EOS-1D X Mark III
- Jan 29, 2011
I am annoyed by the negative comments in some forums that Canon is worse than Sony because it doesn't have a stacked sensor. I am fine to ignore the technology and look at the result eg overall read speed/rolling shutter. I don't care how you do it at the end of the day but a global shutter would be cool tech.Could be a case of the reality is hidden somewhere inside a bunch of specs that are true but need context to provide the full picture. As has been said. A quad pixel sensor of 21/84mp(depending on how those pixels are read) certainly sounds plausible for those of us with limited knowledge of how these things work. If Canon are the first to bring a global shutter to the market however then........whooaahhh!!!!! That will surprise the world.
This is an interesting question especially in the 1D form factor. I would have to say that it should have a flippy screen for video and difficult angle shooting (astro), closed in to protect it and facing out would be the same as the current 1D.The most important question: will it have a flippy screen?
The Red Komodo manages around 12 stops. Not bad for a global shutter, but nowhere near their silly 16 plus stops marketing hype claims.Red Komodo has 6K global shutter already with good dynamic range so definitely seems doable - if they can do it Canon should be able also.
The only way to do a flip screen on a 1-series body would be to have a tilt flip like Panasonic have on the S1H.This is an interesting question especially in the 1D form factor. I would have to say that it should have a flippy screen for video and difficult angle shooting (astro), closed in to protect it and facing out would be the same as the current 1D.
What would be really interesting is it they increased the size of the panel substantially. This would play into the new menu rumour allowing cascading menus but still large enough font to read from a distance.
Sometimes "need" ain't got nothing to do with it. Professionals are a small part of the market. Nobody needs a Bugatti either.Hey people I work as a DIT and I just got off a Chanel jewelry shoot and the director/photographer from Paris was shooting here in LA on an iphone 12 meaning he was working on 3 shoots at the same time and the assistants had an iphone setup with a laptop with his face on it. In Tokyo, Paris, and LA this camera will not be needed in a couple of years at least for advertising, they won't need me either as the shots were shot raw and sent to NY or Paris.
I could see their marketing department declaring their 21MP QP sensor is really a 84 MP sensor as long as they have software to interpolate the quad-Bayer array (as shown in this post) into what they can claim to be 16 full color pixels.I agree. Also, if they really do have quad pixel AF, they don't need to go high resolution, as they can (and should) interpolate using the sub-pixels, so the camera can either be a ~24MP Bayer array (by combining the quad AF sensels similar to how they currently combine the dual pixel sensels), OR they can leave them uncombined and effectively have a CFA array that looks like:
The ~6000x4000 pixel bayer array would then effectively be ~12000x8000 pixels, R, G, and B quad sitting under one color filter color and micro-lens. It would effectively have ~96MP, or ~24MP depending on if you combined the quad pixels in camera or not. That would be pretty awesome.
I understand that, but just like a lot of things once people get used to it why would anyone buy an expensive camera if you could get it on the phone you carry... just like point and shoot that was consumer only and now it's gone... this was a video shoot too and in a few years the Alexa we had might be replaced as well... first time I've seen a shoot like this but it won't be the last.Sometimes "need" ain't got nothing to do with it. Professionals are a small part of the market. Nobody needs a Bugatti either.