Opinion - What EOS Will Look Like by Photokina

[c.d.embrey]

A small EOS FF camera would still have large lenses though.

To me, weight is more important than size. A Canon 1DsIII weighs 42.5 oz./1,205g, a Sony NEX 7 weighs Approx. 10.3 oz (291g). That's a difference of 30.2 ounces! A FF mirrorless would only gain an ounce or so, say about 12 ounces total.

 

[Meh]

Are you suggesting you'll be taking studio shots with an X100? I don't think so.

Terry Richardson did studio work with a Yashica T4 Film P&S. The right tool isn't always a Canon 1Ds, sometimes it's a Fuji X100 or aSony NEX 7.

Fair enough. I agree. You can do any type of photography you like with any type of equipment you want and get unique and interesting results whether for artistic or technical reasons. An X100 is great camera with a fantastic sensor. Leica's are great cameras. Some nice shots have been taken with an iPhone. But still I don't understand your statement that you're going to ditch your DLSR for an X100 because Canon won't wake up and realize you want a good small camera. Maybe I'm missing the point.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Fair enough. I agree. You can do any type of photography you like with any type of equipment you want and get unique and interesting results whether for artistic or technical reasons. An X100 is great camera with a fantastic sensor. Leica's are great cameras. Some nice shots have been taken with an iPhone. But still I don't understand your statement that you're going to ditch your DLSR for an X100 because Canon won't wake up and realize you want a good small camera. Maybe I'm missing the point.

Someone named goodmane was the OP who wants to get a Fuji X100. I have no idea what his reasons are.

Me, I'm a tool user who has tools from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Toyo and Yashica. I don't plan on selling any of my Canon cameras, but as long as they aren't building anything new that I want/need, I won't be buying any new Canon equipment. Simple as that.

Sony is making something that I want/need with their light weight NEX mirrorless cameras (with excellent sensors). I prefer small/light cameras with prime lenses for my work. I've been using Sony pro video cameras for years, so there is no stigma attached to Sony for me.

 

[ecka]

Are you suggesting you'll be taking studio shots with an X100? I don't think so.

Terry Richardson did studio work with a Yashica T4 Film P&S. The right tool isn't always a Canon 1Ds, sometimes it's a Fuji X100 or aSony NEX 7.

Nothing's wrong with Yashica T4 - FF, CZ Tessar, small and light. Too bad there is nothing similar with a digital sensor. Just imagine Canon PowerShot ... FF + a nice 35mm prime lens : and cheap.

 

[kirillica]

I think the same: 1D pro bodies will be updated before Olympics so pro photographers can update. And after the first line of "consumerism" is over, 5Dm3 is out. So no 5Dm3 is out before end of Olympics.

At the same time, Canon shouldn't want 1D series available to soon: competitors may (and should) respond with their bodies too. So December-February is just fine.

 

[ecka]

I think the same: 1D pro bodies will be updated before Olympics so pro photographers can update. And after the first line of "consumerism" is over, 5Dm3 is out. So no 5Dm3 is out before end of Olympics.

At the same time, Canon shouldn't want 1D series available to soon: competitors may (and should) respond with their bodies too. So December-February is just fine.

Did you know that Canon has never made any DSLR announcements in November-December period? They did announce a DSLR in October once, 1D4 (2009). So, I think that if they won't come out with something in October, then that's it, we'll have to wait till Jan-Feb 2012

 

[JonJT]

A small EOS FF camera would still have large lenses though.

To me, weight is more important than size. A Canon 1DsIII weighs 42.5 oz./1,205g, a Sony NEX 7 weighs Approx. 10.3 oz (291g). That's a difference of 30.2 ounces! A FF mirrorless would only gain an ounce or so, say about 12 ounces total.

Granted but, I'm assuming you would still want to use EOS lenses on this mirrorless FF? You'd save weight on the body but, for example, a fast 85mm is still going to be a heavy thing, no matter what system it is designed for.

Do you shoot a 1DsIII right now? it would seem silly to compare it to an NEX 7, a camera that is quite different. Are your interests moving in such a way that you actually would replace a 1DsIII with a FF NEX camera?

