Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Not sure why no one else has suggested this, but:
18mp x3 layer sensor?
That would make it 54 million photodiodes, but spatially an 18 million pixel sensor.
They might reduce it if it is a layered sensor. If it is 18mp x3, then it would have 54 million photodiodes. If Canon is pairing the camera with a DIGIC 7...then they should have the necessary throughput (each DIGIC 7 chip would need to handle around 600MiB/s throughput, which is a little more than double the current DIGIC 6 chips.)
It seems more logical to me that it would be 10fps, in which case each DIGIC 7 (or whatever they call it) would end up handling 500MiB/s throughput, or exactly double the current DIGIC 6.
18mp x3 layer sensor?
That would make it 54 million photodiodes, but spatially an 18 million pixel sensor.
PureClassA said:
They might reduce it if it is a layered sensor. If it is 18mp x3, then it would have 54 million photodiodes. If Canon is pairing the camera with a DIGIC 7...then they should have the necessary throughput (each DIGIC 7 chip would need to handle around 600MiB/s throughput, which is a little more than double the current DIGIC 6 chips.)
It seems more logical to me that it would be 10fps, in which case each DIGIC 7 (or whatever they call it) would end up handling 500MiB/s throughput, or exactly double the current DIGIC 6.
Upvote
0
mb66energy said:
This is what makes producing new equipment difficult. I would prefer higher frame rate and little to no increase in pixels, The linear resolution difference between 22 MP and 30 MP is about 17% but the data throughput (and thus frame rate ) difference is 35-40% difference. With the latest high resolution bodies giving people 50 MP and 5 fps it does not seem like producing a 30 MP body with 6 fps makes much sense since people like me who would prefer higher frame rate just got well nothing.
I would be okay with a 22 to 26 MP sensor and 8 to 9 fps (not that Canon exactly worries about making a camera just for me) but I would actually welcome 18MP and 12 fps. I also do not see Canon doing that because it is essentially a 1D-X in a smaller body if they do.
This is a good rumor though as it will certainly get the chatter started! I hope it is mostly true but remain very doubtful!
Upvote
0
mb66energy said:
I know...and that isn't really possible the same way switching lenses isn't a menu switch. Yeah, others have tried vibrating the sensor for AA filtering, but that approach hasn't yet proven to be both effective and without side effects.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:Many things affect high ISO performance.... we can not fixate on just one yet many of us do.Lee Jay said:
Ultimately, it comes down to light...
A higher quantum efficiency of the sensor will lead to more light being converted into electrons, and will give you increased high ISO performance.
Lower read noise/higher SNR will give you a cleaner signal and will result in improved high ISO performance.
BSI sensors have less circuitry blocking the incoming light, which gives you more usable light, and results in increased high ISO performance.
Finer lithography blocks less light, and like above, gives better high ISO performance.
A cooler sensor (temperature cooler, not trendy cooler) has less thermal noise and gives better high ISO performance.
And yes, pixel size does matter (sort of).... a smaller pixel will collect less light than a larger pixel and that pixel will have lower high ISO performance than a larger pixel.... but you have to remember that a picture is not made up out of one pixel.... it is the results of ALL the pixels that give you the picture. For example, think of two sensors built with the exact same technology and of the exact same size. One is a 10Mpixel sensor and the other is a 40Mpixel sensor. The pixels on the 10Mpixel sensor, being four times larger, will collect 4 times the light as the pixels from the 40Mpixel sensor and the ISO performance will be 2 stops better. However, we can not forget that the 40Mpixel sensor has 4 pixels covering the same area as each of the 10Mpixel pixels and that if you bin those 4 pixels together in post production you end up with very similar performance to the 10Mpixel sensor. Yes, you will loose a slightly greater amount of area to lithography, but you gain a bit from increased sampling density. Practically, the end result will be the same..... So in the end, larger pixels give you better PER PIXEL ISO performance but with normalizing the resulting images, very little difference in PER PICTURE ISO performance.
And yes, size matters. A FF sensor will capture more light than a crop sensor and for the reasons above, better ISO performance.
Well said. If you are not cropping significantly, the per picture ISO of a smaller pixel sensor could in fact make a more visually pleasing photo in terms of noise/detail, etc. That said, many activities do require significant cropping such as birds.... you just cannot frame perfect every sized bird at same time nor can you make them land equal distance away. Thus you often have to crop a lot. That is where per pixel issues start to show.
It is easy for 2 people to argue and in effect be saying the same truth from a different perspective. My eyes prefer larger pixels given today's available light collection efficiency . But everybody's eyes see color, noise and quality (subjectively) differently. A good friend of mine is ok with more noise as long as it is more uniform and less splotchy in nature. Just very difficult to debate noise when we are all biased by our own eyes and how we see things.
