The Full List of Unreleased Canon Camera ID’s

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
3kramd5 said:
I’d say that’s only true if you concern yourself with base sensitivity dynamic range. There have been advances in other areas, for example framerate, readout speed, OSPDAF, etc.

Sure, I'm not saying other aspects of bodies aren't getting better and we should stop buying new cameras. Throughput in particular has gone up considerably in the last gen, video keeps improving, etc. I'm just saying that the 'film' in the camera isn't getting that much better over time any more.

- A
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
ahsanford said:
3kramd5 said:
I’d say that’s only true if you concern yourself with base sensitivity dynamic range. There have been advances in other areas, for example framerate, readout speed, OSPDAF, etc.

Sure, I'm not saying other aspects of bodies aren't getting better and we should stop buying new cameras. Throughput in particular has gone up considerably in the last gen, video keeps improving, etc. I'm just saying that the 'film' in the camera isn't getting that much better over time any more.

- A

But many of those body aspects are limited by the “film”! It’s not sufficient to limit the scope of a sensor performance discussion two one or two factors. Doing so is a disservice to the CMOS manufacturers and to the users.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
3kramd5 said:
But many of those body aspects are limited by the “film”! It’s not sufficient to limit the scope of a sensor performance discussion two one or two factors. Doing so it a disservice to the CMOS manufacturers and to the users.

Complete agreement. I'm just saying folks by and large aren't flipping tables over in anger over read noise or throughput like they are for those two sensor metrics. When someone whinges about Canon vs. Sony sensors, it's overwhelmingly about DR, it seems. Because we all live at base ISO on a tripod or in a studio. ::)

- A
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
ahsanford said:
3kramd5 said:
But many of those body aspects are limited by the “film”! It’s not sufficient to limit the scope of a sensor performance discussion two one or two factors. Doing so it a disservice to the CMOS manufacturers and to the users.

Complete agreement. I'm just saying folks by and large aren't flipping tables over in anger over read noise or throughput like they are for those two sensor metrics. When someone whinges about Canon vs. Sony sensors, it's overwhelmingly about DR, it seems. Because we all live at base ISO on a tripod or in a studio. ::)

- A

flipping tables over in anger ;D ;D

When someone whinges about Canon vs. Sony sensors, it's overwhelmingly about DR, it seems

I copy.

And I believe that is largely due to what ratings sites choose to focus on, which I suspect is largely determined by what is easy to objectively review.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
719
478
privatebydesign said:
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.

I hear you, but that's neither reasonable nor consistent with the trends of sensor progress over time. Using the generically cruddy numbers from DXO (as a convenience to make a general point):

A7 I: 14.2 Base ISO DR / 2248 ISO (using their SNR / DR / Color high ISO cutoff)
A7 II: 13.6 / 2449
A7 III: 14.7 / 3730

A7R I: 14.1 / 2746
A7R II: 13.9 / 3434 (in fairness, this is a jump from 36 to 42 MP here)
A7R III: 14.7 / 3523

From gen I to gen III, both A7 lines above gained a fraction of a stop of DR and high ISO performance. A fraction of a stop. It's easy to look at how these sensors test (or how RAW files handle in post) and declare the latest product 'the best ever' -- but when you look at it critically, it's more a trend of creeping up on an asymptote over time.

O course, on chip ADC was a huge deal. But everyone's done that now and any one-time bump to base ISO DR is effectively industry standard now.

Yes, Canon sensors are behind Nikon and Sony. But they are not tremendously behind them for me to want to walk away from the EF lenses + first party AF routines, build quality, ergonomics, service, 3rd party ecosystem, etc.

- A

No they aren't, if ultimate DR is your primary criteria then the 5D MkIV with dual pixel RAW processing ETTR'ed is the best performing 135 format sensor available. Yes the 5D MkIV out DR's any Sony or Nikon ff camera.

I’d like to see some real evidence of that.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
719
478
dak723 said:
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.

I hear you, but that's neither reasonable nor consistent with the trends of sensor progress over time. Using the generically cruddy numbers from DXO (as a convenience to make a general point):

A7 I: 14.2 Base ISO DR / 2248 ISO (using their SNR / DR / Color high ISO cutoff)
A7 II: 13.6 / 2449
A7 III: 14.7 / 3730

A7R I: 14.1 / 2746
A7R II: 13.9 / 3434 (in fairness, this is a jump from 36 to 42 MP here)
A7R III: 14.7 / 3523

From gen I to gen III, both A7 lines above gained a fraction of a stop of DR and high ISO performance. A fraction of a stop. It's easy to look at how these sensors test (or how RAW files handle in post) and declare the latest product 'the best ever' -- but when you look at it critically, it's more a trend of creeping up on an asymptote over time.

O course, on chip ADC was a huge deal. But everyone's done that now and any one-time bump to base ISO DR is effectively industry standard now.

Yes, Canon sensors are behind Nikon and Sony. But they are not tremendously behind them for me to want to walk away from the EF lenses + first party AF routines, build quality, ergonomics, service, 3rd party ecosystem, etc.

- A

You can throw charts at folks, you can show them the numbers, but if people truly want to believe that Canon is way behind then they will believe! No use for the truth to get in the way! Belief, belief is all that matters!

Well, if you actually looked at that chart, you would see that they’re behind. But that chart is just a single thing, showing just one thing. Not terribly useful.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
719
478
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
When you compare a 45mp sensor with better noise and dynamic range to a 30mp sensor, the the jump is bigger than you’re stating.

So my A7 I/II/III comparison of three different Sony sensors at the same resolution but from three different points in time was inappropriate... why exactly?

I'll wait.

My point was that sensors aren't galloping ahead in performance year over year. They are creeping forward ever so slightly, as those numbers show.

Your D850 vs. 5D4 reference is misplaced. I concede Canon is slightly behind, but I was talking improvement over time. But, while I'm here:

D810: 14.8 / 2853
D850: 14.8 / 2660 (3 years later, +9 more MP)

If you want to moan about Canon in comparison to Nikon or Sony, go for it. But the idea that everyone's sensors are smashing performance barriers and obsoleting last-gen sensors with frequent large performance bumps, that's simply not happening right now.

- A

The fact that they can add 9mp more, and have the same basic numbers proves my point, and by the way, the 850 is widely considered to have better IQ. That’s not really in dispute. How fast are these advances coming, well, we never really know. That because while we see the improvements from year to year, historically, it doesn’t tell us what’s going on behind the lab doors. Remember that the Nikon D700 shocked everybody when it came out, and ended Canon’s Sensor dominance.

We don’t need to f]defend Canon’s honor here, they’re just cameras, after all, and they’re what I use exclusively, and have since about 1970, so I’m not trying to dig anything here. But the fact is that Canon is behind, though by not much, it’s true. But I’d like to see them move ahead decisively. Don’t all of us here?
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
melgross said:
I’d like to see some real evidence of that.

I'm completely lost. Aren't you the one demanding the sensors catch up to the bad guys?

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
melgross said:
We don’t need to f]defend Canon’s honor here, they’re just cameras, after all, and they’re what I use exclusively, and have since about 1970, so I’m not trying to dig anything here. But the fact is that Canon is behind, though by not much, it’s true. But I’d like to see them move ahead decisively. Don’t all of us here?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying present evidence from virtually every manufacturer would imply that a massive performance leap forward isn't likely in 2018 unless more drastic changes are taken on -- like going to medium format.

Canon, like Sony, like Nikon, will continue to tweak and improve their sensor designs. But I think the days of 1-2 stops better performance than the last model (in the same size / price point) are behind us, that's all.

Don't misunderstand me: I'd love what you are asking for. I just don't think it's a reasonable ask.

- A
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,765
2,425
melgross said:
Remember that the Nikon D700 shocked everybody when it came out, and ended Canon’s Sensor dominance.

Sensor dominance? Is that really a thing’? Fine, it ended. So what? Outside of propagating interminable internet debates, what was the result of the end of Canon’s ‘sensor dominance’? What happened to Canon’s market share after they no longer had ‘sensor dominance’?

By all means, continue the debate – I’m sure it’s highly relevant here on the internet. But please realize that in the real world – out there where people buy cameras and take pictures – it’s completely irrelevant.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
melgross said:
privatebydesign said:
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.

I hear you, but that's neither reasonable nor consistent with the trends of sensor progress over time. Using the generically cruddy numbers from DXO (as a convenience to make a general point):

A7 I: 14.2 Base ISO DR / 2248 ISO (using their SNR / DR / Color high ISO cutoff)
A7 II: 13.6 / 2449
A7 III: 14.7 / 3730

A7R I: 14.1 / 2746
A7R II: 13.9 / 3434 (in fairness, this is a jump from 36 to 42 MP here)
A7R III: 14.7 / 3523

From gen I to gen III, both A7 lines above gained a fraction of a stop of DR and high ISO performance. A fraction of a stop. It's easy to look at how these sensors test (or how RAW files handle in post) and declare the latest product 'the best ever' -- but when you look at it critically, it's more a trend of creeping up on an asymptote over time.

