As Darth Vader said, "There is no conflict."

As a tool, a camera may be designed for one use but can serve other purposes. A 5DII can be used to shoot sports, it's just not the best tool for the job, much in the way that you can use the handle of a screwdriver to pound in a nail. The APS-H sensor seems to fit a need in the practical sense, but also in the economic sense (i.e. sensor production cost is a limiting factor).

 

[rossbeckernz]

I've just bought my 2nd 1D4 to replace a damaged 1D3. I carry both on a Black Rapid double strap.
An ultra-wide zoom on one side, EF-S 10-22mm, modified to fit the 1D4 which restricts it to 12-22 giving an EFL of 15 -27mm on the 1.3 crop.
A tele-zoom on the other side, EF 80-200mm f2.8L (magic drainpipe) on the other.
In my front bag carry a EF 20-35mm f2.8L when I really need something in the middle but usually I crop the ultra-wide image which saves changing lenses with dust everywhere.

Why two 1D4s? When I'm in a dust laden dangerous disaster zone (which seems to be the norm these days), then I have found anything other than a 1 series doesn't cut it. I don't need the high frame rate or 21MP. I do need the mechanical features that the 1 series gives.
You can see what I mean here http://goo.gl/zqwgK

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've just bought my 2nd 1D4 to replace a damaged 1D3. I carry both on a Black Rapid double strap.
An ultra-wide zoom on one side, EF-S 10-22mm, modified to fit the 1D4 which restricts it to 12-22 giving an EFL of 15 -27mm on the 1.3 crop.
A tele-zoom on the other side, EF 80-200mm f2.8L (magic drainpipe) on the other.
In my front bag carry a EF 20-35mm f2.8L when I really need something in the middle but usually I crop the ultra-wide image which saves changing lenses with dust everywhere.

Why two 1D4s? When I'm in a dust laden dangerous disaster zone (which seems to be the norm these days), then I have found anything other than a 1 series doesn't cut it. I don't need the high frame rate or 21MP. I do need the mechanical features that the 1 series gives.
You can see what I mean here http://goo.gl/zqwgK

Thanks, Ross. I'm looking forward to more posts from you. Great practical information from someone with actual experience.