The Full List of Unreleased Canon Camera ID’s

[fullstop]

Very compact mirrorless FF ILCs are possible, without any need to to limit oneself with a one-trick pony camera [bolted on prime lens only].

 

[ahsanford]

Very compact mirrorless FF ILCs are possible, without any need to to limit oneself with a one-trick pony camera [bolted on prime lens only].

I wouldn't paint this as an 'or'. I think it's an 'and'. Companies could (and arguably should) do both.

Offer multiple ILCs at various price points for enthusiasts, pros, etc. and a single super-pricey FLC for non-photographers who simply want their IG work to pop.

I'm not saying an FLC should be a high priority, but it should be in the portfolio mix somewhere.

- A

 

[fullstop]

I'm not saying an FLC should be a high priority, but it should be in the portfolio mix somewhere.

don't see why. Nothing an ILC camera can not do better.

It would be very very interesting to know, how many RX1R / II copies Sony has sold. I expect the number to be incredibly low.

 

[3kramd5]

Funny how deceiving the photo of the cameras is fixed so the camera to the left is much farther down than the next camera and the next one farther down from the right camera to give a totally false impression of the far left one being substantially smaller than the far right camera.

It's not by design or bias, it's tied to whether the page aligns things to the eye cup or the LCD -- and CameraSize isn't exactly consistent on that front.

But here you go. Corrected.

The point is sufficiently clear (at least in this instance) that PS work shouldn't be necessary: the combination of pulling the mirror and tucking parts of standard/wide lens into the body in a fixed lens design adds up to a considerably smaller package. For all the perfectly fair darts we throw at a mirrorless rigs' thinness being fairly unimportant if you use long / fast glass, a modestly/intelligently spec'd fixed lens rig can sit in this sweet spot of size savings.

- A

I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.

 

[dak723]

It’s likely that much of what you’re saying is true, but it’s also likely that they want to move all of their chips to onboard ADC. After all, that’s what got Nikon/Sony in front of Canon in the pixel level IQ race, and they haven’t looked back. Canon is about three generations behind there, even in the chips that do have it.

Hmmm...seriously? Three generations behind? That would be comparing the Sony A7R III with the Canon 5D...
When you compare the same generation, the differences are minor and mostly indistinguishable.

 

[fullstop]

I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.

no. when it comes to SIZE i want to see how chubby or slim that baby is ... sensor plane is totally irrelevant to me in this context. If it has a protruding eye-cup on viewfinder, that eye cup eats up valuable space in my photo bag. The way camerasize does it is perfect. Making SIZE and *mirrorslapping air-filled mirrorbox bloatedness* clearly visible.

 

[ahsanford]

I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.

If you want a smaller size and you keep the lens modestly slow, wider FL, etc.: FLC > Mirrorless ILC > SLR.

I don't need some perfect lining up of the three of them to see that.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

I think they should align them to the sensor plane. Sure, they’ll appear staggered, but at least then they’d be using an important reference all digital cameras have.

no. when it comes to SIZE i want to see how chubby or slim that baby is ... sensor plane is totally irrelevant to me in this context. If it has a protruding eye-cup on viewfinder, that eye cup eats up valuable space in my photo bag. The way camerasize does it is perfect. Making SIZE and *mirrorslapping air-filled mirrorbox bloatedness* clearly visible.

Why is a picture needed for that, though? Total volume is pretty much what you’re interested in right? It would be pretty slick if it could could come up with how to pack things to maximize density. With the modularity limits in my bag, I pretty much have to mount the longest lens to a body and then jigsaw everything around it.

To be fair, I don’t use the website. I can buy the case for picking a volumetric envelope as an aligning feature. I just gravitate towards consistency, and the sensor plane is about the only thing you can count on every digital camera having.

 

[fullstop]

Why is a picture needed for that, though? Total volume is pretty much what you’re interested in right? It would be pretty slick if it could could come up with how to pack things to maximize density. With the modularity limits in my bag, I pretty much have to mount the longest lens to a body and then jigsaw everything around it.

To be fair, I don’t use the website. I can buy the case for picking a volumetric envelope as an aligning feature. I just gravitate towards consistency, and the sensor plane is about the only thing you can count on every digital camera having.

it is not only total volume. It very much depends whether there is protruding stuff. Like lens, grip, viewfinder hump, eye cup etc.

I go about it the other way round. I go with smallest body plus smallest lens for the job. That determines my "smallest" bag size. And when size/weight don't matter, eg. any place i go to by car, then i just take the "storage pelicase" with "everything plus the kitchen sink in it". Plus tripod.

btw. not full frame, but my daughter is very pleased that her new M50 plus her preferred 22/2.0 ["because it is so small and I can get the shots i want with it" ] fits in a Lowepro Dashpoint 20 pouch. Up to now she's been using the EOS M 1st gen plus 22/2.0 in the smaller Dashpoint 10. THOSE are "bag" sizes she and I like.

