Initial testing shows Canon’s new 32.5mp APS-C sensor improves dynamic range over predecessor

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,971
4,726
Some of the photographers here really don't respect the video guys. 24p has a certain look that makes videos look theatrical to viewers because of all the years of films catering to 24p. Not a hard concept to understand.
Agreed, how much respect is coming the other way on photo orientated stills cameras?

What is hard about, if you need 24p then Canon have decided they don't need you to buy one of their latest stills orientated cameras? If you choose to buy a Canon cameras that does have 24p video then great, if you choose to buy another manufacturers camera then also great. Saying it doesn't have it and moaning at people agreeing it doesn't have it but that they, personally, don't care doesnt actually get the people that need 24p far.

Truthfully your argument is with Canon and posting here is not the most effective way of letting them know that.
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
57
52
Nice to see an improvement in sensor performance. While at high isos the improvement is nice, at the base iso it seems next to negligible. I think this is fine for sports/wildlife use. Somewhat less impressive for all-round shooting and definitely not attractive enough for landscapes/architectures. Looks like a nice camera all in all though, considering the video features, battery life and price.
I'm curious to see what serious comes out next...
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,866
Irving, Texas
Some of the photographers here really don't respect the video guys. 24p has a certain look that makes videos look theatrical to viewers because of all the years of films catering to 24p. Not a hard concept to understand.
Very hard for me to understand. I don't care a bit about what a movie is shot in. Most people have no idea. All I want is a good movie. 24p doesn't make it better. Most of the hand wringing is B.S.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,682
1,241
Very hard for me to understand. I don't care a bit about what a movie is shot in. Most people have no idea. All I want is a good movie. 24p doesn't make it better. Most of the hand wringing is B.S.

Without getting into a battle as to why 24p was chosen (with both sides repeating their assertions ad nauseam yet never citing historical documents to back them up), 24p @ 1/48 results in more motion blur than higher frame rates and shutter speeds. Under certain conditions audiences do notice, and "soap opera effect" was never intended as a compliment.

Personally I like viewing 60p for some scenes. For some it's difficult to tell 30p from 24p. And for others 24p looks the best and higher frame rates look weird. Cinematographers seem to default to 24p because it is the least likely to look "weird." And I'm not convinced that's due to conditioning, to us always viewing movies at 24p. I think certain shutter / lighting / frame rate combinations result in a higher frame rate 'jumping' despite being higher.
 

slclick

Unsolicited & Always Free
Dec 17, 2013
4,440
2,625
Very hard for me to understand. I don't care a bit about what a movie is shot in. Most people have no idea. All I want is a good movie. 24p doesn't make it better. Most of the hand wringing is B.S.
Obviously you haven't been surrounded by hundreds of budding filmmakers at your local community college lately, lol. A few years back while taking some advanced photo classes (yes, both analog and digital) there were always a gaggle of video guys and it was always guys, no women unfortunately, who would have major attitudes about video attributes, attempting to wedge them into any and all stills based conversation or lecture whenever possible. Seriously, more stills information transfers to video not the other way around. So.... take that to heart while talking about gear/bodies. The term 'Primarily' is a serious attribute for Canon bodies which are not Cinema line and therefore video specs become, yes, you guessed it...'Secondary'. Thank you.
 

Yakodzun

I'm New Here
Aug 28, 2018
17
5
actually the DR is more than enough for most cameras in past 10-15 years to take even nightscape use, what borders is the banding when pushing shadow area, where it can be very disturbing for astrophotography use, and it seems in this gen canon sensor it's mostly solved.
And what about overexposed sky? Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, Phase One have. Even Panasonic has much more better DR than my 5DS R and EOS R. To be happy of what we have now with Canon? )))))
 

Cochese

EOS 90D
Oct 22, 2014
148
93
Some of the photographers here really don't respect the video guys. 24p has a certain look that makes videos look theatrical to viewers because of all the years of films catering to 24p. Not a hard concept to understand.

Please realize you're posting this on a stills oriented camera. It's still primarily a DSLR, despite video features being put into the camera. I mean, I'd love for there to be a 24p mode, just like I'd love for it to have dual card slots. But for the majority of people buying this camera, they'll never use the Video for anything more important than a few minutes at a soccer match and they'll likely want to shoot it in the highest possible settings they can (because big numbers means better).

Aside from checking off another spec on the data sheet, there isn't really too much of a reason for it in this camera.

Also, I hate the stuttering of 24p video.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
And what about overexposed sky? Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, Phase One have. Even Panasonic has much more better DR than my 5DS R and EOS R. To be happy of what we have now with Canon? )))))
.