 

[Meh]

Fair enough. I agree. You can do any type of photography you like with any type of equipment you want and get unique and interesting results whether for artistic or technical reasons. An X100 is great camera with a fantastic sensor. Leica's are great cameras. Some nice shots have been taken with an iPhone. But still I don't understand your statement that you're going to ditch your DLSR for an X100 because Canon won't wake up and realize you want a good small camera. Maybe I'm missing the point.

Someone named goodmane was the OP who wants to get a Fuji X100. I have no idea what his reasons are.

Me, I'm a tool user who has tools from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Toyo and Yashica. I don't plan on selling any of my Canon cameras, but as long as they aren't building anything new that I want/need, I won't be buying any new Canon equipment. Simple as that.

Sony is making something that I want/need with their light weight NEX mirrorless cameras (with excellent sensors). I prefer small/light cameras with prime lenses for my work. I've been using Sony pro video cameras for years, so there is no stigma attached to Sony for me.

Your right, I failed to notice it was a different person posting. I apologize for that.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Are you suggesting you'll be taking studio shots with an X100? I don't think so.

Terry Richardson did studio work with a Yashica T4 Film P&S. The right tool isn't always a Canon 1Ds, sometimes it's a Fuji X100 or aSony NEX 7.

Nothing's wrong with Yashica T4 - FF, CZ Tessar, small and light. Too bad there is nothing similar with a digital sensor. Just imagine Canon PowerShot ... FF + a nice 35mm prime lens : and cheap.

I have both a Yashica T3 (35mm f2.8) and a T4. I too have never understood why someone hasn't made a digital FF P&S. Kyocera (Contax and Yashica) is out of the camera business, but a digital Nikon T35 should be a big seller.

 

[c.d.embrey]

A small EOS FF camera would still have large lenses though.

To me, weight is more important than size. A Canon 1DsIII weighs 42.5 oz./1,205g, a Sony NEX 7 weighs Approx. 10.3 oz (291g). That's a difference of 30.2 ounces! A FF mirrorless would only gain an ounce or so, say about 12 ounces total.

Granted but, I'm assuming you would still want to use EOS lenses on this mirrorless FF? You'd save weight on the body but, for example, a fast 85mm is still going to be a heavy thing, no matter what system it is designed for.

I don't like the big, heavy and slooow focusing 85 L. I use the 85mm f1.8. My advertising clients aren't impressed with "paper-thin-DOF" And I would only be interested in a mirrorless line that had it's own lenses.

Do you shoot a 1DsIII right now? it would seem silly to compare it to an NEX 7, a camera that is quite different. Are your interests moving in such a way that you actually would replace a 1DsIII with a FF NEX camera?

I use a 1DsII with an 85mm TS-E for table-top work. It is mounted on a FOBA camera stand and tethered to Capture One.I Never hand hold it, too big and heavy. For hand held work I use a 40D usually with a 85mm f1.8, using CF cards instead of tethered.

An E-mount Zeiss 24mm f1.8 weighs 7.9 oz (225g) plus a NEX 7 at 10.3 oz (291g) (excl battery & media) plus 2.1oz (57g) for the battery = 20.3 ounces. For comparison a Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM weighs 22.9 ounces. So yes, I'll switch to Sony's NEX system for most of my work.

BTW I'll test the NEX 7 with a Tilt and Shift lens, all the NEX cameras have peaking focus, which should work well for table-top. Here's a video to show peaking focus in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPQroziHz-M That's one of the good things about Sony being in the pro video business, maybe we'll get Zebra Stripe next.

 

[Lee Jay]

I think the 7D will make it all the way through 2012 and into 2013. What is there to improve on the camera?

What?

- Better sensor with lower read noise at lower ISOs (more dynamic range)
- Flexible video crop modes (it's embarrassing that the last two Rebels are both superior here)
- Reasonable autofocus performance in video mode
- Fast, reliable f/8 autofocus sensors

 

[Meh]

I think the 7D will make it all the way through 2012 and into 2013. What is there to improve on the camera?

What?

- Better sensor with lower read noise at lower ISOs (more dynamic range)
- Flexible video crop modes (it's embarrassing that the last two Rebels are both superior here)
- Reasonable autofocus performance in video mode
- Fast, reliable f/8 autofocus sensors

I have no comment on the video features but about the sensor and autofocus...

