Fortunately, the “stir” exists only in this forum (and a few others like it). The 5D3 has made a lot of people very happy, and it’s selling well, as far as I can tell.
Sometimes a minority can be quite vocal.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What happened to Canon sensor development?
- Thread starter carlk
- Start date
Sometimes a minority can be quite vocal.
You basically can't improve noise and have no improvement in DR.
You also have (I'm sure) no quantitative date on DR or SNR as neither DPR or DxO has published that sort of data yet and they are basically the only semi-reliable sources for it.
I expect improved DR and noise in the mk III sensor though Canon's design philosophy is different than Sony's or perhaps just not as skilled yet.
There has been no significant shift in regular CMOS sensors since the D7000 for Sony sourced imagers.
There would be no reason really to update a sensor to give 1 more MP so Canon did something else to it and that most likely something elses are SNR and readout speed related.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
brokensocialscenester
Forum Enthusiast
The price was definitely surprising; we'd expected something cheaper.
--
dekalb wedding photography
chicago wedding photographer
http://mikeandfrida.blogspot.com
--
dekalb wedding photography
chicago wedding photographer
http://mikeandfrida.blogspot.com
foggy
Forum Enthusiast
I have read some of the uproar between the 5D III vrs D800 and folks trying to figure out what happened. I shoot a 60D so I don’t have a dog in the hunt, other than loving the Canon system for it’s strengths and weaknesses. This might have been mentioned many times in all that’s been said and I missed it. If so please forgive. Lets look at what has happened in Japan recently the earthquake flooding and radiation issues. Could the 5D IIIs real sensor be sitting in a zone to hot with radiation to touch..? was the chip plant wrecked or flooded due to the previous mentioned incidents..? Were some key people killed in the design or implementation of the chip..?
I don’t know Japan but one could look at any of the challenges our brothers and sisters over there wake up to daily due to the quake etc. still and then give them a break. Maybe Sony and Nikon lucked out as to location..? Maybe we need to give them kings X this time..? Well that’s my 2 cents be gentle with your rebuttal..!
Foggy
I don’t know Japan but one could look at any of the challenges our brothers and sisters over there wake up to daily due to the quake etc. still and then give them a break. Maybe Sony and Nikon lucked out as to location..? Maybe we need to give them kings X this time..? Well that’s my 2 cents be gentle with your rebuttal..!
Foggy
Silverback1988
Leading Member
Three Digic 5 ? That would be great for the camera, but not for the price IMHO.
For the resolution & affordable price, I definitely, wouldn't mind to sacrifice fps for this specific camera. I will buy it even it's just 1 fps
just make it affordable please.Like the case of 60Da.
I think there will be just a few people will buy the 60Da for general purpose,
because it is not designed for general purpose.
-
Brian
Silverback1988
Leading Member
Agree.
That's exactly how I thought !
You definitely can read my mind
David Hull
Veteran Member
I would like to see that as well, that should tell us something about whether they improved the QE and whether they made any improvements on the detectors themselves. That should be an area where some gains could have been made although there is not a lot of room for improvement there (Certainly not as much as there is on the other end).
--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26158506@N07/
bobn2
Forum Pro
That is your opinion
That is your opinion
That is your opinion.
That is your opinion.
That is your opinion.
That is your opinion.
My opinion is that resolution is the most important component of image quality. It wasn't my opinion until I did an experiment which suggested that it was indeed the case. Designing reasonably objective experiments to pin down qualitative, undefined things like 'IQ' is hard. But I did my best. What I did was show people a series of images and asked them to rank them against 'IQ', 'noise' and 'detail', and then correlate 'IQ' against the other two, and it turned out that it had a higher correlation against 'detail' than 'noise' (which wasn't what I expected) I concludes that 'detail' is a more important indicator of 'IQ' than 'noise'. Impotant to say, I did not play to people's prior assumptions by identifying the images.
The thread on which I did this is here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&thread=29997924&page=1
(Images gone because the site on which I posted them is no longer current).
So, my opinion now is that detail is a greater weighted component of 'IQ' than is 'noise'. There are possibly other components.
Your opinion may differ, but I would claim that your opinion is based on your own prejudices while min is based on some investigation, at least.
