Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

[tron]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

;D

 

[1982chris911]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

;D

I can still remember times when dark shadows were an important part of image composition ... with the d800 this seems to be obsolete for some strange reason as everyone is now pushing them by +4-5 EV ... In Every Picture :

 

[steliosk]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

The photographic skills are irrelevant.
ok i might overreacted about 5 stops but i wanted to make a point

The fact remains the same.. Canon sensor can't take it!!

Back to reality, try pushing a couple of stops in a wedding in a dark church and check the shadows at ANY iso!

Oh and check the RAW image,, not that stupid-filtered jpegs

 

[RLPhoto]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

The photographic skills are irrelevant.
ok i might overreacted about 5 stops but i wanted to make a point

The fact remains the same.. Canon sensor can't take it!!

Back to reality, try pushing a couple of stops in a wedding in a dark church and check the shadows at ANY iso!

Oh and check the RAW image,, not that stupid-filtered jpegs

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

Henri Cartier bressons documentary work was done with a limited DR but that didn't stop him right? He delivered some great work that many admire which I am one of. Being grounded in this, So what if nikons have a tiny edge in DR? Give me a camera and I'll get something out of it.

Now Lens selection has more weight to me than any body ever will. Canon has a better prime selection, so I shoot canon. Pretty straight forward.

 

[steliosk]

I have a total different philosophy
I'm a canon user too and as far as i'm concerned Canon lenses are superiors.
however Canon bodies are not.

As a consumer i demand always the best in the competition.

and no, pushing a couple of stops in 7D in 3200iso looks awefull in 20x30cm print and if i'd want that i'd like to make it myself, and not made by hardware weakness.

I don't care what bresson did in his time, this is not the issue by the way, plus i'm not looking backwards, i'm looking forward.

otherwise, we wouldn't talk about sensor tech, and we all could rely on a cheap compact to make out something out of nothing.

 

[RLPhoto]

I have a total different philosophy
I'm a canon user too and as far as i'm concerned Canon lenses are superiors.
however Canon bodies are not.

As a consumer i demand always the best in the competition.

and no, pushing a couple of stops in 7D in 3200iso looks awefull in 20x30cm print and if i'd want that i'd like to make it myself, and not made by hardware weakness.

I don't care what bresson did in his time, this is not the issue by the way, plus i'm not looking backwards, i'm looking forward.

otherwise, we wouldn't talk about sensor tech, and we all could rely on a cheap compact to make out something out of nothing.

I respect your opinion. Yes, I have pushed the 7D Hard. Its not an issue for me but you may not like the IQ and that's understandable.

As for sensor tech, I'd be shooting MF Film if DSLRs weren't around. If MF format wasnt around, I'd be shooting Large format. If Large format wasn't around, I'd be a painter. ;D

 

[steliosk]

apparently you're right
but we humans are greedy!

Give us a 100megapixel sensor with 1.000.000 ISO and we will probably say when will the 200mpxels come out? hahaha

You have a point though. Technology provides more than we could possibly need.
But like i said we're greedy, and as far as i know myself, i won't stop nagging about banding and noise issues EVER

 

[Aglet]

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

HAHA! sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now. With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful. I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds. An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark. This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably.

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide. I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.

 

[marekjoz]

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

HAHA! sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now. With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful. I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds. An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark. This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably.

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide. I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.

Lucky you. So what's your answer to the question in topic?

 

[RLPhoto]

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

HAHA! sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now. With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful. I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds. An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark. This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably.

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide. I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.

I've already done it. Works fine for me. 8)

 

[suburbia]

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.

When did Apple have that "Apple Moment"? Before they bought CPUs from Intel, they bought them from IBM (the PowerPC series), and before that, they bought CPUs from Motorola (the 68xxx series).

I think you will find Apples "moment" was enabled by the loose licensing and large manufacturing possibilities of the ARM processor family! But I digress.

There are certainly tales of caution in the home computer and entertainment world about throwing money at expensive hardware R&D but then the sale margins were always really tight and it was always quite a niche market driven by entire chipset functionality.

Surely sensor design is relatively easy for a camera company with such a big market to focus on?

 

[TTMartin]

Given that the main source of the 'Canon sensors are falling behind' documentation is from DxOMark, I don't think so.

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

 

[poias]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

 

[bdunbar79]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting. I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing. Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

 

[poias]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting. I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing. Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

 

[bdunbar79]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting. I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing. Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did?? I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II. IQ wasn't one of them. I'm not getting your point?

 

[Loswr]

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice?

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ. That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else (since the IQ was already excellent), instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).

 

[bdunbar79]

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice?

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ. That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else, instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).

Since I qualify to say it, and I wasn't going to go there but you MADE me , my RAW images out of the 5D Mark III seem to have better IQ than my 5D Mark II RAW's. The shadows are much better. JPEGS even better. IQ of JPEGS is actually noticeable to a non-photographer. Not at all saying 5D Mark II had bad IQ, we all know it is excellent. This is a subjective comparison.

 

[wickidwombat]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting. I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing. Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

actually not fact as you state, at iso 100 there is next to no difference between the 2 correct, however as the iso is increased the mk3 starts to lead the 5Dmk2 in IQ and over iso 1600 the 5dmk3 blows the doors off the mk2

FACT (well at least on my copies anyway)

 

[Drizzt321]

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice?

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ. That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else, instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).

Since I qualify to say it, and I wasn't going to go there but you MADE me , my RAW images out of the 5D Mark III seem to have better IQ than my 5D Mark II RAW's. The shadows are much better. JPEGS even better. IQ of JPEGS is actually noticeable to a non-photographer. Not at all saying 5D Mark II had bad IQ, we all know it is excellent. This is a subjective comparison.

Owning the 5d2 and now the 5d3, I'd say I notice some IQ improvement (mostly in the higher ISOs, haven't looked carefully enough at low ISOs), but not too significant. But for me, it wasn't about the IQ since I was pretty happy to begin with. Although I do agree, the banding in underexposed blacks could certainly use even more help.

Also, having better IQ in the 1DX makes some sense. After all, it's the flagship camera, right? Shouldn't it have better IQ? Now lets see what Canon does with the rumored high MPx camera, and see what that sensor is like.