My understanding is that the read noise in almost all modern CCD and CMOS image sensors is about as low as it's going to get but there may still be a little improvement to be had (e.g. the 1D4 sensor and the latest Sony sensors in Nikon D7000 and Sony A77) so we'll almost certainly see this in the all the next Canon sensors. However, the increase in DR due to the lower read noise is being offset by increasing resolution (smaller pixels) so overall we might see at most another stop of DR in the next 7D but maybe not.

f/8 autofocus is possible but what's left to differentiate the 7D2 from the 1D4/5?

 

[Lee Jay]

My understanding is that the read noise in almost all modern CCD and CMOS image sensors is about as low as it's going to get but there may still be a little improvement to be had (e.g. the 1D4 sensor and the latest Sony sensors in Nikon D7000 and Sony A77) so we'll almost certainly see this in the all the next Canon sensors.

Plenty of room for improvement between the 7D and D7000, especially at low ISO.
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_7D.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD7000.html

However, the increase in DR due to the lower read noise is being offset by increasing resolution (smaller pixels) so overall we might see at most another stop of DR in the next 7D but maybe not.

No, this is a myth (hard as hell to kill, too). Smaller pixels don't make poorer DR inherently.

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G12.html

So, 7D and G12 both have 11.2 stops of DR at base ISO, but the G12's pixels are 4.4 times smaller.

f/8 autofocus is possible but what's left to differentiate the 7D2 from the 1D4/5?

The 1-series has a built in portrait grip, a bigger battery, is built like a tank, has better weather sealing, has UI designed to be used with gloves on, has a larger sensor, produces faster frame rates, and has longer shutter life.

 

[Meh]

My understanding is that the read noise in almost all modern CCD and CMOS image sensors is about as low as it's going to get but there may still be a little improvement to be had (e.g. the 1D4 sensor and the latest Sony sensors in Nikon D7000 and Sony A77) so we'll almost certainly see this in the all the next Canon sensors.

Plenty of room for improvement between the 7D and D7000, especially at low ISO.
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_7D.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD7000.html

What do you mean by "plenty"? We're talking about read noise at low ISO right? Look at the info you linked to... 7D read noise is 8.6 electrons and the D7000 is 3.1 electrons. So the difference is 5.5 electrons. So there is a little room for improvement which as I said we've now seen in the latest Sony sensors. By the math, this is a a little over 1 stop of DR.

However, the increase in DR due to the lower read noise is being offset by increasing resolution (smaller pixels) so overall we might see at most another stop of DR in the next 7D but maybe not.

No, this is a myth (hard as hell to kill, too). Smaller pixels don't make poorer DR inherently.

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G12.html

So, 7D and G12 both have 11.2 stops of DR at base ISO, but the G12's pixels are 4.4 times smaller.

Hard to kill because it is NOT a myth. First let me point out that the G12 sensor is a CCD and the 7D sensor is CMOS so not apples to apples. CCD are much simpler and the photosites can be made larger for any given resolution (more specifically "pixel pitch" or pixels per unit area on the sensor). This is one of the big advantages of CCD. The other advantage of CCD is that they have lower read noise (actually did have but CMOS has caught up in the last few years which you see in the Sony sensor data in your link) . The combination of larger photosites and lower read noise gives much higher DR than CMOS. When the industry first started to move to CMOS it was because of expected lower costs but that turned out not to be true at first but did come down over time (CCD has come down in cost as well but not as much). CMOS has now caught up to CCD in read noise but not in photosite size. The photosites are smaller with CMOS because there are more electronics required on the sensor itself and in fact take up about half the surface of the sensor. CCDs don't have as much electronics on the sensor and the photosites can be made larger for a given resolution.

DR is better with larger photosites. The larger the photosite the more electrons (converted/released from absorbed photons) can be collected so that the saturation level (the largest number of electrons that bucket can hold) is higher. Look at the links you provided... the saturation levels are higher in the 7D and even higher in the D7000. The D7000 has the highest saturation level and low read noise and therefore has the highest DR.

