The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development

[3kramd5]

yep. and even more! global shutter means finally getting rid of the 2 remaing mechanical, moving parts in cameras: slapping mirrors and flicking shutter blades. last 2 remnants of 19th century photo-tech that have way too long been denying us the full potential of digital photography in a number of important ways.

looking forward to getting solid-state cameras. wheathersealing much easier. no lubricants needed. none of them splattering all over image sensors (at least in some nikon mirrorslappers). absolutely no vibrations during exposure. direct impact on IQ / sharpness. and image capture in total silence ... less conspicuous, no disturbing. unless an artificial shutter sound is consciously enabled by user (not as default by camera maker!).

really hope it gets implemented in mirrorless cameras asap now. but wont hold my breath ... knowubg "innovative" Canon.

Oh you mean apart from reduced dynamic range and problems using flash. And the fact that no-one has found a way round these for all situations you can used a DSLR.

Stupid AvTvM.

I’ve seen that there is a trade with global shutters and DR, by nothing to suggest it’s a totally unacceptable one.

What problems are there with GS and flash? Are you referring to common rolling electronic shutters or have you see flash used with global shutter cameras (eg the original Blackmagics, or some Red and Sony cinema cameras)? I have not, and am curious why syncing to a CMOS GS is an insurmountable problem.

 

[Talys]

yep. and even more! global shutter means finally getting rid of the 2 remaing mechanical, moving parts in cameras: slapping mirrors and flicking shutter blades. last 2 remnants of 19th century photo-tech that have way too long been denying us the full potential of digital photography in a number of important ways.

looking forward to getting solid-state cameras. wheathersealing much easier. no lubricants needed. none of them splattering all over image sensors (at least in some nikon mirrorslappers). absolutely no vibrations during exposure. direct impact on IQ / sharpness. and image capture in total silence ... less conspicuous, no disturbing. unless an artificial shutter sound is consciously enabled by user (not as default by camera maker!).

really hope it gets implemented in mirrorless cameras asap now. but wont hold my breath ... knowubg "innovative" Canon.

Oh you mean apart from reduced dynamic range and problems using flash. And the fact that no-one has found a way round these for all situations you can used a DSLR.

Stupid AvTvM.

I’ve seen that there is a trade with global shutters and DR, by nothing to suggest it’s a totally unacceptable one.

What problems are there with GS and flash? Are you referring to common rolling electronic shutters or have you see flash used with global shutter cameras (eg the original Blackmagics, or some Red and Sony cinema cameras)? I have not, and am curious why syncing to a CMOS GS is an insurmountable problem.

Clearly CMOS global shutters are possible as the Canon C700 GS, with 14 stops of DR, demonstrates -- but it's a $35,000 camera.

As far as I am aware, there are still some significant challenges in making this something we can have on consumer products though, most significantly heat, price, and size. I believe that "all things being equal" (I mean the constraints of a consumer camera primarily for stills), the rolling shutter just provides better noise and DR at an affordable price.

 

[AvTvM]

Go buy yourself a bullet-style security camera... that ticks off all your boxes. No moving parts. Global shutter! Wide lens! Solid state! It even works in the dark. Or a Ring doorbell It even has audio!
It's easy to get a global shutter camera. It just needs to be CCD instead of CMOS.

Lol. Sensor too small ... hehe

 

[3kramd5]

yep. and even more! global shutter means finally getting rid of the 2 remaing mechanical, moving parts in cameras: slapping mirrors and flicking shutter blades. last 2 remnants of 19th century photo-tech that have way too long been denying us the full potential of digital photography in a number of important ways.

looking forward to getting solid-state cameras. wheathersealing much easier. no lubricants needed. none of them splattering all over image sensors (at least in some nikon mirrorslappers). absolutely no vibrations during exposure. direct impact on IQ / sharpness. and image capture in total silence ... less conspicuous, no disturbing. unless an artificial shutter sound is consciously enabled by user (not as default by camera maker!).

really hope it gets implemented in mirrorless cameras asap now. but wont hold my breath ... knowubg "innovative" Canon.

Oh you mean apart from reduced dynamic range and problems using flash. And the fact that no-one has found a way round these for all situations you can used a DSLR.

Stupid AvTvM.

I’ve seen that there is a trade with global shutters and DR, by nothing to suggest it’s a totally unacceptable one.

What problems are there with GS and flash? Are you referring to common rolling electronic shutters or have you see flash used with global shutter cameras (eg the original Blackmagics, or some Red and Sony cinema cameras)? I have not, and am curious why syncing to a CMOS GS is an insurmountable problem.

Clearly CMOS global shutters are possible as the Canon C700 GS, with 14 stops of DR, demonstrates -- but it's a $35,000 camera.

