JackM: All that to produce boring images. What a waste of resources.
Being there is half the battle. Putting a camera up there allows a photographer to "be there". Once you're there, then you have a chance to catch that one amazing moment that might appear, and to shoot it from a very unique angle. So when you consider that, it's definitely not a waste of resources.
Maybe it's you who is a waste of resources, since all you seem to be able to do is whine incessantly.
smatty: Isn't this what the Fuji X100s already implements?
@smatty - "But doesn't it make the actuel light collecting pixel smaller, causing less DR?"
No, because those split diodes essentially recombine into a single larger diode when capturing the image. As the preview write-up states: "When a photograph is taken, the output from the two photodiodes is combined."
frankje: It seems to me that a major drawback of this system is that it will only work in one direction. It wil focus on vertical lines, not on horizontal lines. I think therefore that Canon has to re-design this sensor so that it can focus in both horizontal and vertical direction.
In real world use, you're never going to shoot an object entirely composed of only horizontal lines that run *perfectly* parallel (and undetectable) with all those diodes. So in real world usage, it should work perfectly fine. As howardroark alluded to, it's the sheer quantity, density, and tiny size of all those diodes that should make them so effective against both vertical or horizontal lines. If any subject line runs askew of any of those diodes, the diodes will be able to detect it. Or think of it another way: if (unlikely as it may be) you have a subject composed entirely of horizontal lines that really is undetectable to the extremely dense diode array, just tilt the camera a bit and the lines are no longer parallel with the diode array, thus making it detectable! That's actually a trick from the days of single-line AF sensors in SLR cameras. But I doubt you'd ever need to do that with the Dual Pixel CMOS, which is literally blanketed with pixel-level AF detectors.
peevee1: "two photodiodes to be mounted within each pixel, both of which can be read independently to achieve autofocus, or together for image capture"
Why not independently for image capture then? It would be 40 Mpix...
@Vitruvius - We have 20mp today. I was shooting weddings with film, then switched to digital with the 6mp Canon 10D. Many of my colleagues had been shooting with the 4mp Canon 1D. 6mp, 8mp, 10mp, 12mp, 16mp...I've shot with all these sensors, and cropped with all of them, too. The notion that not even a 20mp sensor can handle cropping is flat-out crazy non-sense.
To put things into perspective for you, I've seen stunning bird photography shot by Arthur Morris using an 8mp Canon 1D MKII:
Yes, 8mp, stunning photos, beautiful prints, lovely detail. Yet you have people here whining that 20mp just won't cut it, or doesn't leave much room for crop, and that they desperately need even more megapixels. Maybe its these people who need take their blinders off. Go out and shoot, and even crop! People have been producing beautiful photos with far lower megapixels for a long time now!
samir sinha: It appears that DP review is incorrigibly biased in favour of Canon .... No wonder this is made to appear as the next big thing that's happened to SLRs after the instant return mirrors.
In terms of DSLR technology, this is definitely a big advancement. Up until now, on-sensor live-view AF in a DSLR has been pretty lackluster or disappointing. Dual Pixel CMOS is a huge step forward, and it's a pretty ingenious solution. And to put it on a large APS-C sensor with 80% active coverage that brings live view AF to a whole new level in a DSLR, that's pretty cool. In this case, it just happened to be Canon that did it, but I think if Nikon had done it Nikon would have deservingly gotten all the accolades.
By the way, it isn't just dpreview that is giving positive Canon attention for this development. It's coming from pretty much everywhere. So is the whole world "biased in favour of Canon"...or are people just diving Canon its due respect for this development?
dpreviewblog: :)) OFFICIALLY DISCONTINUED body.... but re-borned and repainted... :)) IMHO... that means that Ricoh is unable to make a new REAL product for the market...
"I really dislike those boring-boring-boring all black-on-black camera bodies.... how lame they are, how not with-it in the design department."
Right, so a camera is "lame" just because it doesn't come in other colors. Meanwhile, Pentax thinks they can make their cameras awesome just by slapping a different color scheme on them. Right.