For me I will gladly take fewer pixels if it helps with frame rate and per pixel noise characteristics. Not that I desire heavy cropping but there are times when I have little choice. A brown headed nuthatch at 20 feet and 700mm is still a heavy crop so going bigger on the lens is not really an option.
Upvote
0
Canon promised this would he a high ISO use camera so cutting the megapixels down to 1DX and D4s sizes makes sense. I think this will be exactly what they said, a high ISO animal. I am actually looking forward to seeing the real specs. 18 megapixels will be fine for prints.
Upvote
0
jdavis37 said:Don Haines said:Many things affect high ISO performance.... we can not fixate on just one yet many of us do.Lee Jay said:
Ultimately, it comes down to light...
A higher quantum efficiency of the sensor will lead to more light being converted into electrons, and will give you increased high ISO performance.
Lower read noise/higher SNR will give you a cleaner signal and will result in improved high ISO performance.
BSI sensors have less circuitry blocking the incoming light, which gives you more usable light, and results in increased high ISO performance.
Finer lithography blocks less light, and like above, gives better high ISO performance.
A cooler sensor (temperature cooler, not trendy cooler
And yes, pixel size does matter (sort of).... a smaller pixel will collect less light than a larger pixel and that pixel will have lower high ISO performance than a larger pixel.... but you have to remember that a picture is not made up out of one pixel.... it is the results of ALL the pixels that give you the picture. For example, think of two sensors built with the exact same technology and of the exact same size. One is a 10Mpixel sensor and the other is a 40Mpixel sensor. The pixels on the 10Mpixel sensor, being four times larger, will collect 4 times the light as the pixels from the 40Mpixel sensor and the ISO performance will be 2 stops better. However, we can not forget that the 40Mpixel sensor has 4 pixels covering the same area as each of the 10Mpixel pixels and that if you bin those 4 pixels together in post production you end up with very similar performance to the 10Mpixel sensor. Yes, you will loose a slightly greater amount of area to lithography, but you gain a bit from increased sampling density. Practically, the end result will be the same..... So in the end, larger pixels give you better PER PIXEL ISO performance but with normalizing the resulting images, very little difference in PER PICTURE ISO performance.
And yes, size matters. A FF sensor will capture more light than a crop sensor and for the reasons above, better ISO performance.
Well said. If you are not cropping significantly, the per picture ISO of a smaller pixel sensor could in fact make a more visually pleasing photo in terms of noise/detail, etc. That said, many activities do require significant cropping such as birds.... you just cannot frame perfect every sized bird at same time nor can you make them land equal distance away. Thus you often have to crop a lot. That is where per pixel issues start to show.
It is easy for 2 people to argue and in effect be saying the same truth from a different perspective. My eyes prefer larger pixels given today's available light collection efficiency . But everybody's eyes see color, noise and quality (subjectively) differently. A good friend of mine is ok with more noise as long as it is more uniform and less splotchy in nature. Just very difficult to debate noise when we are all biased by our own eyes and how we see things.
For me I will gladly take fewer pixels if it helps with frame rate and per pixel noise characteristics. Not that I desire heavy cropping but there are times when I have little choice. A brown headed nuthatch at 20 feet and 700mm is still a heavy crop so going bigger on the lens is not really an option.
But if you only have 18MP to start with, you can't afford to crop your image because you have so few pixels to work with. Lets say you want to crop to 1.6x, that leaves you with a 7MP image... that isn't even enough to display on a 4k monitor, let alone print in large sizes... So it seems you would be better off with more MP and slightly higher per pixel noise, since you would still have a useable image when you were done.
I think 30-50 MP is the sweet spot for current sensor tech. It lets you get great high ISO noise and still have plenty of room to crop your pictures. The A7r and the D810, both have great high iso performance and both have >30MP's. I would rather they keep the pixels from 30-50 and just keep improving the ISO performance and FPS and AF.
Upvote
0
JMZawodny said:
Yes, I will not do anything this year either. I am interested in Canon 4K because I want to use the lenses that I have. I have so many more cinematic options that way. So we wait until things shake out.
(I also want external recording. 4K eats storage like crazy and I want some low cost storage options. )
Upvote
0
DR-Trolls? You mean the Canon fanboys that deny the importance of DR to some photographers? How are you adding to the thread, exactly? In the spirit of actually responding to the question asked, I think the D810 has a good blend of high resolution, high DR, and low noise at base ISO. We don't know if the 5Ds or 5D4 will hit on one, two, or all three of these attributes.vscd said:
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I wouldn't declare 2015 the bungled era for Canon just yet. Here's why:
These specs most likely point to a model Canon is positioning to go up against the Sony A7s. It seems to be low-light sensitive and positioned to shoot 4K video internally.
