Global Shutter Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]

[3kramd5]

I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.

Yah, it's limited. Shooting for foreground detail (e.g. faces) with the solar disk in frame at narrow DOF is one such usage. But if the capability is there as an artifact of development (specifically the rumored frame rate goal), I won't complain. Chances are I'd use higher than 1/200 fairly often, but 1/1000&faster sparingly.

 

[Skirball]

I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.

Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.

A lot is happening between 1/160 (real world max sync of 6D) and 1/500; long lenses can be problematic at that slow a speed, normal movement and certainly sports can blur, etc. Having that flexibility would have a big impact on my photography, and I'm sure many others.

Obviously you're going to run into limitations, well before 1/1000. I find (unscientifically), my flashes at full power seem to be somewhere around 1/200 - 1/300 range. So there's limits of what you could do. Many flashes might be down to 1/4 power by 1/1000... but it's still better than HSS.

 

[Lee Jay]

Obviously you're going to run into limitations, well before 1/1000. I find (unscientifically), my flashes at full power seem to be somewhere around 1/200 - 1/300 range. So there's limits of what you could do. Many flashes might be down to 1/4 power by 1/1000... but it's still better than HSS.

I did a moderately careful test of a 580EX. It's flash power tails off, obviously, but most of the light is emitted in about 1/800th-1/1000th at 1:1. That's why I think faster than 1/1000th has very limited usefulness, at least with that flash.

And I'm not knocking the difference between 1/250th or so and 1/1000th! That's still two stops of ambient light quenching and motion freezing. I'm just questioning the usefulness of going to 1/4000th or 1/8000th. You're going to start quenching the flash power too, just in a different way than HSS does it.

 

[rfdesigner]

I just had this idea on the high frame rate shutter.

What if you combine an EVF (Electronic View Finder) with an optical one.

When you press the shutter and the mirror pops up the EVF takes over from the optical, the shutter releases continuously without the mirror comming down between shots, and the EVF updates with each image as it comes off the sensor.

This would save the time it takes to raise and lower the mirror between each shot.

Could Canon be bringing something like this?

 

[JohnDizzo15]

This is a step in the right direction for Canon and I'm hoping a firmware update 'might' bring this to the table.

Fujifilm just released their new line of mirrorless cameras that have ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL shutters. You can either use one or the other depending on shutter speed needed. Their shutter speed limit is 1/32,000 of a second. Fuji also just provided firmware updates for two of their previous models to incorporate this new electronic shutter feature. Now, how great is that?

My point is, it can be done and is being done now with some manufacturers. The electronic shutter is totally silent.

I have the xt1 and regularly use the electronic shutter. I don't quite understand the science behind the differences between an electronic shutter and a global shutter. But I do know that they are not the same.

Also, re flash sync, you cannot use flash with the electronic shutter on the xt1. Rolling shutter is also an issue. Also, simply shooting stills indoors with some fluorescents, will yield visible lighting patterns in the shot.

The Fuji electronic shutter for all intents and purposes is basically just a good tool for shooting in the bright sun with fast lenses. Kind of a moot point indoors.

 

[Diko]

A global shutter - a long awaited AWESOMEness!

SONY had it for some time already ;-)

Lovely if true!

 

[Lee Jay]

I have the xt1 and regularly use the electronic shutter. I don't quite understand the science behind the differences between an electronic shutter and a global shutter. But I do know that they are not the same.

One is for both curtains (start and end of the exposure), electronic is for just one.

 

[DudeInTheSky]

CFast 2.0 is mentioned in the article. Thought I'd chip in with some facts:

CFast 2.0 will max out at approx 520Mbytes/s write (real throughput), with no future upgrade path. So once you need anything faster it's a whole new memory card standard and form factor with no backward compatibility with CFast.

CFast is based on Serial ATA which is not being developed past the current 6Gbit/s. Read for yourself at http://serialata.org http://www.compactflash.org

Once you add up all the bits and the bytes and the 50+ Megapixels at 30fps or more it seems like choosing CFast 2.0 could be a short lived decision for Canon. There are other memory card standards with roadmaps to much higher speeds. F.ex. XQD should scale to 4000Mbytes/s or more (currently at 1000Mbytes/s).

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I have the xt1 and regularly use the electronic shutter. I don't quite understand the science behind the differences between an electronic shutter and a global shutter. But I do know that they are not the same.

One is for both curtains (start and end of the exposure), electronic is for just one.

Ah. Makes perfect sense and explains a few things regarding my indoor use of the electronic shutter. Thanks for the info.

 

[Luds34]

I'd like to hear why people want a very fast sync speed. I know quite a lot about this topic and can see direct applications for sync speeds up to about 1/1000th, but at that point applications get a lot more limited.

Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.

A lot is happening between 1/160 (real world max sync of 6D) and 1/500; long lenses can be problematic at that slow a speed, normal movement and certainly sports can blur, etc. Having that flexibility would have a big impact on my photography, and I'm sure many others.

Obviously you're going to run into limitations, well before 1/1000. I find (unscientifically), my flashes at full power seem to be somewhere around 1/200 - 1/300 range. So there's limits of what you could do. Many flashes might be down to 1/4 power by 1/1000... but it's still better than HSS.

+1

There is a lot in between today's typical max flash sync speed and 1/1000th. You summed it up nicely.

In fact the 1/160 of the 6D bother's me more then the crappy focus system or limited frame rate. Fine, is is not a sports camera, I get it, but crippling it's usage with flash does hurt a bit for what many could use this camera for.