--
Bob
bobn2
Forum Pro
Indeed it will. A sharp lens improves the resolution of every camera placed behind it, just like a high resolution camera improves the sharpness of every lens placed in front of it. This is a simple consequence of the fact that the PSF's of the lens and camera convolve, and that talk of 'cameras outresolving lenses' or 'lenses outresolving cameras' (which you tend not to hear so much' is nonsense. It amuses me when the pixellophobes use this argument, because it illustrates that they know so little that they fail to realise that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course, I never said that at all, so it can't entirely be news to you since it is a canard you invented all by yourself - i.e. you had prior knowledge of it. But to return to what I said, that resolution is subjectively the most important component of IQ. One of the problems with your canard is that it shoots itself in the foot too. Since 'great focus', 'great clarity' and 'low detail clarity' are all resolution dependent quantities (so far as they are quantities, that is). So in fact, what you say just goes to demonstrate my point. The only thing you could think of as being 'IQ', apart from resolution related things, were colour related things, that were in effect the same thing ('magenta tint' and 'poor colour balance'). Thanks for proving my point.
--
Bob
Steen Bay
Veteran Member
Yes, you're probably right that if talking technical IQ, then the amount of detail is the most important thing, but if talking artistic IQ (or whatever you prefer to call it), then I'm not so sure. Take for example a portrait, will a portrait shot with a D800E be better than a portrait shot with the D3s? Sometimes I even think that a technically perfect IQ with lots of detail and low noise almost is counter-productive for the artistic quality of an image, also if it's a landscape where lots of detail often is considered to be a good thing. Don't know, maybe the 'problem' with a technically perfect photo is that too little is left for your imagination.
rwbaron
Forum Pro
I can say from experience that most women at 30 or older do not want pics taken showing every little micro detail in their complexion
.Resolution is great for the right applications and I love to view at 100% to appreciate but so much is lost in prints when viewed at a normal distance.
for Bobn2
Your test described above does surpise me a bit but I would need to know more about how it was conducted. For a highly detailed subject with a print viewed at close distance I would agree but otherwise I find your conclusion contrary to my experience.
I remember in the early stages of digital being in a camera shop and looking at a 20X30 inch print from about 6 feet away that was from a 3 MP camera and being amazed. The print was a tight shot of wildflowers and looked better than anything I'd seen from 35mm film and was the deciding factor in buying my first digital camera the Canon S40 (4 MP P&S). The advantage IMO was the lack of grain in the image that is characteristic of film. The image had a medium format look to it even though obviously the detail was not there.
I've many 13x19 inch prints of European city scenes hanging in my office taken with my 10D and people (even experienced photographers) are amazed they were taken with a 6 MP camera. I doubt the images would have any different impact if they were taken with a 36 MP camera or even a Digital MFB.
Yes, as the size gets larger the resolution becomes more of a factor but IMO the size has to be very large for any real difference to be noticeable.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
bobn2
Forum Pro
I don't think your separation into 'technical IQ' and 'artistic IQ' is useful at all. 'IQ' as people use it is not useful, because it is completely subjective and undefined, yet people want to use it as though it is an objective, quantitative thing. Surely, there are many images which don't depend for their impact on image quality, and even some which depend on image qualities which would normally be considered poor, such as flare or even, sometimes, noise.
I suppose what you're saying is that a 'quality image' does not always depend on 'image quality', and I would not disagree with that.
--
Bob
bobn2
Forum Pro
I'm not sure how it can be contrary to your experience. It might be contrary to your own opinion as to what constitutes 'image quality', but that is a different point. The experiment was an exercise in investigative semantics, trying to find out what people mean when they say 'image quality'. It was based on a similar experiment that I did in a research project trying to unpick the private jargon that a particular community had adopted (in that case it was automotive styling and the words that designers used to communicate the qualities of their designs to each other). I think it's rather a good way of dealing with situations where communities get burdened with subjective and undefined jargon.
In this case, people were bandying around the term 'image quality', so all I did was show people images and ask them to rank them against 'image quality' and some other qualities. The you look for correlation between the qualities, and you would expect if there is a high correlation then the two qualities are strongly related.
Really it doesn't matter what the images are, or what are their qualities, as long as they have a spread of them.
Also important was that I didn't tell them beforehand what I was doing, otherwise people would have ranked according to what they wanted the outcome to be, rather than just using the terms as they used them.