Sure, a bit of color in the marketplace is great. But I'd hardly call a camera "lame" just because you can't match it with your purse or nail polish, Francis.
Francis Carver: "Photographers can also remotely use Live View mode, as well as review and rate their images."
Well, the way I read this... you can only watch remotely what you shoot in LiveView while taking stills, not video. Otherwise they would not have specified that PHOTOGRAPHERS can use LiveView instead of everyone, including those shooting video clips, right?
Amazed still that as far as Canon goes, the maximum frame rate in 1080p is still only at a lamentable 30fps mximum refresh rate, whereas others have been delivering 1080p60 enabled digital cameras for years. This practice on the part of Canon is getting to be rather numbing, really. No idea what the video recording bitrate is, either.
Too bad about cheapening this 70D by having a 3-inch touchscreen on it. The OVF will not work at all in video mode, and then if you want to use a simple LCD VF so you do not have to hold the camera away from your body and squint at the screen, you cannot use the touchscreen feature, either. Ouch!
"Too bad about cheapening this 70D by having a 3-inch touchscreen on it."
Time to join the 21st century. Everything is going touchscreen. The next flagship pro EOS body will probably have touchscreen too. In the very near future, people will instead be saying: "Too bad about cheapening product XYZ by having a non-interactive 3-inch non-touch dumb-screen. How primitive!" You live in a backwards world if you think *adding* touchscreen capability means *cheapening* a product.
"The OVF will not work at all in video mode"
Which is how it is with every OVF.
"and then if you want to use a simple LCD VF so you do not have to hold the camera away from your body and squint at the screen, you cannot use the touchscreen feature, either."
First of all, there is no EVF for the 70D. Secondly, if you're using *any* kind of eye-level viewfinder (EVF or OVF), then you would not be needing to use the touchscreen anyways.
Want some cheese with your whine? LOL.
Gully Foyle: I'm waiting for the day that some mfg will at last drop the "secondary" (i.e current) AF sensor, and use the imaging sensor for all AF. It's obvious we're very near.Then, for instance, Canon can reestablish the Pellix with a pentaprism VF.Or, maybe Nikon, might ditch the mirror altogether, like the K-01, and sport an EVF. Or Pentax who took this (bold but unfortunate) first step.Or maybe SONY, already having a similar technology, does something like that.
The fact is that this development, credited to Fuji, is nearing perfection. It will be a real shame if they don't exploit its full potential.
Kudos to Canon which, at last, proved our doubts wrong.
@Bob Meyer - but Canon is doing it with an APS-C sensor, which is much larger than m4/3. So while Canon may be "playing catch up" in the AF department, m4/3 will always be a much smaller format than APS-C. We may also eventually see a Canon FF mirrorless system, too. I use m4/3, but I also use Canon DSLRs. I've been waiting for Canon to get its act together with mirrorless, and now with their Dual Pixel CMOS, I have a lot of optimism for Canon's mirrorless system(s). This probably means I'll stop investing in m4/3 and wait for the next generation Canon mirrorless body. I still like m4/3, but I like the idea of having some cross-compatibility with my Canon EOS gear.
In the long run, I think we'll look back and see that when it came to mirrorless, Canon started late, caught up, then surpassed the competition. I guess it's the tortoise vs the hare strategy.
Pablom: So all the fuss is about AF speed in live view? who cares about that? I'd assume probably Rebel owners rather than the target market for this camera.
I think people need to get over the notion that DSLR is only for people who take still photos. That's just not the case. It's outdated thinking. The "target market" for this camera now includes people who also shoot video, whether occasionally, or full time and professionally. DSLRs are actually killing the prosumer videocamera market.
Video was important enough for Canon to even include it in their flagship 1DX. Dual Pixel CMOS will eventually be in every new Canon DSLR, including the next flagship body. There's already big interest for this technology across the market spectrum, from low end DSLR buyers to high end pro buyers. So much for your assumption that only Rebel owners would care.