As far as I am aware, there are still some significant challenges in making this something we can have on consumer products though, most significantly heat, price, and size. I believe that "all things being equal" (I mean the constraints of a consumer camera primarily for stills), the rolling shutter just provides better noise and DR at an affordable price.

But is it a $35,000 camera because of its sensor, and the sensor expensive because it’s made by Canon who doesn’t benefit from economy of scale to burn down NRE in this space, and to whom semiconductor design and fab is merely a choice and not the primary business focus? Or is it a $35,000 camera for other reasons, e.g. whatever drives the price point of competing cinema hardware?

You can go buy an 8k 30p global shutter full frame color (Bayer) CMOS sensor today (well it has a 22 week lead time but you get the idea), and it will only cost you $5,861.26 (min order qty 1). I’m sure it would be nearly or the most expensive individual component, but don’t expect 6k would drive a BOM cost yielding a $35,000 camera.

It only has 68dB of DR, but has available a dual exposure (alternating columns) HDR mode, plus it’s 47MP and space concerns can be mitigated with lower resolution.

I mention it not to say Canon should go package a CMOSIS video sensor, but because I’m talking technology and what can be done now, and questioning the premise that global sensor CMOS is fundamentally flawed for photography (my interpretation of Mike’s post).

 

[Talys]

But is it a $35,000 camera because of its sensor, and is it an expensive sensor because it’s made by Canon who doesn’t benefit from economy of scale to burn down NRE in this space, and to whom semiconductor design and fab is merely a choice and not the primary business focus? Or is it a $35,000 camera for other reasons, e.g. whatever drives the price point of competing cinema hardware?

You can go buy an 8k 30p global shutter full frame color (Bayer) CMOS sensor today (well it has a 22 week lead time but you get the idea), and it will only cost you $5,861.26 (min order 1). I’m sure it would be nearly or the most expensive individual component, but don’t expect 6k would drive a BOM cost yielding a $35,000 camera.

It only has 68dB of DR, but has available a dual exposure (alternating columns) HDR mode, plus it’s 47MP and space concerns can be mitigated with lower resolution.

I mention it not to say Canon should go package a CMOSIS video sensor, but because I’m talking technology and what can be done now, and questioning the premise that global sensor CMOS is fundamentally flawed for photography (my interpretation of Mike’s post).

Well, all the cameras (camcorders) in that category are in the same price range, including the Sony F55, I think, which is also Super 35 global shutter. Note that the Canon has 14 steps of DR and good noise (and I'm sure the Sony is great too), but this is based on a resolution of less than 11 megapixels -- it would be very hard to sell that on a DSLR or MILC that had a primary purpose as a stills camera.

I suspect that if a small global shutter digital camera with a marketable resolution and image quality for the enthusiast/low-end professional flagship market were possible, Sony would have released one already, even if it weren't quite ready for prime time.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up, but my suspicion is that heat, power consumption, cost, and ability to have desirable stills IQ at higher resolution remain an insurmountable challenges with today's technology to build something that would sell. My only evidence to this is that the high-end imaging products that are global shutter are big, expensive, video-centric devices with video-centric sensors (Super 35) and resolutions.

 

[3kramd5]

But is it a $35,000 camera because of its sensor, and is it an expensive sensor because it’s made by Canon who doesn’t benefit from economy of scale to burn down NRE in this space, and to whom semiconductor design and fab is merely a choice and not the primary business focus? Or is it a $35,000 camera for other reasons, e.g. whatever drives the price point of competing cinema hardware?

You can go buy an 8k 30p global shutter full frame color (Bayer) CMOS sensor today (well it has a 22 week lead time but you get the idea), and it will only cost you $5,861.26 (min order 1). I’m sure it would be nearly or the most expensive individual component, but don’t expect 6k would drive a BOM cost yielding a $35,000 camera.

It only has 68dB of DR, but has available a dual exposure (alternating columns) HDR mode, plus it’s 47MP and space concerns can be mitigated with lower resolution.

I mention it not to say Canon should go package a CMOSIS video sensor, but because I’m talking technology and what can be done now, and questioning the premise that global sensor CMOS is fundamentally flawed for photography (my interpretation of Mike’s post).

Well, all the cameras (camcorders) in that category are in the same price range, including the Sony F55, I think, which is also Super 35 global shutter. Note that the Canon has 14 steps of DR and good noise (and I'm sure the Sony is great too), but this is based on a resolution of less than 11 megapixels -- it would be very hard to sell that on a DSLR or MILC that had a primary purpose as a stills camera.

I suspect that if a small global shutter digital camera with a marketable resolution and image quality for the enthusiast/low-end professional flagship market were possible, Sony would have released one already, even if it weren't quite ready for prime time.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up, but my suspicion is that heat, power consumption, cost, and ability to have desirable stills IQ at higher resolution remain an insurmountable challenges with today's technology to build something that would sell. My only evidence to this is that the high-end imaging products that are global shutter are big, expensive, video-centric devices with video-centric sensors (Super 35) and resolutions.