--
Bob
Steen Bay
Veteran Member
Or it could be the 'wrong' (or rather lack of) colors in a b&w image, and how about shallow DoF, which seriously decreases the total amount of detail. And maybe optical flaws like vignetting and soft corners also sometimes can increase the 'artistic quality' of an image.
I own a crop camera and am waiting and waiting for the next Rebel or mirrorless. I haven't bought a lens in awhile because I'm hoping they'll come out with a Rebel that has better video and high ISO (like the Sony 16MP and 22MP sensors). Or a mirrorless camera that will somehow either work with my lenses, but if not, then I don't want a ton of lenses to sell (if I switch to Canon or other mirrorless). I thought they'd have one out well before now.
But let's face it, in the next Rebel, they'll leave out many software/frimware features (intervalometer, micro AF adjustment, and silent shooting). I don't want a D60 sized camera - even the Rebels are too big to carry around many places. They haven't made a meaningful jump in sensor performance in eons. The T2i/T3i's 18MP sensor was a decent step, not huge, but before then you have to go back to the XSi to see a jump in sensor image quality.
I'm not a Sony fan, and it'll be awhile before there are many lenses for their mirrorless cameras, but their cameras impress me and sticking with Canon is geting harder to justify. I wonder how many people buy a mirrorless (as a second camera) instead of spending $800 to upgrade to a marginally better new Canon crop camera...then they find themselves using the using the larger Canon crop SLR less and less... Canon has many wide, fast, and long lenses that are (last I knew) not available yet for the various mirrorless cameras, so Canon SLRs clearly are the tool to use there. There could be a landslide of "serious amature" customers switching over once a few more key lenses are available for mirrorless.
As for the 5D, better AF would be nice if the price had stayed the same. If enough people do not upgrade or switch to Nikon, they'll learn a lesson. Unless you're a pro (in which case is even the 5D III good enough for nature/sports?), then you could always keep your 5D II and buy a Sony or 4/3rds for video and portability.
But let's face it, in the next Rebel, they'll leave out many software/frimware features (intervalometer, micro AF adjustment, and silent shooting). I don't want a D60 sized camera - even the Rebels are too big to carry around many places. They haven't made a meaningful jump in sensor performance in eons. The T2i/T3i's 18MP sensor was a decent step, not huge, but before then you have to go back to the XSi to see a jump in sensor image quality.
I'm not a Sony fan, and it'll be awhile before there are many lenses for their mirrorless cameras, but their cameras impress me and sticking with Canon is geting harder to justify. I wonder how many people buy a mirrorless (as a second camera) instead of spending $800 to upgrade to a marginally better new Canon crop camera...then they find themselves using the using the larger Canon crop SLR less and less... Canon has many wide, fast, and long lenses that are (last I knew) not available yet for the various mirrorless cameras, so Canon SLRs clearly are the tool to use there. There could be a landslide of "serious amature" customers switching over once a few more key lenses are available for mirrorless.
As for the 5D, better AF would be nice if the price had stayed the same. If enough people do not upgrade or switch to Nikon, they'll learn a lesson. Unless you're a pro (in which case is even the 5D III good enough for nature/sports?), then you could always keep your 5D II and buy a Sony or 4/3rds for video and portability.
Talk about mirrorless where is Canon's mirrorless? There is a fierce fighting in the battle ground of camera of future and Canon is not even in there. I can't say it's too late but the odds is certainly not in their favor by looking at all the progress the others have made. Just don't know how much and for how long they can milk out all the profits from us existing owners. For me I have made a decision not to buy any Canon lenses, and may even sell a few I own, until the dusts settle.
bobn2
Forum Pro
I don't think Canon is going to do IL mirrorless. The G1 X was their mirroless debut, but they decided not to put on an IL, it would not have taken much more engineering.
--
Bob
G1X does not look like a bad camera or a bad concept but it still does not take interchangeable lenses and will not satisfy the dslr people even when they are looking for portability. It can be a good bet if mirrorless will never replace dslr (as mainstream enthusiast camera) but I think Canon bet wrong if that's what they are thinking.
Scott Larson
Veteran Member
What kind of photography do you specialize in, Bob? Your gallery here is just a bunch of screen shots and pixel-peeping experiments.
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum