Interview: Masaya Maeda of Canon Japan

[Marauder]

Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is.

The differences in sensor output are easily visible outside of DxO Mark and have been since the release of the D800.

DxO Mark just provides an independent 3rd party measurement of those differences that we can point to and say "See, Canon needs to be better."

DxO is just a messenger. Ignore them if you wish.

DxO puts a lot of emphasis on an extremely narrow set of use cases. If you are not interested in those specific use cases, you can easily ignore DxO without any issues. If the DxO measured DR perspective is what you are alluding to, then for every step above ISO=100 the DxO perspective becomes less relevant. Not everyone (by a long shot) shoots everything at ISO=100, tries to lift shadows 4 stops, etc.

+1!!!

 

[zlatko]

Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is.

The differences in sensor output are easily visible outside of DxO Mark and have been since the release of the D800.

DxO Mark just provides an independent 3rd party measurement of those differences that we can point to and say "See, Canon needs to be better."

DxO is just a messenger. Ignore them if you wish.

+1. IQ is the bottom line and the D800/810 brings up shadow detail much better than the 5D M3

Lifting shadow detail is a very small part of IQ. People who equate IQ with bringing up shadow detail, or see that as the "bottom line" for IQ, will find Canon is lacking. But Canon's IQ is excellent overall. I'm reminded of that every time I open a Canon raw file.

 

[Lee Jay]

Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is.

The differences in sensor output are easily visible outside of DxO Mark and have been since the release of the D800.

DxO Mark just provides an independent 3rd party measurement of those differences that we can point to and say "See, Canon needs to be better."

DxO is just a messenger. Ignore them if you wish.

+1. IQ is the bottom line and the D800/810 brings up shadow detail much better than the 5D M3

Lifting shadow detail is a very small part of IQ. People who equate IQ with bringing up shadow detail, or see that as the "bottom line" for IQ, will find Canon is lacking. But Canon's IQ is excellent overall. I'm reminded of that every time I open a Canon raw file.

Exactly.

17% of my shots are taken at base ISO, and of the roughly 150,000 Canon dSLR shots I've taken, exactly one was in conditions where Canon's base ISO DR was too small to capture the shot. Unfortunately, calculations indicate that scene had about 30 stops of scene DR so a stop or two extra from a Nikon or Sony would have made no difference.

 

[msm]

Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is.

The differences in sensor output are easily visible outside of DxO Mark and have been since the release of the D800.

DxO Mark just provides an independent 3rd party measurement of those differences that we can point to and say "See, Canon needs to be better."

DxO is just a messenger. Ignore them if you wish.

+1. IQ is the bottom line and the D800/810 brings up shadow detail much better than the 5D M3

Lifting shadow detail is a very small part of IQ. People who equate IQ with bringing up shadow detail, or see that as the "bottom line" for IQ, will find Canon is lacking. But Canon's IQ is excellent overall. I'm reminded of that every time I open a Canon raw file.

Exactly.

17% of my shots are taken at base ISO, and of the roughly 150,000 Canon dSLR shots I've taken, exactly one was in conditions where Canon's base ISO DR was too small to capture the shot. Unfortunately, calculations indicate that scene had about 30 stops of scene DR so a stop or two extra from a Nikon or Sony would have made no difference.

And that is precisely what to expect from a Canon shooter who don't understand the benefit of Sony/Nikon sensors. It was true for me as well when I shot Canon, very few shots were at base ISO because there was simply no benefit to it. Iso 640/800 gives about the same IQ but faster shutter speeds with less camera shake. However after getting my a7r probably 80-90% of my the shots taken with that camera are at base ISO.

 

[Lee Jay]

Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is.

The differences in sensor output are easily visible outside of DxO Mark and have been since the release of the D800.

DxO Mark just provides an independent 3rd party measurement of those differences that we can point to and say "See, Canon needs to be better."

DxO is just a messenger. Ignore them if you wish.

+1. IQ is the bottom line and the D800/810 brings up shadow detail much better than the 5D M3

Lifting shadow detail is a very small part of IQ. People who equate IQ with bringing up shadow detail, or see that as the "bottom line" for IQ, will find Canon is lacking. But Canon's IQ is excellent overall. I'm reminded of that every time I open a Canon raw file.