I expect that they charge 35k-ish at least partially because that’s the price point industry is conditioned for. Hell, maybe it costs canon 20,000 to make the c700 sensor, I don’t know. But the state of the art in CMOS imaging today allows broadcast-, archival-, and scientific-quality global shutters at high resolutions, for far less than $35,000 (sensor alone). You could probably repurpose a camera body (maybe different cooling requirements for 1W devices) and spin the downstream electonics into a $10,000 device (rough guess, but informed by an electronics design background, albeit not for consumer markets). Call it $12,000 where the sensor is half the total price. Or go with a lower resolution sensor for perhaps less heat and higher DR.

Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.

 

[Talys]

I expect that they charge 35k-ish at least partially because that’s the price point industry is conditioned for. Hell, maybe it costs canon 20,000 to make the c700 sensor, I don’t know. But the state of the art in CMOS imaging today allows broadcast-, archival-, and scientific-quality global shutters at high resolutions, for far less than $35,000 (sensor alone). You could probably repurpose a camera body (maybe different cooling requirements for 1W devices) and spin the downstream electonics into a $10,000 device (rough guess, but informed by an electronics design background, albeit not for consumer markets). Call it $12,000 where the sensor is half the total price. Or go with a lower resolution sensor for perhaps less heat and higher DR.

Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.

The answer from me is that I have no idea, but I've never heard of it as being a potential problem, and to the contrary, I've often heard global shutter touted as a panacea for rolling shutter flash sync woes.

Quite frankly, it's the only reason I'd care to get rid of a rolling shutter. 250,000 - 750,000+ images to a mechanical shutter is more than I'll use that camera body for anyways, so wear isn't a real issue for me. I don't care about shutter noise enough to be willing to give up anything else. But being able to do full power flash + high speed shutter would definitely be worth something to me for outdoor flash photography.

Assuming you could have much faster shutter speeds (like 1/25,000), in conjunction with flash compatibility, that would be worth a little bit to me too -- it would be great for shooting hummingbirds instead of relying on low power, short flash durations.

 

[3kramd5]

I’m in the same boat. I like to buy stuff so I’ve never worn out a shutter. I don’t shoot video so I don’t care about rolling shutter distortion. But if they can get the read speeds up, which stacked architecture may facilitate, perhaps flash sync will move forward without reliance on leafs.

Incidentally if you’re interested, here is the sensor I referred to previously.

 

[Rocky]

I’m in the same boat. I like to buy stuff so I’ve never worn out a shutter. I don’t shoot video so I don’t care about rolling shutter distortion. But if they can get the read speeds up, which stacked architecture may facilitate, perhaps flash sync will move forward without reliance on leafs.

Both my Canon DSLR have the shutter release button fail on me before anything else.

 

[Mikehit]

Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.

Not global shutters as such, but my comment was aimed at AvTvM's suggestion about doing away with the mechanical shutter and electronic shutters are (at present) limited use in flash photography. The fact no-one has solved this just hows how pathetic AvTvM's criticism of Canon's lack of innovation really is.

 

[AvTvM]

Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.

Not global shutters as such, but my comment was aimed at AvTvM's suggestion about doing away with the mechanical shutter and electronic shutters are (at present) limited use in flash photography. The fact no-one has solved this just hows how pathetic AvTvM's criticism of Canon's lack of innovation really is.

you and Neuro ... nothing but personal attacks ... so typical Canon apologists ...

While I will happily accept possibility of shorter X-Sync times, personally I don't care too much about flash photography. It was you making unfounded statements re. global shutters and (non existing?) "flash problems".

To me, the main benefits of global shutters - and cameras without moving mechanical parts - are
1. no vibration
2. no noise
3. smaller, more robust, less expensive cameras *possible*

 

[Mikehit]

Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.

Not global shutters as such, but my comment was aimed at AvTvM's suggestion about doing away with the mechanical shutter and electronic shutters are (at present) limited use in flash photography. The fact no-one has solved this just hows how pathetic AvTvM's criticism of Canon's lack of innovation really is.

you and Neuro ... nothing but personal attacks ... so typical Canon apologists ...

While I will happily accept possibility of shorter X-Sync times, personally I don't care too much about flash photography. It was you making unfounded statements re. global shutters and (non existing?) "flash problems".

To me, the main benefits of global shutters - and cameras without moving mechanical parts - are
1. no vibration
2. no noise
3. smaller, more robust, less expensive cameras *possible*

Show me where I made comments about global shutters. You said you looked forward to having no mechanical shutter and criticising Canon for their lack of innovation for not bringing forward a camera that no-one else has invented either.