 

[Lee Jay]

CFast is based on Serial ATA which is not being developed past the current 6Gbit/s. Read for yourself at http://serialata.org http://www.compactflash.org

16Gbps SATA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_revision_3.2_.2816_Gbit.2Fs.2C_1969_MB.2Fs.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA_Express

 

[DudeInTheSky]

CFast is based on Serial ATA which is not being developed past the current 6Gbit/s. Read for yourself at http://serialata.org http://www.compactflash.org

16Gbps SATA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_revision_3.2_.2816_Gbit.2Fs.2C_1969_MB.2Fs.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA_Express

It's not 16Gbps SATA, it's 16Gbps SATA Express. Which is different. SATA Express is essentially SATA software stack on top of electrical PCI-Express. (So different connector, etc, etc) Would of course be great with a 16Gbit/s SATA Express host that can also take CFast 2.0 cards, but so far there is no evidence that is happening. I have no idea if that's even possible as there are limited number of connector pins one can fit inside a camera. (They make dual host connectors for PCs that can take both types.)

Should also mention that SATA Express is largely viewed as a transitional standard. So far it has rather few takers, and a lot of companies are looking to bypass SATA Express all together and jump to the next thing. So it doesn't appear at this point that SATA Express will gain the widespread adoption and support that SATA has.

So, IMHO CFast 2.0 appears to be the last iteration of that memory card standard. With whatever that means for widespread adoption, residual value and support. If that is not the case, and CFast 3.0 that is backwards compatible with CFast 2.0 cards is in the works, the players who support that should publish a future roadmap ASAP!

There is of course something to be said about what works here and now! Even if it isn't upgradeable in the same way we have become accustomed to with CF cards.

 

[Lee Jay]

CFast is based on Serial ATA which is not being developed past the current 6Gbit/s. Read for yourself at http://serialata.org http://www.compactflash.org

16Gbps SATA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_revision_3.2_.2816_Gbit.2Fs.2C_1969_MB.2Fs.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA_Express

It's not 16Gbps SATA, it's 16Gbps SATA Express. Which is different. SATA Express is essentially SATA software stack on top of electrical PCI-Express. (So different connector, etc, etc) Would of course be great with a 16Gbit/s SATA Express host that can also take CFast 2.0 cards, but so far there is no evidence that is happening. I have no idea if that's even possible as there are limited number of connector pins one can fit inside a camera. (They make dual host connectors for PCs that can take both types.)

Should also mention that SATA Express is largely viewed as a transitional standard. So far it has rather few takers, and a lot of companies are looking to bypass SATA Express all together and jump to the next thing. So it doesn't appear at this point that SATA Express will gain the widespread adoption and support that SATA has.

So, IMHO CFast 2.0 appears to be the last iteration of that memory card standard. With whatever that means for widespread adoption, residual value and support. If that is not the case, and CFast 3.0 that is backwards compatible with CFast 2.0 cards is in the works, the players who support that should publish a future roadmap ASAP!

There is of course something to be said about what works here and now! Even if it isn't upgradeable in the same way we have become accustomed to with CF cards.

Yes, SATA Express is the follow-on to SATA, and XQD is the follow-on to CFAST.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XQD_card

Successors aren't always backward compatible.

 

[Jester237]

Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.

Its not fantastic, not even incredible Canon has 1D (4Mp, mk I) camera with CCD sensor and electronic shutter. And 1/500 sync speed. I test it on 1/1000 with studio flash and it work.
Still, cant find sure info about sensor maker.

 

[jeffa4444]

Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.

Its not fantastic, not even incredible Canon has 1D (4Mp, mk I) camera with CCD sensor and electronic shutter. And 1/500 sync speed. I test it on 1/1000 with studio flash and it work.
Still, cant find sure info about sensor maker.

The sensor was made by Kodak this business unit was sold and was renamed Truesense.

 

[Skirball]

Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.

Its not fantastic, not even incredible Canon has 1D (4Mp, mk I) camera with CCD sensor and electronic shutter. And 1/500 sync speed. I test it on 1/1000 with studio flash and it work.
Still, cant find sure info about sensor maker.

No, I'd still say it's fantastic - the 1/500 sync that is. But all the drawbacks make the camera not an option for me. I don't consider myself a tech junky, especially with photography, but that camera would be several steps back from the current options - for my work. I suppose if you mostly shoot for the web, at low ISO, it would be fine.

 

[Jester237]

The sensor was made by Kodak this business unit was sold and was renamed Truesense.

Are you sure? I think about Kodak, too. But even Canon official not confirmed this. There was rumors about Philips sensor.

 

[Jester237]

No, I'd still say it's fantastic - the 1/500 sync that is. But all the drawbacks make the camera not an option for me. I don't consider myself a tech junky, especially with photography, but that camera would be several steps back from the current options - for my work. I suppose if you mostly shoot for the web, at low ISO, it would be fine.

This camera hold its place in my personal camera museum Its too old for real use now and i don't recommend to buy it. Only say, that Canon can do camera with such x-sync and electronic shutter. And already do

 

[Tinky]

and of course tbe humble nikon d40....

 

[Andrewccm]

Up to 1/1000 would be incredible. Hell, a 1/500 for full frame would be pretty damn fantastic. I think people are just commenting on the idea of no sync speed, but they're getting excited about faster sync speed... any improvement is a good one. It's something you don't see with all these new cameras, for some reason.

Its not fantastic, not even incredible Canon has 1D (4Mp, mk I) camera with CCD sensor and electronic shutter. And 1/500 sync speed. I test it on 1/1000 with studio flash and it work.
Still, cant find sure info about sensor maker.

If I am not mistaken, the Nikon D70 had a 1/500 sync speed too..