Exactly.

17% of my shots are taken at base ISO, and of the roughly 150,000 Canon dSLR shots I've taken, exactly one was in conditions where Canon's base ISO DR was too small to capture the shot. Unfortunately, calculations indicate that scene had about 30 stops of scene DR so a stop or two extra from a Nikon or Sony would have made no difference.

And that is precisely what to expect from a Canon shooter who don't understand the benefit of Sony/Nikon sensors. It was true for me as well when I shot Canon, very few shots were at base ISO because there was simply no benefit to it. Iso 640/800 gives about the same IQ but faster shutter speeds with less camera shake. However after getting my a7r probably 80-90% of my the shots taken with that camera are at base ISO.

Huh?

I don't shoot at base ISO when there's not enough light to shoot at base ISO. That turns out to be more than 80% of the time for me.

 

[ahsanford]

Huh?

I don't shoot at base ISO when there's not enough light to shoot at base ISO. That turns out to be more than 80% of the time for me.

+1

To back Lee Jay's point, consider: I am a handheld available light shooter who lives in a ISO 800-6400 world, I have a ton of Canon glass, and I need a working autofocus (so adapting my glass to a Sony is flat out of the question). So the 5D3 is not only the camera I use, it's the best one out there for me right now.

It's pretty simple to me. If you are a tripod based ISO 100/200 shooter and your livelihood depends on the quality of your images, go rent a SoNikon and see if it takes better shots for you. Many landscapers have tried this without selling their glass by using an adapter + liveview on a Sony rig. I think you'll find it takes lovely shots, but leaving the Canon ecosystem to chase the IQ beast (even for a test run) will have you wincing at non-sensor related pain points, like ergonomics, AF performance, new accessories you need, etc.

- A

 

[zlatko]

Huh?

I don't shoot at base ISO when there's not enough light to shoot at base ISO. That turns out to be more than 80% of the time for me.

+1

To back Lee Jay's point, consider: I am a handheld available light shooter who lives in a ISO 800-6400 world, I have a ton of Canon glass, and I need a working autofocus (so adapting my glass to a Sony is flat out of the question). So the 5D3 is not only the camera I use, it's the best one out there for me right now.

It's pretty simple to me. If you are a tripod based ISO 100/200 shooter and your livelihood depends on the quality of your images, go rent a SoNikon and see if it takes better shots for you. Many landscapers have tried this without selling their glass by using an adapter + liveview on a Sony rig. I think you'll find it takes lovely shots, but leaving the Canon ecosystem to chase the IQ beast (even for a test run) will have you wincing at non-sensor related pain points, like ergonomics, AF performance, new accessories you need, etc.

- A

Exactly. Changing to a Sony/Nikon isn't going to change light conditions for me. It isn't going to make my subjects slow down so I can freeze them with a slower shutter speed. It isn't going to make the lights brighter. I'll still be shooting above base ISO for nearly everything, often far above base ISO. The problem isn't that I "don't understand the benefit of Sony/Nikon sensors." I understand fully how *minimal* the benefit is for what I shoot. And it comes with all of those non-sensor related annoyances (ergonomics, etc.).

 

[msm]

It has little to do with light conditions, it has to do with how much light the sensor needs to give the desired or optimal quality and that will differ from sensor to sensor.

Read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why. Generally with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so. The argument "I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.

 

[Lee Jay]

I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.

Really?

I shoot mostly indoors and those shots are typically ISO 800-6400. What I shoot outdoors is generally both DOF and shutter speed limited, and I need ISO 200-400 to get those shots. Shooting those at ISO 100 and underexposing 1-2 stops would work in raw, but be a huge pain in JPEG, and those are nearly 100% JPEGs for reasons of space and buffer depth.

In the last 11 years, 17% of my shots have been taken at ISO 100. You know how many of those are DR-limited (i.e. shadow noise limited)? One. And that one shot needed much more DR than an EXMOR could provide (around 30 stops).