Also, fast AF in Live View is important for photographers who are open-minded enough to realize that there are other useful ways to take a picture besides peeping through a hole in the camera. It's also great for remote shooters using streaming Live View/EOS Remote to see/focus/shoot remotely.
rondhamalam: Aren't the Hybrid AF and DualPixel AF the same thing. The Hybrid AF is already on 700D, the cheaper brother.
It is the Phase Detect AF on LiveView.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-700d-rebel-t5i/
And it is even already on 650D
Nothing's new, isn't it
"Aren't the Hybrid AF and DualPixel AF the same thing."
No, they are not. Dual Pixel CMOS AF is completely different.
Octane: The smooth focus adjustments are great for the kind of video they show. But let's keep in mind every shot was carefully planned and executed to make this new AF shine. Normal people don't shoot video that way. They sit in the audience of their kids recital and shoot the stage, they are at the edge of the field shooting their kids play football or follow their kids around as they play or do random things. Most people don't plan the video they shoot. I think more 'relatable' shooting scenarios would be helpful to see. I also don't think holding an SLR + zoom lens with extended arms in front of you (so you can see the LCD) is a good way to shoot video.
As with any piece of equipment, there is a good way and a bad way to use it. Yes, if you:
"hold an SLR with a 70-200/2.8 one foot in front of your face with one hand...trying to use the other hand to tap the 'freaking' screen...for 30 min shooting a stage show"
...that is a *bad* way to hold it. That's why *no one* holds it that way for that situation! Duh! But frankly, I have used very large lenses to shoot video on a DSLR while looking at the rear LCD. However, as with most video shooting, I'm doing it in fairly short clips, and it's not nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be. In fact, most videographers (who have now switched to DSLRs) eventually realized it's not such a big deal either, so that's why they ended up switching over to a DSLR. Plus, the weight of the lens can give a beneficial stabilizing effect. And if I need to shoot much longer clips, I use my handy-dandy monopod to support the weight of the gear...just like a photographer would!
@Octane - "Let me see how you hold an SLR with a 70-200/2.8 one foot in front of your face with one hand and, follow a kid running on the field, and try to use the other hand to tap the 'freaking' screen. Or hold it like that for 30 min shooting a stage show."
Geez, is that the best you got? First of all, I assume we're still talking about DSLR video shooting, right? Ever hear of a monopod? LOL. Also, I think I'd tap the screen to acquire initial focus, then just let the focus tracking follow the "kid running on the field."
As you can hopefully see, you're simply offering a desperately absurd description that has no resemblance to how people actually do things in the real world! If I know I'm going to be using a 70-200/2.8 to shoot video, I'll mount it on a monopod, allowing me to comfortably shoot for as long as I want. I use a Bogen/Manfrotto 676B Digi Monopod travel monopod that is very light, compact when collapsed, you hardly know its there. Simple solution! Think, man!
ProfHankD: Ok. Two comments:
1. This should have a native single-shot, single-lens, stereo capture. Does it?
2. The central 80% restriction is probably due to the lenses -- most lenses have internal vignetting that crops anglular views pretty significantly. (The darker corners are darker because some rays are clipped entirely.)
This is all about OOF PSFs, which I've discussed all over the place....
@ProfHankD - your linked anaglyph 3D example apparently shows that the dual diode separation is NOT "plenty" for stereo separation, since the stereo baseline used in the lens modification in that link is 29.0mm (1.1 in). A stereo baseline of 29mm is a *bit* more than two diodes sitting adjacent to one another underneath a single microlens that measures just a few microns!
I'm not going to hold my breath for the day when Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS produces amazing 3D. I'm not going to count on it at all.
Joseph S Wisniewski: Canon announces a new sensor that will change the face of the mirrorless market, and Pentax announces powder blue?
This old Pentax fan just wants to hide.
