Serious concerns about the trend in Canon sensor technology...trend to nowhere?

jrista wrote in post #14303310
See the following for the details:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html

Feel free to bash him, but Fred Miranda is a damn good, seasoned, very well known photographer...so bash at your own risk.

Those photos don't even look like they're taken at the same ISO.
Also, If he's zooming the 5D3 file to the 100% of Nikons 36mp file, of course it's going to degrade on the screen.

If my camera took photos that are that noisy I wouldn't have it right now. I have used my 5D3 in many high iso situations and I can tell you that it does not make that much noise even at iso 800.

bikeboynate wrote in post #14303347
Those photos don't even look like they're taken at the same ISO.
Also, If he's zooming the 5D3 file to the 100% of Nikons 36mp file, of course it's going to degrade on the screen.

If my camera took photos that are that noisy I wouldn't have it right now. I have used my 5D3 in many high iso situations and I can tell you that it does not make that much noise even at iso 800.

They were both taken at ISO 100, as that was the whole point of the test...to examine shadow recovery at base ISO. Both shots were taken with the exact same Zeiss 21mm lens as well. It doesn't matter that the 5D III shot was upscaled...if it had the same clean output as the D800, the upscaling wouldn't matter. Downscaling eliminates noise, where as upscaling just tends to soften it a bit...upscaling is the right way to compare in this case...it doesn't give any additional advantage to the D800.

jrista wrote in post #14303375
They were both taken at ISO 100, as that was the whole point of the test...to examine shadow recovery at base ISO. Both shots were taken with the exact same Zeiss 21mm lens as well. It doesn't matter that the 5D III shot was upscaled...if it had the same clean output as the D800, the upscaling wouldn't matter. Downscaling eliminates noise, where as upscaling just tends to soften it a bit...upscaling is the right way to compare in this case...it doesn't give any additional advantage to the D800.

But then it gives the 5D3 a disadvantage. If those shots were taken at ISO 100 then there's something wrong with his copy of the 5D3. Mine doesn't have that much noise even in dark areas at ISO 400.

I'm not into bashing Fred and I liked his statement:

Sounds like good advice to me.

this thread is eerily reminiscent of every other thread over at DPReview, but I won't call the OP troll, at least not yet.

People, you have a choice, Nikon will be more than happy to take your money. The 5DIII is what it is and if you find it limits your photography (doubtful for 99% of the population), there are a myriad of options from many manufacturers. There has NEVER been as much choice as we have today.

If the DR of the 5DIII is a dealbreaker, then break the deal, the argument about the cost of switching is a non-starter IMO. If Canon cameras are keeping you from living up to your photographic potential, then you can't afford NOT to switch.

So give Canon the finger, dump all your Canon gear and go to the competition. That'll teach Canon a nice lesson, well probably not, but it should make you feel better and would be far more productive than complaining about the specs on an already released product which simply aren't going to change....

bikeboynate wrote in post #14303389
But then it gives the 5D3 a disadvantage. If those shots were taken at ISO 100 then there's something wrong with his copy of the 5D3. Mine doesn't have that much noise even in dark areas at ISO 400.

Right...at ISO 400, the black point is higher. The point is that its at ISO 100 and to some degree ISO 200 where this problem exists. Canon cameras have extremely high read noise (33 electrons, or about 6 ADU) at LOW ISO, which drops to around 3-4 electrons (1 ADU) at ISO's above 400 (400 itself seems to have about 6 electrons, so just above 1 ADU). Its no surprise that you don't have that kind of noise at ISO 400, given the noise characteristics of the sensor.

I don't generally shoot my landscapes at ISO 400, as I want as much DR as I can get. I use ISO 100 and a long enough shutter speed to capture the scene as I want it. Canon DSLR's are stuck at under 12 stops of DR, but it seems largely due to their read noise at low ISO, so if they could FIX the read noise issue...they should be able to push beyond that 12-stop wall of DR at ISO 100, just like Sony.

I have switched to doing primarily wildlife and bird photography as I get far better results out of my Canon cameras at higher ISO than at lower ISO. I haven't done much in the way of landscape photography since last year, as I was hoping to get a 5D III to fill in that role (with the expectation that it would actually have a sensor with some significant improvements in the area of DR). I may still end up getting a 5D III if Canon does not release a high MP camera next year...I still much prefer Canon ergonomics and their firmware over Nikon's. That doesn't change the fact that Canon ignoring their low ISO performance is very disappointing to people like me who could really use some improvement there.

Well I've done some landscapes this year and I actually got an interesting wildlife photo yesterday. I too use ISO 100 (even ISO 50 sometimes) for landscapes and use longer shutters. You can even take a look at my flickr and I have posted my settings on my photos. Most if not all of my landscapes/cityscapes are at ISO 100. At any rate I have not seen the noise in his files in any of my 5D3's ISO 100 files at 100%.

Stone 13 wrote in post #14303411
this thread is eerily reminiscent of every other thread over at DPReview, but I won't call the OP troll, at least not yet.

People, you have a choice, Nikon will be more than happy to take your money. The 5DIII is what it is and if you find it limits your photography (doubtful for 99% of the population), there are a myriad of options from many manufacturers. There has NEVER been as much choice as we have today.

If the DR of the 5DIII is a dealbreaker, then break the deal, the argument about the cost of switching is a non-starter IMO. If Canon cameras are keeping you from living up to your photographic potential, then you can't afford NOT to switch.