As a test, I shot a crazy high DR scene yesterday. I had to fabricate one since they mostly don't exist, but ended up shooting a shot with 18 stops of DR using my 7D Mark II. It's a two-shot burst at 10fps, so the two shots are 1/10th of a second apart. Worked great! So, for those crazy situations where I really do need a lot of base ISO DR, I'll do that. It's simple enough.

 

[msm]

I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.

Really?

I shoot mostly indoors and those shots are typically ISO 800-6400. What I shoot outdoors is generally both DOF and shutter speed limited, and I need ISO 200-400 to get those shots. Shooting those at ISO 100 and underexposing 1-2 stops would work in raw, but be a huge pain in JPEG, and those are nearly 100% JPEGs for reasons of space and buffer depth.

Nice of you to speak for the vast majority.

If all you do is shoot indoor with really high ISO then shure, but when you are down to 800 you could just as well shoot 100-400 with an exmor and gain room in the highlights if that is better overall. It is a choice you don't have with Canon.

In the last 11 years, 17% of my shots have been taken at ISO 100. You know how many of those are DR-limited (i.e. shadow noise limited)? One. And that one shot needed much more DR than an EXMOR could provide (around 30 stops).

So what do you shoot at base ISO then? Because in just normal outdoor shots I can see noise in deep shadows on my monitor from my Canon cameras without even pushing shadows. Either you shoot some rather narrow conditions or you got a high tolerance for noise.

As a test, I shot a crazy high DR scene yesterday. I had to fabricate one since they mostly don't exist, but ended up shooting a shot with 18 stops of DR using my 7D Mark II. It's a two-shot burst at 10fps, so the two shots are 1/10th of a second apart. Worked great! So, for those crazy situations where I really do need a lot of base ISO DR, I'll do that. It's simple enough.

Sure enjoy spending your time in postprocessing when you could have avoided it.

Don't know why you need to mention the 10FPS, when I merge exposures I would like to avoid vibration blur and movement between the frames, and my 1DX even has a electronic first curtain in live view to avoid vibrations. Then when I ask it to bracket shots on a delayed timer it waits for the delay then machine guns all shots in the bracket at 12FPS. Not nice.

 

[Lee Jay]

In the last 11 years, 17% of my shots have been taken at ISO 100. You know how many of those are DR-limited (i.e. shadow noise limited)? One. And that one shot needed much more DR than an EXMOR could provide (around 30 stops).

So what do you shoot at base ISO then?

My kids playing at the park.

Because in just normal outdoor shots I can see noise in deep shadows on my monitor from my Canon cameras without even pushing shadows. Either you shoot some rather narrow conditions or you got a high tolerance for noise.

I have little tolerance for noise, but know how to use noise reduction in post.

As a test, I shot a crazy high DR scene yesterday. I had to fabricate one since they mostly don't exist, but ended up shooting a shot with 18 stops of DR using my 7D Mark II. It's a two-shot burst at 10fps, so the two shots are 1/10th of a second apart. Worked great! So, for those crazy situations where I really do need a lot of base ISO DR, I'll do that. It's simple enough.

Sure enjoy spending your time in postprocessing when you could have avoided it.

One, single, keystroke.

Don't know why you need to mention the 10FPS, when I merge exposures I would like to avoid vibration blur and movement between the frames, and my 1DX even has a electronic first curtain in live view to avoid vibrations. Then when I ask it to bracket shots on a delayed timer it waits for the delay then machine guns all shots in the bracket at 12FPS. Not nice.

It is nice. It minimizes motion between shots. Software aligns the remainder and, whamo - you've got a file with crazy huge DR.

 

[msm]

My kids playing at the park.

So we talking about rather narrow conditions then.

I have little tolerance for noise, but know how to use noise reduction in post.

I prefer to avoid needing noise reduction. Waste of time and reduces image quality.

One, single, keystroke.

Oh so you got a on button solution that does all for you with no manual intervention? Lucky you, I have found no such thing which produces something I would be happy with.

It is nice. It minimizes motion between shots. Software aligns the remainder and, whamo - you've got a file with crazy huge DR.

