New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]

[privatebydesign]

....

however I'm not sure about this rumor.

This rumor makes it sound like "Canon came and visited us with a new camera that we got to look at and try."

If that is the case, Canon will know exactly who it is (or have a very short list.) If they signed an NDA ... and even if they didn't, I suspect that Canon would look unfavourably on this kind of disclosure - UNLESS it was specifically asked about and agreed to.

Additionally, any professional (working in a studio where Canon visits you is going to mean you're seriously good) is going to know that the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

my thoughts exactly. why would canon do this?

its one thing for canon to get high speed cameras in the hands of professionals in the field for testing (ie world cup, olympics etc) but why do so for a studio setting? is it beyond canons capability to set up a studio at their R&D facility for testing....i highly doubt it.

They have always done that, particularly with the high end bodies and lenses, it is part and parcel of the normal testing process and it throws up inconsistencies and compatibility issues the labs and Japanese factory field testers don't come across. It also gets Canon high end user feedback, however perverse and badly informed it might be, and it creates a little clique for the studios. Being an Alpha tester for Canon is a feather in any studios cap.

 

[agierke]

hmm, i guess that kind of makes sense.

 

[mitchel]

fwiw, I agree with Dilbert. Seems borderline inconceivable that someone reviewing a laptop image could reliably conclude that color rendition was "much better." Sounds "hoaxy" to me... Regardless, I'd be thrilled to see a sub 30 mp canon camera with much better color rendition, dynamic range and/or noise performance.

 

[Orangutan]

Seems borderline inconceivable that someone reviewing a laptop image could reliably conclude that color rendition was "much better." Sounds "hoaxy" to me... Regardless, I'd be thrilled to see a sub 30 mp canon camera with much better color rendition, dynamic range and/or noise performance.

There is no way to tell if the test photographers concluded that the camera had these superior image qualities, or if the Canon entourage told them that was the compelling feature of this camera. It sounds neither hoaxish nor entirely credible to me: it sounds like a CR1.

 

[privatebydesign]

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

 

[bardamu]

"BRING IT"

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?

The EOS 3D is long-fabled version of the film EOS 3, but it's not longer fabled as it already arrived as the EOS 5D3 a few years ago. Although I guess some just want to keep the mythical nature of it alive hah and others simply don't seem to understand so they still keep on talking about a mythical 3D one day (again, it's lready out and it's the 5D3; I'm particularly not sure why some keep trying to refer to the mythical upcoming ultra high MP camera as the EOS 3D, since what the heck does that have to do with the old EOS 3, it's not like the EOS 3 was medium format or anything).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

....

however I'm not sure about this rumor.

This rumor makes it sound like "Canon came and visited us with a new camera that we got to look at and try."

If that is the case, Canon will know exactly who it is (or have a very short list.) If they signed an NDA ... and even if they didn't, I suspect that Canon would look unfavourably on this kind of disclosure - UNLESS it was specifically asked about and agreed to.

Additionally, any professional (working in a studio where Canon visits you is going to mean you're seriously good) is going to know that the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Its more the fine color transitions and discrimination they are referring to and fine color detail, that is different than accuracy (which depends a lot on the color profile used to develop and matching white balance and so on and so forth).

And maybe they were told to leak talk about amazing colors regardless of what they could see on the laptop.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

....

however I'm not sure about this rumor.

This rumor makes it sound like "Canon came and visited us with a new camera that we got to look at and try."

If that is the case, Canon will know exactly who it is (or have a very short list.) If they signed an NDA ... and even if they didn't, I suspect that Canon would look unfavourably on this kind of disclosure - UNLESS it was specifically asked about and agreed to.

Additionally, any professional (working in a studio where Canon visits you is going to mean you're seriously good) is going to know that the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

my thoughts exactly. why would canon do this?

its one thing for canon to get high speed cameras in the hands of professionals in the field for testing (ie world cup, olympics etc) but why do so for a studio setting? is it beyond canons capability to set up a studio at their R&D facility for testing....i highly doubt it.

They have always done that, particularly with the high end bodies and lenses, it is part and parcel of the normal testing process and it throws up inconsistencies and compatibility issues the labs and Japanese factory field testers don't come across. It also gets Canon high end user feedback, however perverse and badly informed it might be, and it creates a little clique for the studios. Being an Alpha tester for Canon is a feather in any studios cap.

+1

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

that can be true

 

[WoodyWindy]

I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?

The EOS 3D is a fantasy camera that is supposed to be the ultimate combination of every bit of camera technology you could ever ask for in a relatively compact and affordable package.

Inspired by the film era EOS 3, which took every bit of tech Canon had at the time (zillion point AF, eye control, weather sealing, robust, high speed shutter, 100% viewfinder, EOS 1 series UI, etc...) and dumped it into a body that was just a little more expensive than the Elan (xx) series of cameras. Then Canon introduced the EOS 1v at over twice the price that offered one incremental benefit (bullet proof construction), but took away eye control and a little speed unless you bought the power booster grip. Note that every EOS 1D series camera since is based on the EOS 1v interface and PB grip-included cosmetics.