Realistically, I don't think every company can take on a big ship like Canon or Sony, competing against them with cutting edge new sensors and technologies. So I think it's smart for Pentax to go after a different segment of the market...the segment of the market that wants fun, colorful cameras that still perform well. As long as Canon sticks with basic black, and doesn't start offering multi-color bodies in shades like powder blue, etc, then I think Pentax has found a niche that they can have to themselves. I can easily see my sister being attracted to these colorful Pentax cameras, over "boring" black.
mainvision: An important feature missing is GPS. Essential in a travel camera
@Gully Foyle - I'm pretty sure Canon looks at the market situation for each of their models, as well as the spec/feature offering of the individual models. In the case of the 6D, they felt that it needed WiFi *and* GPS. In the case of the 70D, since it already had the Dual Pixel CMOS as such a strong selling point, they probably decided it didn't need both WiFi *and* GPS, too...thus leaving GPS for a future model. If Dual Pixel CMOS had been ready for release in time for the 6D's introduction, we may have very well seen GPS withheld from the 6D, too! Basically, the idea is give the camera just enough for it to do well, without piling on too much (ie. shooting all your bullets, or shooting off more bullets than you need to).
SRT3lkt: The movie is really bad, especially the obtrusive music. Are they trying to make bad impression (intentionally) on the new 70D? so that it won't conflict with their own product in higher price range?
@ SRT3lkt - I think the issue is more with you than with the video. Seriously, you really think that "just everything is off" with the video? LOL. "Everything" is off? From the music, to the timing, to the lighting, to the composition, you claim? And you could "hardly focus"? LOL. Maybe "just everything is off" with you! Just a thought. Yes, maybe you're right...that you "might not be 'normal'." Time to take your meds?
With the touchscreen and AF CMOS, it really is as simple as tapping on the LCD to focus, or focus adjust. You don't need a whole lot of "careful planning" to do that. Just tap the freakin' touch screen!
Also, the camera is capable of holding focus on whatever you told it to focus on, even as subject distance changes. Not a lot of "careful planning" needed there, either. It's called focus tracking. It works.
And people don't really shoot "with extended arms in front" like they're zombies. Are you *seriously* questioning the use of DSLRs and rear LCD's as effective video cameras? LOLOL! You're a bit late there, pal. DSLRs are already *widely* used for shooting video. Every wedding videographer I work with now uses a DSLR to shoot video-- using the rear LCD. They'd just laugh in your face or roll their eyes if you walked up to them and said, "I don't think holding an SLR + zoom lens with extended arms in front of you (so you can see the LCD) is a good way to shoot video."
massimogori: Whenever this dslr is not used as dslr, we can expect high performances... Well done, Canon.!
@massimogori- "Then, the simple reason why live view is not advisable is called "Camera Shake". Hope you are aware of it."
Clearly, you're not aware that countless numbers of people use Live View every day, with excellent results. For example, every wedding videographer I work with these days is shooting video with a DSLR...and they are all using Live View, with excellent results. As with any camera form factor, it's all a matter of technique, whether you're talking about a DSLR where you're peeping through a hole in the camera, or a Bronica medium format film camera with a waist-level viewfinder, or any digital camera with Live View....use good technique and you can get good results. Live View is also excellent for tripod-mounted shooting, especially if the camera is mounted higher or lower than eye level. So to make the assumption that Live View universally means "Camera Shake" is simply false. It all depends on how you use it.
Falcon31: Nice tech, but what problem does it solve?
The whole point of a small sensor system is that it is small. Now with the speedbooster we can use our old BIG HEAVY lenses again. Now that is what I really want.
It creates added flexibility with your gear, particularly for those of us who own Canon DSLR gear and m4/3 gear. What's wrong with having more flexibility, and having cross-compatibility to use our gear in any way we choose? Besides, when I use any of my Canon DSLR lenses on my Oly 4/3 body (using an adapter), it still ends up being smaller than the same lens on my Canon DSLR body.
As much as hard-nosed "serious" photographers hate to admit it, cameras are now (and, frankly, always have been) lifestyle products that some people prefer to have a certain aesthetic appeal, beyond being able to take pictures with it. And if a company wants to cater to this type of buyer, why not? I think there are already enough me-too, black or silver, relatively conservative, "serious"-looking cameras in the market to go around. Pentax's pursuit of colored and colorful ILC bodies is a smart strategy. It barely adds any cost, and it pursues a relatively un-tapped or under-tapped niche.