Aligning is a source of potential problems and and noisy shutter slamming at 12fps is a source of vibrations.

 

[Lee Jay]

I have little tolerance for noise, but know how to use noise reduction in post.

I prefer to avoid needing noise reduction. Waste of time and reduces image quality.

It takes no time whatsoever (I have defaults set up that are automatically applied) and it increases image quality or I wouldn't use it.

One, single, keystroke.

Oh so you got a on button solution that does all for you with no manual intervention?[/quote]

Yep.

It is nice. It minimizes motion between shots. Software aligns the remainder and, whamo - you've got a file with crazy huge DR.

Aligning is a source of potential problems and and noisy shutter slamming at 12fps is a source of vibrations.
[/quote]

Minimizing movement between shots decreases potential problems with alignments, and if 12fps was such a vibrational problem, sports shooters wouldn't use it. But they do.

In my experience, vibration from mirrorslap is only a real problem in a very narrow range of situations that most people will never encounter, such as extremely long focal lengths with a system on a flimsy tripod and no IS. The only time I've encountered it to any reasonable degree was at 3,000mm on a weak support.

 

[jrista]

So, the DR war rages on. For those who want more DR, there is a very simple solution: Ditch Canon. There are a number of very good alternatives now, and they are only getting better with time. Especially with mirrorless, you can adapt so many lenses, you don't have to drop Canon entirely or cold turkey...you can simply augment your kit to handle the situations where you want more dynamic range.


No point in debating it. There are some who will defend Canon to the bitter end, and it will very likely come down to the bitter end with Canon, given they seem incapable of truly acknowledging they have any kind of issue when it comes to sensor IQ and breadth of sensor capabilities. The gap just keeps widening, and Canon just keeps ignoring it. So stop waiting for Canon to do something about it...find a product that solves your problems and use it. A friend just purchased the Sony a6000 yesterday on my recommendation. WOW, that is one HELL of a little camera, for a mere $700. Nothing from Canon even remotely compares. There are options out there...if you need something Canon doesn't offer, I highly recommend going and looking at them. You could waste your time for YEARS waiting for Canon to respond to your specific needs, and they very well may NEVER respond...other companies, on the other hand, are pushing the envelope on every front, delivering new features and capabilities that Canon doesn't seem interested in.

 

[msm]

Minimizing movement between shots decreases potential problems with alignments, and if 12fps was such a vibrational problem, sports shooters wouldn't use it. But they do.

In my experience, vibration from mirrorslap is only a real problem in a very narrow range of situations that most people will never encounter, such as extremely long focal lengths with a system on a flimsy tripod and no IS. The only time I've encountered it to any reasonable degree was at 3,000mm on a weak support.

Sports shooters usually shoot at faster shutter speeds to capture the motion, vibration is less of a concern then. By the way, how often do you see sport shooters bracket their shot? I think you just changed the subject, I haven't even talked about mirrorslap. From what you write I also suspect your image quality standards are well below mine.

 

[zlatko]

It has little to do with light conditions, it has to do with how much light the sensor needs to give the desired or optimal quality and that will differ from sensor to sensor.

Read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why. Generally with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so. The argument "I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.

Would you please not presume to know how and what other people shoot? I shoot a lot at ISO 3200, and even more in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range. I will NOT "shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so". I know my light conditions and the shutter speeds I need. You are not standing in my shoes, so please stop telling me how to shoot. Just stop. Why this need to push Nikon/Sony sensor "benefits" on a Canon rumors forum? Why?

 

[msm]

It has little to do with light conditions, it has to do with how much light the sensor needs to give the desired or optimal quality and that will differ from sensor to sensor.

Read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why. Generally with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so. The argument "I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.

Would you please not presume to know how and what other people shoot? I shoot a lot at ISO 3200, and even more in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range. I will NOT "shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so". I know my light conditions and the shutter speeds I need. You are not standing in my shoes, so please stop telling me how to shoot. Just stop. Why this need to push Nikon/Sony sensor "benefits" on a Canon rumors forum? Why?