We can also see that the Sony sensor has much higher saturation levels than the 7D with about the same resolution and sensor size. So we can conclude that the latest Sony designs have increased the size of the photosites (i.e. each photosite can hold more electrons). I'm not aware of any proprietary/patented breakthrough from Sony so I think it's just the next evolution in the CMOS designs and we'll see it in the next Canon sensors as well but I'm guessing.

A good example of the progress in CCD sensors is to look at the data for the G10 compared to G11. Canon wanted to make a the sensor better so they reduced the pixel pitch but also increased the photosite size which is evident from the large increase in saturation levels. Also they got the noise down and the result is going from 9.3 stops DR in the G10 to 11.2 stops in the G11. I'd like to see the sensor data for the new CMOS sensor in the S100.

f/8 autofocus is possible but what's left to differentiate the 7D2 from the 1D4/5?

The 1-series has a built in portrait grip, a bigger battery, is built like a tank, has better weather sealing, has UI designed to be used with gloves on, has a larger sensor, produces faster frame rates, and has longer shutter life.

I meant my answer as a bit of joke but it didn't come out that way I guess. Of course there is a lot to differentiate the 1D4. And with the latest processing speeds and new sensors the 1D5 will probably be FF because they will be able to get 10 fps from a high resolution sensor. I do agree that if the for any sports oriented camera (1D4, 7D, and successors) AF performance is key and will always be an area for improvement.

 

[Lee Jay]

Hard to kill because it is NOT a myth.

Yeah...it is. Smaller pixels have lower well capacities and lower read noise, implicitly, so there's no implicit reason for small pixels to have lower DR than large pixels. That's why there's no rhyme or reason as to the DR among the range of pixel sizes, from 2 microns to over 8 microns.

A77, 3.89 micron pixels, 12.2 stops
5DII, 6.39 micron pixels, 11.2 stops
5D, 8.04 micron pixels, 10.8 stops

 

[Meh]

Hard to kill because it is NOT a myth.

Yeah...it is. Smaller pixels have lower well capacities and lower read noise, implicitly, so there's no implicit reason for small pixels to have lower DR than large pixels. That's why there's no rhyme or reason as to the DR among the range of pixel sizes, from 2 microns to over 8 microns.

A77, 3.89 micron pixels, 12.2 stops
5DII, 6.39 micron pixels, 11.2 stops
5D, 8.04 micron pixels, 10.8 stops

How can you say " there's no rhyme or reason" to something that is a measurable and quantifiable value. There are also reasons, that are in fact very well understood, for the sources and amount of noise in any electronic circuit.

The three cameras you listed are all from very different generations, many years apart in fact. That's a reason, technology improves over time.

Btw, where you write "implicitly" in your comment I will assume you meant to say "inherently". I will also grant you that a lower noise floor allows for higher DR for a given maximum signal and that is because DR is the ratio of the largest signal to the lowest signal that can be recorded. So yes, in a case where the noise floor reduction is proportionally larger than a decrease in the max signal (due to the smaller photosites) then DR would go up.

You might also read my comments again and notice that I identified the Sony A77 sensor as having achieved a notable increase in the full well capacity which is done by increasing the size of the photosite which is the surface area of that is sensitive to the photons. The size values you are quoting are the pixel pitches which is not the same thing... there are gaps between the photosites due primarily to the electronics that sit beside each photosite. It would seem Sony has found a way to increase the size of the photosite possibly by reducing the size of the other electronics... with more area available for the photosite they can be made larger so that each can collect more photons.

Historically, larger pixel sensors have had higher read noise than contemporary smaller pixel sensors. Read noise is actually made up of a number of noise sources in the electronics but not all of them scale with pixel size. It has also been historically the case that the read noise at low ISO was higher than at high ISO and this was related to the noise sources that scale with the fullness of the wells (at high ISO settings the wells are not filling up) and the way the amplifiers work. CMOS sensor technology has advanced read noise has come down which improves DR. Again, the Sony sensor in the A77 is notable because the read noise has come down at all ISO levels and in fact it's a significant improvement at low ISO such that the read noise is remarkably consistent from low to high ISO. If this can be implemented for a FF sensor with larger pixels (higher maximum signal) we should see a big bump in DR!!!

I'm happy to discuss further if you or anyone has any facts or examples about this but please don't just write back "yeah... it is".