Unfortunately M50 with 18-55 or 55/200 or 18-150 will not fit into Dashpoint 30. I have already emailed LowePro asking for a "Dashpoint 50" but so far they have nicely and politely declined ...

 

[3kramd5]

Protrusions and bumps (eg viewfinders) don’t typically affect my packing much. The partition walls have enough give to them that they just accept the warts. As long as I can fit the biggest lens I want to bring, I can make it work. If I bring a 300/2.8 or something bigger (rental), it remains separate.

 

[melgross]

It’s likely that much of what you’re saying is true, but it’s also likely that they want to move all of their chips to onboard ADC. After all, that’s what got Nikon/Sony in front of Canon in the pixel level IQ race, and they haven’t looked back. Canon is about three generations behind there, even in the chips that do have it.

Hmmm...seriously? Three generations behind? That would be comparing the Sony A7R III with the Canon 5D...
When you compare the same generation, the differences are minor and mostly indistinguishable.

Eh, my post got borked, and now I don’t want to write the entire thing all over.

So in short form (heh):

Yes 3 generations of sensor. A sensor generation is about 1.5 years. The reason is that Sony has been coming out with new cameras about every 1.5 years, and have been using newer sensors. But a camera model must last about 3 years, so that sensor, in that particular camera has a generation of the same time as the camera.

Canon started well behind Nikon/Sony With the onboard ADC. The Nikon D700 was the model that killed Canon’s sensor leadership. Before that, Canon’s sensors were well ahead of Nikon’s. While because it’s been several years, Canon’s latest sensors are better than otherwise. But don’t go by charts, nikon/Sony are still noticeably ahead. Just consider the resolution of those competing sensors when reading the chart. Even so, I’ve seen noticeable differences between the D850 and my 5Dmk IV. Not in favor of Canon.

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.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Of 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

 

[3kramd5]

I don’t think it’s necessarily right to assume canon will need to learn the same lessons Sony did, so being 3 (defined by on-dye ACD it’s really 2, right?) generations behind does not imply they can’t “catch” sony’s sensor-level performance.

However, canon is focusing on other areas. They might for example constrain ISO performance by using the dual-diode-per-pixel architecture of DPAF sensors, and decide that on balance it’s worthwhile to camera performance especially as they march towards more mirrorless systems. Where does that show up in the sensor lineage?

 

[melgross]

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

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. Those are significantly smaller pixels, and formthem to still be better, even by a half stop, is significant. Why? Because of the well known phenomenon whareas two images of the same size, with equal pixel quality won’t look equal if one has significantly higher resolution. And I’m not talking about sharpness. It’s noise. The higher Rez picture will always look less noisy. We did tests on that in my own lab, years ago, and it still holds true today.

The the practical result is that with the same size image, the 45mp Nikon image (which is slightly better than the Sony sensor) will look quieter.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[3kramd5]

But the goalposts have moved to “exposure latitude.”

In a way that’s fair, most Competing sensors are within spitting distance of each other in one category, so it makes sense to focus them on another category. Of course you’re not gonna get any of the big camera measurement sites to use some weird rawdigger plug-in thingamajig, So unless Canon decides it’s as important as the most vocal forum dwellers and builds it into an accessible format, it might as well not exist.

 

[slclick]

Y'all must have tiny hands for your teeny FF MILC wishlist. Me, I need button and dial separation for no bumping or opening of menus. I have learned I simply cannot do macro on a rail with the M5 like I can the 5D3 since close quarters down low equate to making constant adjustments and when controls are too tight, things get moved. It's also a reason I ditched the Olympus Pen F. Oh to be a small person...(plus you can sleep on jets)

 

[dak723]

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!

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[3kramd5]

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.

I’d say that’s only true if you concern yourself with base sensitivity dynamic range.

Perhaps 13 +/-1 ev or so of dynamic range is roughly the maximum for the prevailing architecture, but there are other performance measures, arguably more important than marginal improvements in DR. There have been advances in other areas, for example framerate, readout speed, OSPDAF, etc.

Note the sensor in the A7R/D800 is only good for ~5FPS. Sony managed a 17% resolution increase and 100% framerate increase (A7R3) without giving up noise performance (in fact improving it). Canon split its pixels in two and, properly processed, has the best DR in class. The narrow focus is good for easy clicks on measurement sites, but tells a fraction of the CMOS image sensor state of the art.