So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) but when someone points out the illogicality of your criticisms, it is not OK to refer to that as 'stupid'. And to you, pointing out the illogicality of your statements is being a Canon apologist?
Sorry, bud but you reap what you sow.

 

[3kramd5]

Show me where I made comments about global shutters.

Maybe somewhere in his long post the nuance was lost, but the quote refers to global specifically, not the current line by line readout implemented in most cameras which have electronic shutters.

 

[AvTvM]

So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) ...

I have never "admitted" a compact, hi-performance, enthusiast-targeted, stills-focused FF MILC would be "a niche product". Quite to the opposite.

Much to your and Neuro's ongoing chagrin i always have and always assert, that such a camera (system) along with some decent, (ultra-)compact, moderately fast primes adnd some decent IQ, compact f/4 zooms would be interesting not only to me but to millions and millions of other photo enthusiasts and potential clients.

Exactly because the main benefits
* smaller, lighter, more robust, less expensive cameras *possible*
* no vibration
* no noise

Just do it, stupid Canon!

 

[Loswr]

i always have and always assert

Lots of people assert things that are complete and utter fallacies.

 

[AvTvM]

typical Neuro, whenever out of arguments ... trying to ridicule and/or attack ad hominem.

but it dont work with me, buddy. ;D

 

[Mikehit]

So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) ...

I have never "admitted" a compact, hi-performance, enthusiast-targeted, stills-focused FF MILC would be "a niche product". Quite to the opposite.

Much to your and Neuro's ongoing chagrin i always have and always assert, that such a camera (system) along with some decent, (ultra-)compact, moderately fast primes adnd some decent IQ, compact f/4 zooms would be interesting not only to me but to millions and millions of other photo enthusiasts and potential clients.

Exactly because the main benefits
* smaller, lighter, more robust, less expensive cameras *possible*
* no vibration
* no noise

Just do it, stupid Canon!

And that is the base of the issue. You claim Canon should create a new line of cameras with their own range of lenses. But where is the evidence that 'millions' would buy them. I never have been, and never will be, an apologist for any company - but what I will do is try and understand why they make the decisions they do.

Sony has made smaller bodies with reputedly better sensors and an increasing number of gizmos built in.Yet over 10 years, you would expect there to be sufficient turnover in users (old fogies dying, young people coming in) for Sony to get a good solid foothold in the market and even get close to Canon as a force in the Camera World if those were such important factors - and new users would not care about having a stack of legacy lenses. But they haven't. Which to me (and probably Canon) only shows that those factors are but a small part of the camera-buying decisions. And in basing a whole camera range on those factors you consider so important would, in market terms, be 'niche'. And yes, you have admitted your requirements are very specific and so by default, you have admitted your requirements are (in market terms) 'niche'.

For the vast majority of people you think would be after the same small size, small excellent lenses as you want, the micro 4/3 range would be even better for them. An increasing number of pros are moving to PanaLympus for that reason so I am starting to think that MFT is as big a threat as Sony is (and Sony is in fact behind MFT in the market statistics).

 

[Loswr]

typical Neuro, whenever out of arguments ... trying to ridicule

If you're going to make ridiculous assertions, you can expect ridicule.

 

[Talys]

So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) but when someone points out the illogicality of your criticisms, it is not OK to refer to that as 'stupid'. And to you, pointing out the illogicality of your statements is being a Canon apologist?
Sorry, bud but you reap what you sow.

AvTvM has actually stated that he thinks that tons of people want his dream camera, which sounds suspiciously like a full frame smartphone with digital zoom (no mechanical or moving parts, size over all else, get rid of "ugly" physical features, walkaround FL's, nothing > 100mm, etc etc). I think the market is more like, single digit, but I guess we'll never find out, because nobody will ever make it.

I don't have a problem with people who don't like Canon cameras, but it irritates me to no end whem someone labels those who do like Canon as "apologists". I mean, if someone wants to go and buy a camera every 24 months and try out every new technology before it's ready for prime time, please do, but don't criticize people who don't want to pay thousands of dollars to be trying out stuff that's half-baked and won't ever be fixed on that hardware iteration.

I personally think it's crazy, because both Canon 1DX Mark II and Sony A7R were released in 2013. One is an excellent professional tool that has received periodic, meaningful firmware updates and is still the best in the business; the other is so "old" that you can hardly give it away.

 

[stevelee]

Since we have raised the issue of flash sync, can somebody quickly comment on the fast flash sync feature? I’ve never used it, and frankly don’t know when I might want to or why. I don’t use flash a lot as it is, but might do more if I knew more what I was doing. How well does the fast sync work and under what circumstances?

I now have a 6D2, and haven’t noticed this feature in instructions for any previous camera of mine.