These specs certainly don't live up to a 5D4 feature list, which is almost certain that there will be one worthy of being the successor to the 5D3.
All hope is not lost in Canon land... People just need to take a broader view of these rumors.
Upvote
0
Specs seem quite odd to me. It's essentially a "mini-1DX" and we already have one of those in the 7D Mark II. Like a few others that have posted here, I find the idea of a resolution drop to 18MP very odd for an "all rounder" camera that the 5D Mark III is supposed to be. One wonders at the target market??? Sports and wildlife shooters? As much as I'm in favour of that kind of camera as it's my favourite kind of shooting, the 7D2 and 1DX already cover that segment at two varying price points. Not to say the 5D doesn't appeal to that market and many already use the 5D Mark III for those purposes because it's a great all-rounder. But these specs appears to be rather specifically aimed at that market, and that seems a bit strange.
The beauty of the 5D Mark III is that, like it's predecessors it's aimed primarily at the lucrative wedding and event photographer, with very good crossover potential for sports/wildlife and studio work. This seems to compromise that well established and successful recipe. It might also cut into the 7D2 market, albeit not too much given the likely substantial price difference. And it would definitely seem to encroach heavily into 1DX territory, although that may also not be a factor for too long if a "quantum leap" 1DX replacement follows hard on its heels.
I suppose if the 5D IV (or 5DX as it were) might turn the heads of more general photographers if the high ISO is simply class leading in every way--that might just lead event/wedding photographers to ignore the resolution loss in order to get amazing low-light ambient shots that aren't possible with 20+MP sensors--but it would really have to be an AMAZING performance to justify losing resolution. It's not even just a performance thing--it's a perception issue. Too many photographers and reviewers are tied to the concept that "more=better" when it comes to resolution. And it might be a bit risky to buck that trend in a camera designed for mass appeal to general photographer.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the specs. My primary photography pursuit is wildlife shooting and I think this is phenomenal--but I'm not thinking of myself here--I'm thinking about what the target audience of the 5D series generally wants. I would have thought that a moderate gain in resolution, with a more moderate fps increase (to say 8, or maybe 10), would have fit the "does everything well" 5D3 replacement.
Of course, this is very preliminary. And I remember all too well how incorrect the earlier speculations were regarding the 7D Mark II specifications, even when they seemed all but confirmed! Time will tell how "real" this beast really ends up being!
The beauty of the 5D Mark III is that, like it's predecessors it's aimed primarily at the lucrative wedding and event photographer, with very good crossover potential for sports/wildlife and studio work. This seems to compromise that well established and successful recipe. It might also cut into the 7D2 market, albeit not too much given the likely substantial price difference. And it would definitely seem to encroach heavily into 1DX territory, although that may also not be a factor for too long if a "quantum leap" 1DX replacement follows hard on its heels.
I suppose if the 5D IV (or 5DX as it were) might turn the heads of more general photographers if the high ISO is simply class leading in every way--that might just lead event/wedding photographers to ignore the resolution loss in order to get amazing low-light ambient shots that aren't possible with 20+MP sensors--but it would really have to be an AMAZING performance to justify losing resolution. It's not even just a performance thing--it's a perception issue. Too many photographers and reviewers are tied to the concept that "more=better" when it comes to resolution. And it might be a bit risky to buck that trend in a camera designed for mass appeal to general photographer.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the specs. My primary photography pursuit is wildlife shooting and I think this is phenomenal--but I'm not thinking of myself here--I'm thinking about what the target audience of the 5D series generally wants. I would have thought that a moderate gain in resolution, with a more moderate fps increase (to say 8, or maybe 10), would have fit the "does everything well" 5D3 replacement.
Of course, this is very preliminary. And I remember all too well how incorrect the earlier speculations were regarding the 7D Mark II specifications, even when they seemed all but confirmed! Time will tell how "real" this beast really ends up being!
Upvote
0
nightscape123 said:
My experience has been the opposite. The 5D3 which I own has 22 MP which is not much more than the rumored 18MP in this CR2 rumor. I used to own a 7D MkI and it had a much higher pixel density than 5D3.
And I could crop it FAR less and still have pleasing bird feathers which I could see with depth and shape. A 50MP FF sensor would take on the same characteristics as a 1.6X crop sensor, the very thing I wanted to avoid when I went FF. The crop sensors hold up well as long as you don't further crop much. To my eyes the larger pixels hold up better to cropping than do smaller pixels.
But I do birds and feather behave differently than does say dog hair, and if Canon will produce an 18 MP camera that does 10 to 12 fps in a 5 series body I am happy as can be. Is funny seeing text that suggests 18 million pixels is not very many. Another advantage is the effects it has on computer processing. The 50MP files in Tif format will be quite large and doing manipulations in Photoshop etc will be affected.
