Canon is still working on the foveon sensor!

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15957238
Because other than online penis wavers, most of Canon's customers don't care about the slight differences between Canon and Nikon.

I don't know if I'd call the different in resolution between the D800s and Canon slight. The D800 isn't even compared to Canons or Nikon, outside of perhaps the D600, it's compared to Hasselblads.

All this crying and whining about high iso performance, banding etc. Just few years ago we were happy as pigs in **** that we were able to get "usable" images at 800iso. And we made it work, created professional photos, but noise at 12k iso is all of the sudden unacceptable thesedays?

Pit wrote in post #15959855
All this crying and whining about high iso performance, banding etc. Just few years ago we were happy as pigs in **** that we were able to get "usable" images at 800iso. And we made it work, created professional photos, but noise at 12k iso is all of the sudden unacceptable thesedays?

Times change. I will never understanding how seemingly pedantic some photographers are. Although I shoot manual and MF lenses, the best you can buy for what it's worth, I also want amazing high-ISO images and lots of resolution.

interesting....

CAL Imagery wrote in post #15957170
Canon would be able to smash Nikon, if they wanted.

They could but, even Leica's new CMOSIS sensor on the M is smashing Canon's current sensors to pieces. I love Canon's products but, they're not being innovative like they used to.

Osiriz wrote in post #15957207
Then why won't they? Why won't they get rid of the banding? Why wont they improve the dynamic range?

I believe this thread is about to catch fire.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15957238
Because other than online penis wavers, most of Canon's customers don't care about the slight differences between Canon and Nikon.

^^The answer is digital medium format! There's no sense in waiting for a company that's concentrating on video.

CAL Imagery wrote in post #15959390
I don't know if I'd call the different in resolution between the D800s and Canon slight. The D800 isn't even compared to Canons or Nikon, outside of perhaps the D600, it's compared to Hasselblads.

The D800/E has been compared to Phase One's IQ180.

jdizzle wrote in post #15960996
The D800/E has been compared to Phase One's IQ180.

I am still astonished at the D800e IQ. Only downside for me is that Live View isn't as good and outer AF issues but then I used to have a 1DmkIII

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15957012
5D Mark-IV Babaaaay! With 32MP Fovean 3 layer!

Hey, we can dream

I like that dream

echo wrote in post #15961142
I am still astonished at the D800e IQ. Only downside for me is that Live View isn't as good and outer AF issues but then I used to have a 1DmkIII

Hehe! I'm not sure if you updated your firmware but, I can certainly tell you that the LV, WB, and AF( quicker) have been improved.

Pit wrote in post #15959855
All this crying and whining about high iso performance, banding etc. Just few years ago we were happy as pigs in **** that we were able to get "usable" images at 800iso. And we made it work, created professional photos, but noise at 12k iso is all of the sudden unacceptable thesedays?

We all rode horses a while ago as well. Don't see many on the highways anymore.

Osiriz wrote in post #15957207
... Why won't they get rid of the banding? Why wont they improve the dynamic range?...

I call it the Cubs effect. As long as there are people willing to spend their hard earned cash on a product and Canon (Cubs) are making a fortune, why get better. If enough people choose the Nikon route and previous owners stop spending or switch and Canon's bottom line starts sagging, they have no impetus to improve

gjl711 wrote in post #15962885
We all rode horses a while ago as well. Don't see many on the highways anymore.

I call it the Cubs effect. As long as there are people willing to spend their hard earned cash on a product and Canon (Cubs) are making a fortune, why get better. If enough people choose the Nikon route and previous owners stop spending or switch and Canon's bottom line starts sagging, they have no impetus to improve

I don't see it quite that way.
Canon improved a LOT from 5D2 to 5D3 on the areas people most complained about: AF, weather sealing, ergonomics (aka dedicated buttons).
And still managed to focus on new lenses and flash that just leave the competition drolling: 70-200II, 24-70II and 600RT.

The sensor was left behind. OK. But if you consider the 5D3 as a wedding/news camera, then the DR and resolution advantage of the D800/D800E goes down the water. No in-field news shooter will want a gazillion megabytes file just so can crop the hell out of it, and DR is important but they can live without it. Same for wedding shooters.

Now, if you consider Landscape and Studio shooters, then OK, the D800/D800E is the route to go definitely.

A few years back Canon had the junk because of its pitty AF.
Now Canon has the junk because of resolution and DR.
If they fix it on the 5D4, I am sure someone will show up and say "Oh, but this camera stinks! The D900 has a popup flash!"

Lowner wrote in post #15957101
Would this technology compete with the Nikon D800 and D800E or are Canon still off chasing other rainbows?

Faveon doesn't do anything about the noise issues when reading out the data from the sensor. It is a way to remove the need for any demosaic step. So every pixel comes with full color information, reducing issues with aliased colors. And giving larger pixels for the same resolution.

So in the end, we still want Canon to find some work-around for the Sony patent to balance the data when reading from the sensor.

Osiriz wrote in post #15957207
Then why won't they? Why won't they get rid of the banding? Why wont they improve the dynamic range?

I believe this thread is about to catch fire.

Your question is similar to: Why doesn't your neighbour suddenlys tart to run 100m in about 9.80 seconds?

Ever heard noise when listening to music? Why do people design noisy equipment? Why not just remove the noise?

In this case, Sony has a patent that relates to a method of being able to balance the data when reading it out of the sensor. Canon must either pay Sony for use of that patent (but Sony might prefer to just have others buy complete sensors from them instead of just settle for royalties on the patent), or Canon needs to invent a different (or extended) method to perform the readout.

Remember that noise when listening to music? Two puny channels, and a CD has 16-bit audio with 44100 Hz sampling rate. The camera sensor has 14-bit read out. But need to read out a huge amount of data in a very short time. And the sensor is large, so currents and signals have to travel.

The Canon engineers might be highly skilled, but they still have to try to solve an issue that the best of the best in the world don't have any existing solution for - besides the Sony patent, that blocks Canon from using that method. There are, in reality, some alternative solutions. But either expensive or having other issues that you will not be able to accept.

Pit wrote in post #15959855
All this crying and whining about high iso performance, banding etc. Just few years ago we were happy as pigs in **** that we were able to get "usable" images at 800iso. And we made it work, created professional photos, but noise at 12k iso is all of the sudden unacceptable thesedays?

Not completely true. Lots and lots of people with digital backs on MF cameras, because they needed better.

But turn it another way: If you were shooting one film stock, and suddenly someone released another film that was way better - but that film for some reason wasn't usable in your brand of Cameras. Wouldn't you then have seen that as highly irritating, and expected that the camera manufacturer would fix whatever it was that stopped you from getting the best results without having to sell everything and buy gear of a competing brand?

The current Canon sensors have very good dynamic range. Just that some of that dynamic range gets destroyed by the pattern noise. The individual pixels are spectacular. Just that it doesn't matter how good they are, because of the random imbalancing of columns and/or rows.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15962966
I don't see it quite that way.
Canon improved a LOT from 5D2 to 5D3 on the areas people most complained about: AF, weather sealing, ergonomics (aka dedicated buttons)....

nah, the true successor to the 5Dii is actually the 6D. The 5Diii is a new entry into the line up. The price tags says it all. They just played with the names to keep people from **** about how the 6D is not enough of an improvement. So in the end, canon did not listen to its customers request for a better AF system for this category of camera. Clever marketing is all they are. That said though, the 6D is probably the best high ISO performer out there and i think it will make a legendary wedding/events camera.