If you actually read my post carefully you will see that I never told you how to shoot.

Anyways jrista is correct, it is pointless to argue this here.

 

[zlatko]

So, the DR war rages on. For those who want more DR, there is a very simple solution: Ditch Canon. There are a number of very good alternatives now, and they are only getting better with time. Especially with mirrorless, you can adapt so many lenses, you don't have to drop Canon entirely or cold turkey...you can simply augment your kit to handle the situations where you want more dynamic range.


No point in debating it. There are some who will defend Canon to the bitter end, and it will very likely come down to the bitter end with Canon, given they seem incapable of truly acknowledging they have any kind of issue when it comes to sensor IQ and breadth of sensor capabilities. The gap just keeps widening, and Canon just keeps ignoring it. So stop waiting for Canon to do something about it...find a product that solves your problems and use it. A friend just purchased the Sony a6000 yesterday on my recommendation. WOW, that is one HELL of a little camera, for a mere $700. Nothing from Canon even remotely compares. There are options out there...if you need something Canon doesn't offer, I highly recommend going and looking at them. You could waste your time for YEARS waiting for Canon to respond to your specific needs, and they very well may NEVER respond...other companies, on the other hand, are pushing the envelope on every front, delivering new features and capabilities that Canon doesn't seem interested in.

"No point in debating it" — so you're debating it at full speed, bashing Canon's sensors, product range, abilities, etc., and telling people to "Ditch Canon". Yeh, that's what one does when there's "no point" in debating something.

Wow, you guys sure have fun promoting your shadow lifting. And more shadow lifting. And still more shadow lifting. Yep, there's nothing more important to photography than shadow lifting. Keep it up enough and we'll all be convinced to shoot at base ISO and lift shadows. Not.

 

[zlatko]

It has little to do with light conditions, it has to do with how much light the sensor needs to give the desired or optimal quality and that will differ from sensor to sensor.

Read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why. Generally with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so. The argument "I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.

Would you please not presume to know how and what other people shoot? I shoot a lot at ISO 3200, and even more in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range. I will NOT "shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so". I know my light conditions and the shutter speeds I need. You are not standing in my shoes, so please stop telling me how to shoot. Just stop. Why this need to push Nikon/Sony sensor "benefits" on a Canon rumors forum? Why?

If you actually read my post carefully you will see that I never told you how to shoot.

Anyways jrista is correct, it is pointless to argue this here.

So you weren't telling me that how I shoot has "little to do with light conditions"? And you weren't telling me to "read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why"? And you weren't telling me that "with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so"? Interesting how you took all of that back.

 

[jrista]

There is nothing more important in photography than having the equipment that fulfills your own personal needs. You can either bitch and moan about Canon's inferiorities, or lack therof, on an internet forum...or you can buy the equipment that fulfills your needs. I decided to stop debating. I have found better products from different brands that fulfill my own personal needs, and I have NO problem telling other people that there are options out there, other than Canon, that could fill their personal needs. It's as simple as that.


Your either a raging fanboy who will defend a BRAND to the last, or your a photographer. I used to be a raging fanboy, on your side, defending Canon to the bitter end. Today? I'm a photographer. I could care less about brands anymore. The thing that matters is whether the camera in your hands is delivering the image quality and functionality you want...or not. Simple fact of the matter is, Canon cameras deliver what I need for birds and wildlife at longer focal lengths and higher ISO, and other brands deliver what I need for low ISO work, everyday photography, macro, etc. If the 5D IV pans out to really be a 9fps high frame rate, high resolution, high ISO beast, I'll pick one up in a heartbeat, because that's what I need, and I have more than enough compute hardware to handle gobs of large images. I've given up on Canon for delivering what I need on the low ISO front. They can offer as many megapixels as they want...every pixel in a Sony, Nikon or Samsung camera is more capable of delivering what I want...so they get my money for my low ISO needs.


It's not a complicated equation. It's not something that we need to have wars over. If for, say, MSM, Canon is not delivering what he needs...there are some AWESOME cameras out there that absolutely will, and for some damn good prices.