I would be willing to bet that the 5D III and/or its linear successor is about as close as we are going to get from Canon these days.

 

[expatinasia]

the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Would be interesting to know what laptop was used, which model and make of screen it had and what was used to calibrate it etc.

There are a few ways they can improve the 1D X but I do not think we will see a new one for a quite a while yet.

Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!

 

[Zv]

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

 

[WoodyWindy]

I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?

The EOS 3D is long-fabled version of the film EOS 3, but it's not longer fabled as it already arrived as the EOS 5D3 a few years ago. Although I guess some just want to keep the mythical nature of it alive hah and others simply don't seem to understand so they still keep on talking about a mythical 3D one day (again, it's lready out and it's the 5D3; I'm particularly not sure why some keep trying to refer to the mythical upcoming ultra high MP camera as the EOS 3D, since what the heck does that have to do with the old EOS 3, it's not like the EOS 3 was medium format or anything).

Looks like we were composing almost identical responses at the same time! I think the "missing" element, aside from the name, was that the original 3 actually was the best of everything Canon had, until the 1v and its indestructible body came out. Maybe they pray for the return of eye control? Or who knows what. In any case, I agree that the 5D III fills that niche pretty well.

 

[privatebydesign]

I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?

The EOS 3D is a fantasy camera that is supposed to be the ultimate combination of every bit of camera technology you could ever ask for in a relatively compact and affordable package.

Inspired by the film era EOS 3, which took every bit of tech Canon had at the time (zillion point AF, eye control, weather sealing, robust, high speed shutter, 100% viewfinder, EOS 1 series UI, etc...) and dumped it into a body that was just a little more expensive than the Elan (xx) series of cameras. Then Canon introduced the EOS 1v at over twice the price that offered one incremental benefit (bullet proof construction), but took away eye control and a little speed unless you bought the power booster grip. Note that every EOS 1D series camera since is based on the EOS 1v interface and PB grip-included cosmetics.

I would be willing to bet that the 5D III and/or its linear successor is about as close as we are going to get from Canon these days.

The 3 didn't have a 100% viewfinder, one of the main reasons I got two 1VHS's which did, oh and the ten frames a second Running through a roll of film in 3.5 seconds is a thing of beauty!

 

[privatebydesign]

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

Yes, the camera calibration tab in LR and ACR, you can make custom profiles very easily and quickly if you do a shot on set with a regular 24 patch colour card. The most popular and convenient one around is the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I found the free Adobe app, DNG Profile Editor, to be a better piece of software than the inclusive X-Rite app.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

DSLR Basics Tutorial | Xrite Color Checker Passport | Camera Custom White Balance

 

[WoodyWindy]

I forget. What is the supposed "3D" supposed to be?

The EOS 3D is a fantasy camera that is supposed to be the ultimate combination of every bit of camera technology you could ever ask for in a relatively compact and affordable package.

Inspired by the film era EOS 3, which took every bit of tech Canon had at the time (zillion point AF, eye control, weather sealing, robust, high speed shutter, 100% viewfinder, EOS 1 series UI, etc...) and dumped it into a body that was just a little more expensive than the Elan (xx) series of cameras. Then Canon introduced the EOS 1v at over twice the price that offered one incremental benefit (bullet proof construction), but took away eye control and a little speed unless you bought the power booster grip. Note that every EOS 1D series camera since is based on the EOS 1v interface and PB grip-included cosmetics.

I would be willing to bet that the 5D III and/or its linear successor is about as close as we are going to get from Canon these days.

The 3 didn't have a 100% viewfinder, one of the main reasons I got two 1VHS's which did, oh and the ten frames a second Running through a roll of film in 3.5 seconds is a thing of beauty!

OK, I stand corrected on the viewfinder, but being 97% when the EOS 1n (tops at the time of intro) was only listed as "near 100%", and the still respectable EOS 50/Elan IIe was only at 90/92%, the difference was a mere quibble until the EOS 1v family.

 

[dslrdummy]

the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Would be interesting to know what laptop was used, which model and make of screen it had and what was used to calibrate it etc.

There are a few ways they can improve the 1D X but I do not think we will see a new one for a quite a while yet.

Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!

Maybe the 7Dii has a built-in grip and has dropped the flash, which means it could superficially at least resemble a new (although likely smaller) 1D.

 

[Zv]

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

Yes, the camera calibration tab in LR and ACR, you can make custom profiles very easily and quickly if you do a shot on set with a regular 24 patch colour card. The most popular and convenient one around is the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I found the free Adobe app, DNG Profile Editor, to be a better piece of software than the inclusive X-Rite app.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

DSLR Basics Tutorial | Xrite Color Checker Passport | Camera Custom White Balance

Cheers! I'll check it out!

Also, thanks for the link to luminous landscape, that just saved me a whole lot of time mucking about with google search!

 

[HBaekked]

Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!

You don't think a studio photographer would notice the crop factor?