semorg: 1/3 inch sensor at 1.27 megapixels = 63.5 megapixel Full Frame sensor!
Oh, a link about video and low res stills. Failed attempt. Also, didn't you claim that 12MP do not suffice for a DSLR or even a compact? The stills in that link fall well short of even 12 MP. Never mind the other flaws mentioned and hack required.
But I admire your dreams. ;-)
Baloney. All manufacturers "cook" ftheir RAW files to some extend. If you've ever worked with dedicated astrophotography CCD systems, then you know what raw RAW looks like, with all the pixel flaws in all their glory. And do a whole lot of "cooking" yourself. Canon also bakes optical corrections in some of its RAW files. Black blacks to hide shadow flaws is actually a known Canon jpeg trick to hide its shadow issues in many of its older cameras. For processed RAW files, it's a choice, since the output medium tends to have far less DR, so you compress your values into a gamma curve of your choice.
As for your RAW compression theories, that currently (visually) affects extreme transitions between certain values at worst. But uncompressed RAW doesn't magically bypass the Canon ADC's and therefore deals with the exact same read noise, thus DR limitations.
Still waiting for a valid single shot full resolution 14 EV Canon example to examine.
Sdaniella: Powershot G-series dcams initially had larger pixels (larger than 3um), albeit with lower res fewer pixels, and over time, progressively got smaller pixels, sub-3um pixels, and then finally, sub-2um pixels, as the pursuit of more mp for higher res was achieved, and incremental improvements for IQ in lo-light at hi-ISOs
now, that the mp 'war' has cooled off for dcams, and interest has waned as smartphones have included its mp war (encroaching on smaller sensor dcam territory)
offering larger sensor in small dcam bodies (and smartphones, too) is much welcome, and long overdue:
it's nice to see Powershot G-series also returning to larger pixels, larger than 3um pixels for G1X-series, and larger than 2um pixels for G-series (G7X, even though this is more an S-series form factor model, like the S120)
sub-2um pixel dcams can remain reserved for super-zooms, sub-3um for medium zooms, which could mean many more short-zoom or prime lens models with sub-4um pixel sensors for fixed lens dcams
Is Sdaniella still harping on about "dual/multi ISO" as the savior for high DR shooting, while leaving all its well documented flaws (huge loss of vertical resolution, even more so when extra blur filters are applied to hide extra aliasing and moiré effects) unmentioned? Or the fact that you have to hack your firmware first and possible brick your camera?
Oh yes. Much better than natively having full resolution 13-14 EV rather than a measily 10-11 usable stops (after accounting for ugly patterns). When wearing pink Canon glasses that is.
I have yet to see examples of single shot Canon RAW files that can come close to 14 stops usable DR, without sacrificing half the vertical resolution (and introducing bad moiré and aliasing artifacts in certain areas along the way, or softening output in those areas by attempting to hide the flaws with crude blurring) or other firmware hacks and without the usual banding.
Prove me wrong, I'll be waiting.
As for DXO, they're actually being kind on Canon sensors, since they do not account for banding, which further limits the useful DR of many Canon cameras, beyond the numbers stated.
You're reaching, as usual.
Tonkotsu Ramen: 1 second sounds slow, and it is slow (it's actually under 1 second), but I think you should put it into perspective.
It's faster anything canon has ever put out.
My S90 took 3 seconds between shots. The EOS-M was 2-3 seconds. The G1X M2 and canon s120 are both over 1 second per shot. So canon is making progress.
The AF performance is disappointing though. I find that the touch shutter is more accurate than actually using the shutter button.
Exactly, today's camera market is not a vacuum for Canon. No other compact camera in the premium market is this slow. In fact, the Sony cameras using the same sensor, are up to 12 times faster shot to shot in RAW. That's current state of technology.
My 7 (!) year old Panasonic superzoom took 2 seconds to recycle between RAW shots using a fast card. And that was considered slow....
Fastforward to 2014 and a camera costing almost twice as much as the Panasonic mentioned....
falconeyes: DPR could have done a much better job when reporting this.
Let me fill in the missing facts:
1. 0.005 lux is -9 EV (almost exactly). The scene is pitch black dark indeed.
2. However, to judge the sensor, an EV figure w/o aperture and exposure time is meaningless.
3. According to Sony, it is F1.4, 1/60s exposure. -9 EV then requires ISO 6,000,000 to expose correctly. I.e., the image shown is ISO 6m.
4. That's 3.9 stop beyond e.g., the A7s highest iso level of 410k. But the image quality shown by Sony for a tiny 400x300 pixel image is terrible. While the A7s is still ok at 410k.
Therefore, no conclusion that this chip would be more sensitive than other sensors can be drawn from matrerial provided. Just marketing non info.
And btw, at quantum efficiencies already as high as 65% and read noise as low as 0.4 e- (A7s) rest assured that no miracles are left in this field if you cannot break the laws of nature.
But the A7S sensor is also 50 times larger. Take 1/50th of a portion of an A7S image at its top sensitivity, pushed 4 stops. Then compare noise at the same output size. ;-)
Sdaniella: I'd rather have ultra-lowlight FF sensor with CLEAN NOISELESS video capability at high ISOs, say from Canon (in 2013 March) which even Sony Alpha 7S lacks (a compromised product, in 2014 April), than a tinier Sony sensor that's noisy in ultra-low light hardly better than its A7S FF sensor
Canon FF CMOS color video sensor, that shoots HD (1080p) in sub-lux 0.010 (less than one-third of moonlight; specifically, no moonlight at all):
Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture (stars, meteors, etc):http://vimeo.com/61250248
same Canon FF CMOS video sensor capturing bioluminescent fireflies under a moonless night in the forest:http://petapixel.com/2013/09/13/canon-debuts-exciting-prototype-sensor-exceptional-low-light-capability
All Sony can do is show they have a long way to go to to meet Canon users preferences since Canon appears more on-track to deliver what we want, that Sony's A7S is just a rushed compromised half-effort that falls short of delivering good IQ
Uh. The 5DmkIII costs 40% more than the A7S, right now. And in the low light (incandescent spectrum) test scene, the 6D clearly loses out too, especially with shadows turning purple earlier.
star shooter: This sensor would be ideal for the Astronomical fraternity and hopefully inspire Canon, Nikon or even Sony, to bring out an Astro DSLR that has full corrected colour and sensitivity to equal or better the now defunct Canon 60Da.
