photosincali: I currently shoot Canon but I am not sure why someone would buy this when they can basically by both the 35mm and 50mm art lenses from Sigma. I know some people have the money and just want the brand name but do you really think there would be that big of a difference to justify the price? Maybe I am wrong and it is the greatest lens ever but I just want what works best for the best price, regardless of who makes it.
There's a bit more than 1 reason, I don't know, like, optical performance, weather sealing, CPS, AF performance...
ThePhilips: The "modulo" idea is so obvious, that I think that most makers have already thought about it but put it in the back due to some technical complication.
Otherwise, I prefer the other idea, where pixel's charge data are being read continuously. IOW, sensor sends the data continuously, and the "shutter speed" is just how long the firmware keeps accumulating the data before saying "enough". That removes the overflow completely. And also allows to selectively read more/less from shadows/highlights.
The paper is about the "unwrapping" algorithm and the HDR algorithm, not the camera:
"our work leverages an existing modulo camera(DFPA) to show the effectiveness of UHDR"
It's worth noting that the announcement is regarding a new algorithm for estimating the pixel values when the number of resets is unknown, neither the modulo sensor concept nor the actual hardware are original contributions here.
Tom Caldwell: The big problem is not that Sony fixed the A7R problems with their technical wizardry, and fixed up the interface along the way, but the bald way the original A7R owners were gypped by buying a camera that had solvable issues.
Now we are artfully told that the first investment was really just a fully paid up Beta run model and now they will happily take more money for an upgrade with the fixes now applied.
Oh that I should be so happy not to have been sucked in and made the first purchase.
How about a discounted price for A7R owners now stuck with a flawed camera body that is far from worn out? This camera seems to have so many "problems" now solved that it must only be one step short of land fill.
@oselimg You're being bullied by dpreview? Really?
howardfuhrman: While it is tough for me to defend any tactics used by the Paparazzi in any circumstances, I have little sympathy for the Royal Family. They, by birth, not achievement are born to lives of opulence, primarily at UK taxpayers' expense. Many in the world seek photographs of their family. I do not blame the Royal Family for being upset. but that is the price of being public figures.
The Royal Family are a tourist attraction, I wouldn't want them abolished any more than I would want to abolish Big Ben, The Tower of London etc.
@oselimg Welcome to the 21st century, where people get to respond to factually incorrect accusations made against them!
This is also a private website which can do as it pleases. If you don't like it you can demand your money ba- oh wait.
steelhead3: Does FIFA and EISA have anything in common?
dmanthree: I think this is great, but some day they'll learn it's all about the glass.
There is an *option* to have automatic cropping when you mount an *APS-C* E or A mount lens. Of course full frame A-mount lenses can be used without any crop!
Kevin DiOssi: With the release or announcement of any Canon product these days, it's filled with experts from the interwebs.
Rather than taking a step back and imaging the practical uses for such a camera, and acknowledging that this product is one of the most innovative creations we've ever seen in cameras, we get the "but it doesn't have a Sony sensor" and "it would have more dynamic range if it didn't have a Canon sensor in it" quotes.
It's sad how poisonous DxO has become to the enthusiast and entry level amateur photographers. They really are ignorant to what's important thanks to a meaningless scoring system and scenarios of photography that are rarely ever exploited.
The point is anyone can do 4 million ISO, right now. You just change the amplifier settings. If you're talking about when people will be able to offer ISO 4 million that produces a useable image, then that's never I'm afraid. Shot noise is unavoidable, by Sony / Canon or anyone else.
Don Sata: They still have to work a lot in their lens line up. What's the point in buying a small and not so expensive full frame camera if the only way to use it is with huge 1,000 dollar + lenses?
They need to release a line of good compact +/- 500 dollar f1.8 primes.
Otherwise they will remain the vintage lens enthusiast camera.
I'd certainly buy a whole line of f/1.8 lenses for -500 dollars each!
CameraLabTester: Sony is a great innovator. Really good product.
But a bad parent.
It makes, then abandons many orphans.
What's next? Full Frame?
Just like Canon when they completely ditched the FD mount leaving lots of people with large amounts of FD glass completely in the lurch. It's the price of progress...
Rishi Sanyal: Fun little thought experiment:
If we go by sensorgen, the 1D-X's pixels have a full-well capacity (FWC) of 90,000. Since the pixels on this sensor are 7.5x larger, we can extrapolate that given similar sensor capabilities, the pixels on this sensor can hold ~675,000 photoelectrons.