For me it appears Canon may be offering camera bodies/sensors for many different people which is a good thing. No one camera body fits all wants. They have 2 different 50MP 5 series bodies and perhaps will come out with a lower resolution high ISO action type 5 series body. I think the variety is a good thing. Those wanting high MP's now have 2 bodies to choose from and still have 5 fps.
The only spec in this rumor I dislike is the CF card format. I have tons of fast enough UDMA7 CF cards now and do not desire buying $300 cards to replace them. If true and not backwards compatible hopefully the new format prices will drop rapidly.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Canon is already making a 50 MP 5 series body at 5 fps. Where is the advantage of crowing in another 36 MP sensor? The linear resolution difference between 50MP and 36 MP is about 18%. The linear resolution difference between 18 and 36 MP is much larger at 41% and associated frame rate would be much lower.
On flip side some people (like me) want frame rate as high as possible without having to pay $7000 for a 1 series body. Given Canon has already announced 2 high pixel count 5 series bodies it makes sense to build a higher frame rate lower pixel camera body. If the 3rd 5 series body had 36 MP at 6 fps it would essentially be the same body as those having 50.6MP.
Having a high frame rate 5 series body, even if it turned out to be 24MP and 8 or 9 fps would be very welcome by me (at least).
All this just shows how difficult it is to build products that please everyone. If I thought the 5D4 would have a 36MP sensor and 5.5 or 6 fps I would buy a gray market 1D-X right way, something I really prefer not to do!
Upvote
0
If we look at how Canon views the market segmentation for DSLRs, maybe we can see it from their perspective and gain a glimpse into their potential moves going forward.
Here are the current and upcoming DSLR contenders for 2015:
Wedding / Events / Portraits
[5D4] > D810 > D750 > 5D3 > D610 > 5Ds >6D
The 5D4 would need to improve in ISO and DR to be a compelling option compared to the D810. Otherwise, the D810 will continue to eat Canon's lunch as they're doing with the aging 5D3.
Sports / Action / Wildlife
1Dx > D4s > 7D2 = 5D4
Landscapes
D810 ~ 5DsR depending on your feature priorities.
Low Light & 4K video
[5Dx] > A7s = GH4
A low-light body like this 5Dx may be the best of both worlds compared to the A7s and GH4 if it proves to be a great low light shooter and can record internally. 18mp in this category would also put it ahead of both of these competitors.
Astrophotography
D810A > 60Da
Halo product
[1Dx Mark II] > [D900] > 1Dx> D4s & D810
So really, we're looking at a new Canon lineup that will likely include (in FF)
- 1Dx Mark II (The professional's tool & Canon's halo product to showcase their dominant position)
- 5D Mark IV (An around FF body with basic or maintream 4K capture)
- 5Ds / 5DsR (Studio / Portrait / High MP)
- 5Dx (Low light contender and with more robust 4K video recording in-body)
- 6D Mark II (This one should take on the D610 & D750 although I don't know how they will manage it without going up in price).
Looking at all these changes, Canon will be very busy over the next 12 months revamping practically all it's lineup.
Here are the current and upcoming DSLR contenders for 2015:
Wedding / Events / Portraits
[5D4] > D810 > D750 > 5D3 > D610 > 5Ds >6D
The 5D4 would need to improve in ISO and DR to be a compelling option compared to the D810. Otherwise, the D810 will continue to eat Canon's lunch as they're doing with the aging 5D3.
Sports / Action / Wildlife
1Dx > D4s > 7D2 = 5D4
Landscapes
D810 ~ 5DsR depending on your feature priorities.
Low Light & 4K video
[5Dx] > A7s = GH4
A low-light body like this 5Dx may be the best of both worlds compared to the A7s and GH4 if it proves to be a great low light shooter and can record internally. 18mp in this category would also put it ahead of both of these competitors.
Astrophotography
D810A > 60Da
Halo product
[1Dx Mark II] > [D900] > 1Dx> D4s & D810
So really, we're looking at a new Canon lineup that will likely include (in FF)
- 1Dx Mark II (The professional's tool & Canon's halo product to showcase their dominant position)
- 5D Mark IV (An around FF body with basic or maintream 4K capture)
- 5Ds / 5DsR (Studio / Portrait / High MP)
- 5Dx (Low light contender and with more robust 4K video recording in-body)
- 6D Mark II (This one should take on the D610 & D750 although I don't know how they will manage it without going up in price).
Looking at all these changes, Canon will be very busy over the next 12 months revamping practically all it's lineup.
Upvote
0
LOL. Considering the specs of the $6K 1DX, and $3K 5D III, there is only one way I would describe this collection of alleged specs:
Canon fanboy imagination figments.
Canon fanboy imagination figments.
Upvote
0
