I'd disagree about the 5Dsr having soft video, I found the 1080p to be way cleaner and generally better than I get from my GH4 (or GH3) and without all the aliasing/moire. It's not a video-centric camera at all - you really need a microphone that allows audio monitoring, for example (the separate RGB histograms are great though). BTW I think the trick is to use the Neutral profile and grade later (you can load in the Technicolor Cineon profile but IMHO Neutral is good). Oh, it's not going to stop me shooting the GH4 at 4k as my main video camera, but it is impressive compared to the GH3/GH4 for 25/30fps 1080p.
P.S. Rolling shutter (from my test video) is 27.7ms, so not that great but not dreadful (5DmkII is 25.9, 5DmkIII is 20.5, A7s full-frame 1080p is 30.5, and A7s 1080p APS 19.5).
P.P.S. For more...http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7961-canon-5ds-takes-a-backwards-step-for-video-severe-rolling-shutter-moire-and-lack-of-uncompressed-hdmi/?page=5
Alan WF: This is a well-balanced presentation of the uses and limitations. Well done, Damien.
I'd have added all you get is quite low-bitrate (12.5MB for 30 images) and low bit-depth (8-bit) images vs. the much higher bits/image and bit depth you can get from shooting Raw. It's still a great idea but I'd have still liked to get the same focus shifting functionality while shooting a 10-ish frame burst (which could be quite quick as no need for inter-frame AF).Looking forward to the promised (?? in Swedish) GH4 implementation... also worth a mention?http://www.43rumors.com/panasonci-gh4-will-get-post-focus-firmware-update/
If one wanted to use this feature to do a quick (relatively) and dirty focus stacking for macro, does it seem logical/possible through the LR path?
Hypothetically, as I understand the feature, the process would be:1) take the shot and then2) use LR to establish up to 30 jpegs, each with a different point of focus. 3) stack the 30 shots in PS or other appropriate editing software4) edit, enhance, etc. the result as needed/desired
Considerations I might consider adding in the process would be:1) convert the first output (the 30 frames) to TIFF or other lossless format before the stacking and editing phase in order to minimize damage to the final output2) as with all macro, plan the shot in advance and use a tripod3) select the frames to be used with care - using all 30 might not add enough to make the processing time and overhead worth it.
Does this seem either doable or desirable? Comments, please.
You can just load 4k video into Photoshop CS6 or CC and go from there. (It has a fair bit of video handling built-in.) No need for Lightroom as there aren't any Raw photos.
Franka T.L.: well, I consider myself a steady hand but I do not think I am steady enough to the point that I can safely warrant shake free capture for a whole second or more. Practically I think this still demand some form of proper support if wanting to maximize the quality to the capture.
Basically its old school routine now combined and automated, which is not bad. It would still be a better one still if the crop is not there or at least not so severe and that RAW data could be captured
Just read them into photoshop as an image stack and tick the Align Images checkbox...
perry rhodan: Stacking for macro anyone? And full auto ppp lease. To me That seems to be the main advantage .
I'm not sure I'd call 8MP low-res - it's about 4kx2k which will be fine for most uses. People used to do posters with 6MP cameras and get no complaints. At 200 dpi it's 19" x 10.8" (or 16" x 9" at 240dpi).
PowerG9atBlackForest: "...Sensor size plays a large part in determining the image quality a camera is ultimately capable of and, in general, the larger a camera's sensor, the better the image quality..."
What is written like a rock solid statement and probably is meant as such, under the light of reality, has to be considered as a very private opinion of the three authors - I can't believe Richard is amongst them. At least, he should know better.
Noise is incredibly hard to compare as all in-camera and external software will try to hide it unless you go to great lengths to avoid that. You also end up comparing detail loss and artefacts which is tough. Better software noise removal is one of the great advances in noise reduction over the last 10 years, at least as much as advances in sensor design.
(A modern sensor might have only two electrons of read noise, if it's 50% efficient - QE that is - then at a level of 16 photons you'll have as much noise in the light as from the sensor and the light rapidly pulls away above that very dark level -average noise in light is the square root of the photon count.)
Generally people look at a picture at a resolution where you can't see the pixels (well, hopefully anyway - I had a friend buy a Plasma TV that was too big for his room and he got to see pixels until he moved it to one corner and the sofa to the opposite one), hence noise shouldn't be a pixel issue. Not that people will stop zooming in and looking at it, of course...
Dr_Jon: In other shock news water found to flow downhill...
Next thing you know Canon will be announcing a 1Dx2... nah, surely not... ;-)
I understand Canon have tasked one whole PR firm to that very subject... but they haven't reported back yet...