Now, since each doubling of ISO halves the FWC, ISO 4,000,000 will yield a FWC of roughly 675,000/40,000 = 16.875. Let's be generous and round that to 20. That means white is made from 20 photons.
If we generously place middle grey at 3 EV below clipping, that'd mean midtones are made from 20/8 = 2.5 photons, which itself yields a signal with SNR of 2.5/sqrt(2.5) = 1.6, which is already below most reasonable DR cutoffs. In other words, you'll have ~3 EV dynamic range at best, assuming no read noise whatsoever (bad assumption).
So, either my calculations are *way* off, or there's a limit to these insane ISOs. :)
Rishi, it would be fairly simple to write a script in Matlab to read in an image and simulate a Poisson process. What would be really cool (and something I've been wanting to do for a while but haven't had time) would be to shoot a whole load of ISO 100 images of the same scene and stack them to create a "noise free" master to use to simulate a perfect photon counting sensor.
You could then package that data back into a RAW file (difficult but by no means impossible) and distribute it along with actual RAW files shot of the same scene at different ISO settings. You'd then get a pretty good sense of how close we are to the best possible performance, and what that would mean for the malleability of the RAW data.
I suspect the "ideal" data would look an awful lot better despite only have a stop or two less noise amplitude, as the noise grain would be finer with no clumping or other artifacts.
20 photons per pixel potentially usable, provided you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO electrical noise. The middle image of this collage shows a simulation of 10 photons per pixel.
Chances of this sensor having zero noise.... zero. Add 3e of read noise into the mix and it's not going to look nice at all.
Just what exactly makes this "one of the most innovative creations we've ever seen in cameras"?
There really is no huge challenge in creating a super super high ISO setting on a camera, it's just gain applied to the analogue signal from the sensor.
You could have a ten billion ISO sensor - doesn't mean it would be any good. ISO is a measure of how quickly the highlights clip. It is not a measure of noise or anything else.
I'm not attacking Canon, I'd say the same if any manufacturer announced the same product. You simply can't get past shot noise, as Rishi mentioned above.
janist74: Looks great and high ISO improvements are welcome, but why no native ISO 100? This (a really clean base ISO) would be essential for landscape photographer and all APS-C can do it without a problem.
ISO is a measure of *sensitivity*, not *noise*.
Take a camera with native sensitivity of ISO 200. Glue a 1-stop ND filter to the sensor. Now it has a native sensitivity of ISO 100, but you haven't done anything to improve noise performance - it's still the same sensor.
nitroman: I downloaded both the raw files from Canon 5Ds and Canon 5Dsr.
It seems that if i apply more sharpening to the Canon 5Ds raw file, I get much the same results as the 5Dsr but without aliasing ... What does everyone else find ?
Also, if Canon add the anti aliasing filter using in camera software / firmware (rather than hardware modification), why don't they give us all the option of swicthing the anti aliasing on or off as required. This would then mean we only need one camera model not two ... ;)
Maybe the clever Magic Lantern guys can crack the code to do this ... lol
Deconvolution can restore the effects of an anti-aliasing filter (to an extent), but that's not what I was talking about.
I was talking about reversing the effects of aliasing (moire) itself, which is not possible, otherwise manufacturers would do it in software rather than hardware and there would be no D800e or 5DsR option.
For example there's no way to know whether a stripy pattern in the image is the result of moire, or whether the subject itself was stripy!
Canon don't implement the anti-aliasing filter using software. It's impossible to do this in the general case - once aliasing has occurred there's no guaranteed way to reconstruct the original signal.
SimenO1: Is it april 1. or is DxO killing all objectiveness in sensor testing?
I'm also chocked that they choose to manipulate the score on their own product by image stacking.
DxO, you wont work as a neutral source to sensor tests anymore to me.
Even with transparency there is still a clear conflict of interest in reviewing one's own products!
Have you seen the bag they've released with it?
It has a hole for the lens to poke through, turning it into the world's least convincing spy camera ;)
steelhead3: I see a court case coming up with Ricoh
The Canon D60 and Nikon D60 managed to peacefully co-exist without any lawsuits, I don't think anyone is seriously going to confuse the Leica Q and Pentax Q.