"if you know what you're doing"
If you're dreaming about analogue signals rather than useful data.
" or clean 1080p Low-Light video capturewhat others have YET to do with stills or video"
If you close your eyes and ignore the A7S, which no current Canon on the market can equal in low light for both S/N ratio in video or stills.
"every mfr is guilty of this."
That's why Toshiba, Sony and Nikon are not able to get a useful 14 stops (or more) of DR out of their sensors either after passing through the ADC's and the rest of the chain. Oh wait.
Even some APS-C cameras manage to output around 14 useful stop of DR.
Contrary to the DR numbers you quoted, which no one can ever extract from those cameras, due to their noisefloors, never mind banding further diminishing useful output.
peterwr: "The ability to render color in near darkness is useful in automotive cameras that must make do with light on moonless nights."
Since most cars (and drivers) use headlights to deal with moonless nights, I'm guessing we're talking about *military* automotive cameras here. That and/or autonomous vehicles. Interesting, nevertheless.
Headlights mostly point forward. Sooner or later, cameras such as these will become additions to or replace mirrors (in some cars they already are/do). And automatic obstacle detection (or even braking) systems can benefit from cameras covering a much larger angle than what the headlights cover too. "Eyes" all around the car.
TrojMacReady: Maybe worth mentioning here that Lollipop finally supports RAW shooting. Not sure if the Nexus 9 (and 6) camera apps natively support it, but 3rd party apps should soon allow it.
No, my comment was more towards Android 5.0 (Lollipop) devices in general.
..and the first 3rd party app with RAW support for Lollipop (in this case for the Nexus 5) is a fact:https://github.com/PkmX/lcameraHere are some examples of the improvements made possible:http://imgur.com/a/qQkkR#4
Maybe worth mentioning here that Lollipop finally supports RAW shooting. Not sure if the Nexus 9 (and 6) camera apps natively support it, but 3rd party apps should soon allow it.
Some hefty vertical banding in sunset shot #14, especially considering this was already downsampled a lot.
Richard Shih: Nexus 6 phone dimensions:
• 159.3 x 83 x 10.1 mm (6.27 x 3.27 x 0.40 in)
Kindle Fire HD 6 tablet dimensions:
• 169 x 103 x 10.7 mm (6.7 x 4.1 x 0.4 in)
~10 x ~20 x 0.6 mm difference. At least this is the first thought I had...
But 78% more green subpixels, to which the eye is most sensitive (see Bayer for example).
kevin_r: I'm just getting this definite impression that Amazon/Dpreview is at loggerheads with Sony.They seem to be sending a message that Sony will be treated with scorn and contempt unless Sony ponies up some moolla somewhere.Why do I say this?Look at the treatment the Sony A77 mark II is getting even though it has been out on the market since August already.Then, this specific article is clearly sending the message - "Oh, sorry, we didn't see you there - your cubicle was so small and unnoticeable....!"
Great way to go, guys. Keep it up. Sony will soon cave in and spend some moolla as required.
Never enjoyed the CD and DVD, did you (which Sony and Philips introduced together too).
Marcelobtp: Sony should pusuit with A7 cameras the low megapixel low light performance and video performance in a box.And sports Af if possible.High megapixel count needs to be put in a very good tripod, and very good lenses to get the best of it. A7s is not a niche if priced right. I would switched to sony if A7s had better and faster Af, and the 4k video internal.Next iteration please bring this, and make more faster primes.The core of the system should be faster and small primes with aperture control.
Anything larger than f/1.8 loses increasing amounts of efficiency on digital sensors due to the combination with oblique light rays.Cameras mostly compensate for that under the hood through extra gain, so you don't see that in your shutterspeeds, but you can notice it in the amount of noise. In practise this means f/1.2 lenses practically give you no extra usable light over f/1.4 lenses. In other words, there's little benefit, other than a shallower DOF. But on FF, you can get plenty of shallow DOF at f/1.8 to f/2 with mid to longer FL's and at real wide FL's, even f1.2 won't give you much to boast about in terms of limited DOF.
"F2.0 is still pretty slow for primes, yes."Hollow general statement. Show me your >135mm lens faster than that. And yes, factoring in equivalent apertures (accounting for DOF and total light), those Fuji primes suddenly turned "slow" or "consumer oriented".
"They are not bringing you fast primes "
Because a 55mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4 and soon to be disclosed "large aperture prime" according to the roadmap (likely 24mm or 85mm) are slow?
@ vscd : .."Memorysticks.. " Funny people still mention this. Since we're on the subject of cameras, every ILC Sony has released since it took over Minolta's imaging business in 2005, has supported both Memorystick and SD card formats. The benefit of choice, rather than forcing it on to us. In some cheaper cameras that actually resulted in the luxury of having dual slots.
Another example: Sony currently has only 2 battery sizes in its ILC's and the larger one sold and used now, can still be used in cameras dating back almost 10 years. Neither Canon, nor Nikon has that kind of battery policy.