Skipper494: How can the Nikon 1 possibly be in the same group as the Sony Alpha a77 II ? These roundups are getting more and more ridiculous.
Average street price would be better, or just go with whatever your favourite advertiser charges for them... I'd be tempted to include cash-back deals lasting to past Christmas too... the purchasers will.
Or you could just suggest most people would show a greater improvement by a good photography book or course... Cameras have been really pretty good for a while. (I was using a 5DmkII today and it's still a great camera - okay only as Canon's service centre has had my 5Dsr for a total of 27 days now... foo...)
I expect the 1Dx2 to have on-chip ADCs and lots of DR... Also lots of performance...(Canon have the technology and the Fab to make the sensors, they have just stuck to their cheaper Fab for the larger sensors and used the new one for the smaller sensors so far.)
In other shock news water found to flow downhill...
With the same f-stop any size lens gets the same light per unit area (so bigger sensors receive total light as per their greater area over smaller sensors, a FF sensor is about 4x the size of m43 and will get 4x the Photons on a f2.8 lens and so have half the noise relative to signal). The manufacturers make it so if you select ISO 100 the exposure will work out regardless of camera. (It's complicated, there are some rules but different manufacturers leave different amounts of highlight room.)Example (using DXO's numbers):Canon 7DmkII pixels can contain at most 29544 electrons, they convert 59% of photons into electrons and have 3670x5496 pixels. Hence it's okay up to 596B electrons or 1010B incident photons.OMD-E-M1 = 15716, 48%, 3472x4640, 253B electrons, 527B photons.About half the photons gives about sqrt(2) or 40% more noise relative to signal. (Which will massively dominate the sensor noise almost everywhere.)
$1100 is outrageous, but if you want 20fps with AF they have a compelling solution that no-one else can match.
I have three m43 cameras but still struggle how the T6s is rated lacking for DR and the EM5II as good? They are both around 12 stops at base ISO and similar at higher ISO. I'd have rated both of them as average and the Nikons as good, being 14+ stops at low ISO per DXO.
Most of the noise comes in with the light. Bigger sensors pretty much always capture more light. Hence bigger sensors have less noise and are capable of better image quality. Seems pretty clear...
Biowizard: Bravo Olympus!
I have always admired the way this company has been willing to try new things and buck the trend set by Canikon and (once upon a time) Minoltax. Olympus brought us the half-frame PEN cameras, the wonderful OM-1 system SLR, the first self-cleaning digital SLR sensor (in the E-1), and truly usable, SLR-replacement mirrorless system cameras in the OM-D series.
Cooking them more didn't work out so well for them...
On a more serious note profit figures for short periods are always iffy as there are so many things you can do to fudge them. Counting camera sales to subsidiaries rather than outside the group, for example. Also putting off some payments to other people and bringing stuff forward. Lowering investment in R&D usually works too.
It's good they are doing better, I wish good things to all camera companies, but their sales are so low they will always be living dangerously with their overheads since, unlike Leica, they can't charge that much more than the larger companies for their cameras.
Marty4650: No manufacturer would admit to discontinuing a camera because there are "better and more upgraded" models in that market.
Heck, five years AFTER Olympus discontinued Four Thirds, they are still claiming it has NOT been discontinued! They even list a five year old model on their website, and still offer lenses for a system they abandoned.
There is something very wrong with that email.
But as long as Samsung doesn't issue a firm denial, the speculation will continue.
@cantanima bis - link to the forum please?
brownie314: Wow, I didn't believe it at first, but as time goes on, more and more reports seem to verify that Samsung is getting out of the ilc market.
But are any of these reports anything other than reposts of an original rumour? (I have no idea what's true, but this sounds pretty bogus.)
firesurfer: in related news
Samsung Is Shutting Down Its Digital Camera Divisionhttp://au.idigitaltimes.com/samsung-shutting-down-its-digital-camera-division-110531
Both of those are just reposting:http://www.sammobile.com/2015/11/03/samsung-rumoured-to-shut-down-its-digital-camera-department/Which gives no sources so seems a bit brave to take as more than a rumour.
CheersUK: OK, usually there is no smoke without a fire. The fact that Samsung haven't directly addressed all these rumors, after all this time...well the silence is deafening. The fact that their customers already invested heavily in their system are probably wondering what the future holds for them...like an expensive camera bag full of equipment that will no longer be supported??
I'm sure that when Samsung does release some information, it will be in their usual style, of actually creating more questions than answers...although I'm sure they'll wait till most of the inventory is sold, before they do.
In the camera rumours business it's almost all smoke and no fire...
Plus big decisions usually have to be given to shareholders/investors first or you'll get in trouble.