O course, on chip ADC was a huge deal. But everyone's done that now and any one-time bump to base ISO DR is effectively industry standard now.

Yes, Canon sensors are behind Nikon and Sony. But they are not tremendously behind them for me to want to walk away from the EF lenses + first party AF routines, build quality, ergonomics, service, 3rd party ecosystem, etc.

- A

No they aren't, if ultimate DR is your primary criteria then the 5D MkIV with dual pixel RAW processing ETTR'ed is the best performing 135 format sensor available. Yes the 5D MkIV out DR's any Sony or Nikon ff camera.

I’d like to see some real evidence of that.

Can you define “real evidence”?

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

For my uses, it is too much of a pain in the butt to consider, but then I’m able to “make do” with 1Dx dynamic range.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
719
478
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
I’d like to see some real evidence of that.

I'm completely lost. Aren't you the one demanding the sensors catch up to the bad guys?

- A

I would just like to see some evidence of what was said. There was a claim made. That’s all.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
719
478
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
We don’t need to f]defend Canon’s honor here, they’re just cameras, after all, and they’re what I use exclusively, and have since about 1970, so I’m not trying to dig anything here. But the fact is that Canon is behind, though by not much, it’s true. But I’d like to see them move ahead decisively. Don’t all of us here?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying present evidence from virtually every manufacturer would imply that a massive performance leap forward isn't likely in 2018 unless more drastic changes are taken on -- like going to medium format.

Canon, like Sony, like Nikon, will continue to tweak and improve their sensor designs. But I think the days of 1-2 stops better performance than the last model (in the same size / price point) are behind us, that's all.

Don't misunderstand me: I'd love what you are asking for. I just don't think it's a reasonable ask.

- A

I don’t consider it to be a massive step. But again, when looking at sensors with a lot more pixels - smaller pixels, and yet better pixel performance, even as you say, it’s slight, I can see Canon making a bigger per pixel performance boost if they don’t add all those pixels. I don’t understand what the controversy is all about. It’s pretty straightforward. I would,d like to see a 1.5 stop improvement. I’m not saying they can do that right now.

I’m not happy about the renewed megapixel race. It seems that it’s the amateur market that cares about that. Meanwhile both Canon and Nikon have top shelf pro cameras that are at the 20mp level, and have been for some time.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
melgross said:
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
We don’t need to f]defend Canon’s honor here, they’re just cameras, after all, and they’re what I use exclusively, and have since about 1970, so I’m not trying to dig anything here. But the fact is that Canon is behind, though by not much, it’s true. But I’d like to see them move ahead decisively. Don’t all of us here?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying present evidence from virtually every manufacturer would imply that a massive performance leap forward isn't likely in 2018 unless more drastic changes are taken on -- like going to medium format.

Canon, like Sony, like Nikon, will continue to tweak and improve their sensor designs. But I think the days of 1-2 stops better performance than the last model (in the same size / price point) are behind us, that's all.

Don't misunderstand me: I'd love what you are asking for. I just don't think it's a reasonable ask.

- A

I don’t understand what the controversy is all about. It’s pretty straightforward. I would,d like to see a 1.5 stop improvement.

I don’t think wanting an improvement is controversial. Rather, the precipitating post that canon is behind was merely incorrect. If one goes through the trouble of exploiting the subframe associated with DCRAW, you can recover a ~14 stop scene with a single exposure from a 5D4, which is above the 13.5 and 13.55 of a7R3 and D850, respectively.

1.5 stops more? Sure, that would be nice. Might be impossible, but nice.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
melgross said:
I would,d like to see a 1.5 stop improvement. I’m not saying they can do that right now.

Ah. That red bit above was not clear to me. Most folks who want stronger sensors want everything immediately. :D

- A
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
I would,d like to see a 1.5 stop improvement. I’m not saying they can do that right now.

Ah. That red bit above was not clear to me. Most folks who want stronger sensors want everything immediately. :D

- A

What do we want?
“Time travel”
When do we want it?
“That’s irrelevant.
 

Cryve

EOS 90D
Jul 4, 2018
115
74
Germany
As for Aps-c the nikon d500 has the cleanest iso performance. It has nearly zero color noise, while the 7dii and 80d have much more color noise.

Do you think that canon can make the 7d iii have the same or better iso performance than the d500 and correct their color noise issues?
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
719
478
3kramd5 said:
melgross said:
privatebydesign said:
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.