So give Canon the finger, dump all your Canon gear and go to the competition. That'll teach Canon a nice lesson, well probably not, but it should make you feel better and would be far more productive than complaining about the specs on an already released product which simply aren't going to change....

I have no intention of dumping anything. I wouldn't "switch" like so many retards are saying on so many forums. I would simply expand, and include Nikon gear in my overall kit. I'm not asking Canon to change the specs of an already released product either...I was pleading that they make an improvement for the next product, whatever it may be. (Again, I thought this was an official Canon forum as I landed here from Canon's site...apologies for the miss.)

I do indeed find the DR of the 5D III a deal breaker, but on the flip side, I find Nikon body ergonomics, their menu system, and their firmware in general to also be a deal breaker (I find Canon's ergonomics fit my hands perfectly). Which really leaves me with no other option but to wait and see if Canon can improve their future products, or whether they will be stuck where they are for the foreseeable future. If thats the case, I guess I'm just stuck, and I'll deal. But there isn't any harm in pleading for a change, is there? Squeaky wheel gets the oil, yes?

bikeboynate wrote in post #14303467
Well I've done some landscapes this year and I actually got an interesting wildlife photo yesterday. I too use ISO 100 (even ISO 50 sometimes) for landscapes and use longer shutters. You can even take a look at my flickr and I have posted my settings on my photos. Most if not all of my landscapes/cityscapes are at ISO 100. At any rate I have not seen the noise in his files in any of my 5D3's ISO 100 files at 100%.

Wow, your reef photography is excellent!

jrista wrote in post #14303477
Wow, your reef photography is excellent!

Lol thanks. I just got a shot of some type of heron catching a mouse yesterday as well. I have yet to post it but I'm processing it as we speak.

Here's the Blue Heron catching a mouse. Considering that the sun was behind the bird, the 5D3 did pretty well. This was at 1/1600 ISO 100 f/2.8 at 200mm and it's also cropped a good bit.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/bikeboynate/7​099340373/

To get back to the original question posted.

There have been a lot of words tossed back and forth in regards to Canons ability lately.
We don't know (and never will know) exactly what they are working on in the development department.
Sure, Exmor is a very interesting technique from Sony. And Nikon has made a smart choice to buy that for their bodies.
It has been mentioned that Canon have old manufacturing equipment, not capable of producing new high density sensors etc. etc. - who knows?
A lot of the decisions on moving in a specific direction are being made on a corporate level, where a lot of aspects are being considered.
Those aspects might not be exactly what a lot of people on Internet photo forums think... or want...

As a trend I hope we will continue to see competition between several actors on the market. That will ensure development and enhancement.

One thing is for certain - we all would like our equipment to do better, in whatever way you can think of.

We can debate this until we are blue in the face but that will not change the world or Canon

jrista wrote in post #14303475
I have no intention of dumping anything. I wouldn't "switch" like so many retards are saying on so many forums. I would simply expand, and include Nikon gear in my overall kit. I'm not asking Canon to change the specs of an already released product either...I was pleading that they make an improvement for the next product, whatever it may be. (Again, I thought this was an official Canon forum as I landed here from Canon's site...apologies for the miss.)

I do indeed find the DR of the 5D III a deal breaker, but on the flip side, I find Nikon body ergonomics, their menu system, and their firmware in general to also be a deal breaker (I find Canon's ergonomics fit my hands perfectly). Which really leaves me with no other option but to wait and see if Canon can improve their future products, or whether they will be stuck where they are for the foreseeable future. If thats the case, I guess I'm just stuck, and I'll deal. But there isn't any harm in pleading for a change, is there? Squeaky wheel gets the oil, yes?

No need for apologies, you're more than welcome here, the more the merrier as they say. As for improving the next batch of product, well we all hope for that, from my understanding, Sony owns the patents on on-chip ISO gain amplification and A/D conversion which gives them the DR advantage alot are lusting after. Only time will tell if Canon engineers can find an alternate means to that end without licensing or violating Sony patents.

You're certainly entitled to ask for a change, but I tend to think that Canon is well aware of the situation already. I don't know of any market leader that strives to release an inferior product. If Canon does indeed release a high MP body, which I'm sure they will, it would by nature be an all new sensor and more than likely your best bet for the DR you desire. I guess my point is that the best tool for the job is the one you have on your belt. The Canon products are what they are and people will learn to get the absolute best from them, and I can say with absolute certainty that the bests shots from a 5DIII will be equal and in some cases better than the best shots from it's competitors regardless of DR.

At the end of the day, I think the 5DIII was designed to address the major complaints of the 5DII and IMO it did just that....

While you're busy looking at a bunch of pixels and subjective, synthetic benchmarking results, I'll be out taking awesome photos.

jrista wrote in post #14303475
... I find Nikon body ergonomics, their menu system, and their firmware in general to also be a deal breaker (I find Canon's ergonomics fit my hands perfectly). ...

Oh, I couldn't agree more +1

Numenorean wrote in post #14303677
While you're busy looking at a bunch of pixels and subjective, synthetic benchmarking results, I'll be out taking awesome photos.

So WTF are you doing posting to this thread then? And you have it backwards - the benchmarks are objective (even if the decision on which ones to test is subjective); it's word like "awesome", "sucks" and "blows it away" that are the subjective ones.