Bollocks. Canon modern sensors DR capabilities are not any worse than Panasonic.
Which Panasonic you were referring to having a -MUCH- better DR than Canon R?
Phase One is a Medium format.... some MF RAW files are 16bit. Not to be confused with FF 35mm format. Not a fair comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rixy and tron

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,866
Irving, Texas
Obviously you haven't been surrounded by hundreds of budding filmmakers at your local community college lately, lol. A few years back while taking some advanced photo classes (yes, both analog and digital) there were always a gaggle of video guys and it was always guys, no women unfortunately, who would have major attitudes about video attributes, attempting to wedge them into any and all stills based conversation or lecture whenever possible. Seriously, more stills information transfers to video not the other way around. So.... take that to heart while talking about gear/bodies. The term 'Primarily' is a serious attribute for Canon bodies which are not Cinema line and therefore video specs become, yes, you guessed it...'Secondary'. Thank you.
All I know is "Oklahoma" and "Around the World in 80 days" were great movies I saw many many times as a young lad. Mama made us watch them. I never wondered or thought they were strange or different in any way. Never knew or asked the fps. ;) ;) ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,866
Irving, Texas
Without getting into a battle as to why 24p was chosen (with both sides repeating their assertions ad nauseam yet never citing historical documents to back them up), 24p @ 1/48 results in more motion blur than higher frame rates and shutter speeds. Under certain conditions audiences do notice, and "soap opera effect" was never intended as a compliment.

Personally I like viewing 60p for some scenes. For some it's difficult to tell 30p from 24p. And for others 24p looks the best and higher frame rates look weird. Cinematographers seem to default to 24p because it is the least likely to look "weird." And I'm not convinced that's due to conditioning, to us always viewing movies at 24p. I think certain shutter / lighting / frame rate combinations result in a higher frame rate 'jumping' despite being higher.
Or changing the angle
Without getting into a battle as to why 24p was chosen (with both sides repeating their assertions ad nauseam yet never citing historical documents to back them up), 24p @ 1/48 results in more motion blur than higher frame rates and shutter speeds. Under certain conditions audiences do notice, and "soap opera effect" was never intended as a compliment.

Personally I like viewing 60p for some scenes. For some it's difficult to tell 30p from 24p. And for others 24p looks the best and higher frame rates look weird. Cinematographers seem to default to 24p because it is the least likely to look "weird." And I'm not convinced that's due to conditioning, to us always viewing movies at 24p. I think certain shutter / lighting / frame rate combinations result in a higher frame rate 'jumping' despite being higher.
Or setting the shutter angle at 45 and 90 degrees a la Saving Private Ryan... which broke another standard and gave that staccato look in many scenes. In my opinion, one of the greatest and more realistic movies of all time.

At the same time, I really find the running around with hair on fire reactions to no 24p on a camera at this level from all the "cinematographers" around here. "Jumping on the Bandwagon" affect?
 
Last edited:

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,682
1,241
And what about overexposed sky? Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, Phase One have. Even Panasonic has much more better DR than my 5DS R and EOS R.

I would ask you to prove it, but last time I did that it resulted in a lot of pain and suffering when I posted a 7D sample that equaled the posted Panasonic sample.

The DR advantage of some Nikon/Sony sensors (not all of them, even though people pretend it's all of them) is real. It's also not as big of a deal as it's made out to be.
 

syder

EOS RP
Apr 29, 2012
219
85
Without getting into a battle as to why 24p was chosen (with both sides repeating their assertions ad nauseam yet never citing historical documents to back them up), 24p @ 1/48 results in more motion blur than higher frame rates and shutter speeds. Under certain conditions audiences do notice, and "soap opera effect" was never intended as a compliment.

Personally I like viewing 60p for some scenes. For some it's difficult to tell 30p from 24p. And for others 24p looks the best and higher frame rates look weird. Cinematographers seem to default to 24p because it is the least likely to look "weird." And I'm not convinced that's due to conditioning, to us always viewing movies at 24p. I think certain shutter / lighting / frame rate combinations result in a higher frame rate 'jumping' despite being higher.

Soap opera effect would suggest television. Which means you would be talking about interlaced rather than progressive images. And the difference in image quailty between film and video cameras, and the respective budgets for lighting and setup time are far bigger factors in the overall look than frame rate or I/P there.

AFAIK HDTV tends to use 50/60 as frame rates because this is a big improvement over 24/25/30 fps for sports - where you have fast movement that doesn't want to be heavily blurred. It means that news/reality footage also tends to be shot in 50/60i and consequently motion looks quite different to cinema.

The web is obviously different in that material shouldn't normally be interlaced - TVs have clever adaptive deinterlacing algorithms that most pc monitors and phones dont.
 
<-- start Taboola -->