I hear you, but that's neither reasonable nor consistent with the trends of sensor progress over time. Using the generically cruddy numbers from DXO (as a convenience to make a general point):

A7 I: 14.2 Base ISO DR / 2248 ISO (using their SNR / DR / Color high ISO cutoff)
A7 II: 13.6 / 2449
A7 III: 14.7 / 3730

A7R I: 14.1 / 2746
A7R II: 13.9 / 3434 (in fairness, this is a jump from 36 to 42 MP here)
A7R III: 14.7 / 3523

From gen I to gen III, both A7 lines above gained a fraction of a stop of DR and high ISO performance. A fraction of a stop. It's easy to look at how these sensors test (or how RAW files handle in post) and declare the latest product 'the best ever' -- but when you look at it critically, it's more a trend of creeping up on an asymptote over time.

O course, on chip ADC was a huge deal. But everyone's done that now and any one-time bump to base ISO DR is effectively industry standard now.

Yes, Canon sensors are behind Nikon and Sony. But they are not tremendously behind them for me to want to walk away from the EF lenses + first party AF routines, build quality, ergonomics, service, 3rd party ecosystem, etc.

- A

No they aren't, if ultimate DR is your primary criteria then the 5D MkIV with dual pixel RAW processing ETTR'ed is the best performing 135 format sensor available. Yes the 5D MkIV out DR's any Sony or Nikon ff camera.

I’d like to see some real evidence of that.

Can you define “real evidence”?

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

For my uses, it is too much of a pain in the butt to consider, but then I’m able to “make do” with 1Dx dynamic range.

That’s nice. Rawdigger is comparing the Canon sensor to the same Canon sensor. I get the dual pixel technology v]Canon has, and it has a lot of potential. I will agree with that. But that link only shows the Canon.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,978
4,731
melgross said:
3kramd5 said:
melgross said:
privatebydesign said:
ahsanford said:
melgross said:
It’s why I want to see a 1.5 stop improvement. That will have to hold up for 3 years in any particular camera model, even though companies will have even more updated sensors in cameras they release a year or two after that one. Just remember that Nikon/Sony aren’t standing still. What may slightly beat them this year, may be noticeably behind them in a year, or two. So you want to stay ahead of that now.

I hear you, but that's neither reasonable nor consistent with the trends of sensor progress over time. Using the generically cruddy numbers from DXO (as a convenience to make a general point):

A7 I: 14.2 Base ISO DR / 2248 ISO (using their SNR / DR / Color high ISO cutoff)
A7 II: 13.6 / 2449
A7 III: 14.7 / 3730

A7R I: 14.1 / 2746
A7R II: 13.9 / 3434 (in fairness, this is a jump from 36 to 42 MP here)
A7R III: 14.7 / 3523

From gen I to gen III, both A7 lines above gained a fraction of a stop of DR and high ISO performance. A fraction of a stop. It's easy to look at how these sensors test (or how RAW files handle in post) and declare the latest product 'the best ever' -- but when you look at it critically, it's more a trend of creeping up on an asymptote over time.

O course, on chip ADC was a huge deal. But everyone's done that now and any one-time bump to base ISO DR is effectively industry standard now.

Yes, Canon sensors are behind Nikon and Sony. But they are not tremendously behind them for me to want to walk away from the EF lenses + first party AF routines, build quality, ergonomics, service, 3rd party ecosystem, etc.

- A

No they aren't, if ultimate DR is your primary criteria then the 5D MkIV with dual pixel RAW processing ETTR'ed is the best performing 135 format sensor available. Yes the 5D MkIV out DR's any Sony or Nikon ff camera.

I’d like to see some real evidence of that.

Can you define “real evidence”?

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Canon-dual-pixel-technology

For my uses, it is too much of a pain in the butt to consider, but then I’m able to “make do” with 1Dx dynamic range.

That’s nice. Rawdigger is comparing the Canon sensor to the same Canon sensor. I get the dual pixel technology v]Canon has, and it has a lot of potential. I will agree with that. But that link only shows the Canon.

I don't make a "claim" I made a statement.

The above linked page illustrates that there is another stop of highlight latitude within the second frame, which if you think about the way they are processing the master file is obvious. Ergo add 1 stop to any testers DR range for a normal 5D MkIV file.

Most agree that the measurements here are the best indicator. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7R

On this chart the standard 5D MkIV reading is 0.8 of a stop behind the D850 and 0.82 of a stop behind the A7R (Sony's best performer). Add back the stop the Dual Pixel RAW affords you and the 5D MkIV is the best by 0.18 of a stop. I'd also point out that below 600 iso the 5D MkIV comfortably outperforms the Sony A9 even without the dual pixel cleverness.

These are not "claims" they are facts backed up with results and a published methodology you can replicate yourself.
 
<-- start Taboola -->