As cool as in-body IS would be, I don't think Canon would consider it.
Why?
Because the advanced IS systems found in Canon lenses are some of the things that attract buyers to buy genuine Canon lenses.
With in-body IS, IMHO, I think buyers would take on the thought of, "I already have in-body IS. Why would I need lens IS too?".
I believe that this could direct people towards the third-party lenses of Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina.
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
When one shoots wider than f/2.8, Canon mangles the raw data with a digital push in order to compensate for lower sensor response to light from oblique angles due to the microlenses. You can read about where it's done in the 30D here, but Canon didn't fix it for the 5D2, and I doubt the 50D or 60D will be corrected either:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~par24/rawhistogram/CanonRawScaling/CanonRawScaling.html
The reason they do this is for all the same reasons as above. Papering over the sensor angle of response with a digital push helps Customer Service issues (people don't wonder why their f/1.2 is darker than f/2.8), Marketing, Management, Beurocracy, etc. Of course, if you slightly untwist the lens so that there is no electronic communication, then the camera will not know to apply the push to your f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens, which allows you to get the unmodified raw data. There's really no good reason to mangle the raw data IMHO.
That would be really great. CHDK is a stellar example of what can be done even when Canon is fighting to prevent it. And here I would have thought a legion of unpaid programmers adding tremendous new features would be a good thing.
If Canon open sources their firmware, I will add the metadata ISO feature myself.
I was happy go lucky, loving my 40D and then my 5Dmk2. Then Debbie Downer Browning came along.
Anyone wants a lightly used 5Dmk2 or a heavily used 40D they will be in my trash in front of my house.
Thanks a lot Daniel!
[] Morpheus is always getting after me for disclosing the truth about The Matrix without first asking if you want to swallow the red pill. [
15mp [same as 50D]
6.5fps w/o grip 8fps w/ grip [nikon style]
weather sealing
hd video + manual controls [hopefully the 5D mark II will get manual controls soon!]
audio input like the 5d mark II
have exceptional iso performance.. 100-6400 lo:50 hi:25600
bigger viewfinder..
pretty much ahahaha :]
I just threw my 5DII in the trash and ordered a D700. []
I thought this *was* how it worked. In fact, my open-source proponent friend hacked his 300D- I forget why- and from looking at the code, he swears on that camera iso1600 and iso3200 raws are identical. (300D doesn't have iso3200 but it shared the codebase with the 20D, which did).
The disturbing part of this is the light loss, but it looks like it is only about 6% at f/2. That sucks but oh well... probably can't easily be helped. Do you know if other cameras suffer from this problem? (The fact that they mangle the raw instead of adding metadata and letting the raw converter do what it will seems wrong, but I'm not losing any sleep over that one).
With TTL metering, wouldn't you just get longer exposure times rather than darker images?
If canon open sources their firmware, I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon. [H]
I threw my 5D2 in the garbage as well. 70-200 is now a yard fixture.
It's not necessary to look at the code: if the raws are identical then that would be obvious from looking at the raw files themselves. If instead your friend is saying that they start out identical, then the 3200 is changed digitally, then that agrees with what I'm saying.
One of these days I'll test my 24mm f/1.4 II on the 5D2; I think it will be much worse.
The light loss problem varies with microlens design, which is different between cameras and manufacturers. The 50D has gapless microlenses on APS-C, and the Nikon D700 has gapless microlenses that use a two-element design.
The "mangle RAW" problem seems to be something that every manufacturer does, but no two in the same way:
Canon mangles raws at wide apertures.
Nikon applies color matrix, black clip, and long exposure hot pixel abatement.
Sony does a subtle noise reduction in A900 up to ISO 800 that can't be disabled.
Pentax does an averaging-based noise reduction at ISO 1600 and clips blacks.
If Canon had a storage system that was evenly matched to the capability of the camera (e.g. 12 bits), it would be a problem, because mangling the raw reduces precision and introduces quantization error, which can cause additional noise and posterization in the shadows.
Fortunately, Canon's storage system is way over-spec, and whil it's nomrally just a big waste of space, the 14-bits do prevent this problem. In this case, two wrongs make a right.
The light hitting the exposure meter is fine, so it would have no way to know that the sensor is going to be less responsive unless Canon programmed it with the same logic they use to modify the raw file. But then it wouldn't have any effect in manual mode. Doing it in the firmware works in manual as well as autoexposure modes.
Thanks for the info, Daniel. I had no idea.
We didn't have the cameraMy recollection is that he claimed the raws were identical, except metadata. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe my memory mangled what he said.
The light hitting the exposure meter is fine, so it would have no way to know that the sensor is going to be less responsive unless Canon programmed it with the same logic they use to modify the raw file. But then it wouldn't have any effect in manual mode. Doing it in the firmware works in manual as well as autoexposure modes.
Ah, of course. Still, I agree with you: the place for this is in metadata. They shouldn't cook the raw.
there is a 60D rumor of it having a "dumbed" down AF of the 1D mark III. i dont know if this is actually true.. but check it out at http://canonrumors.com/
Wow, thanks Daniel and all people here for the discussion!
You guys said you all ditched the 5D II for the D700, does Nikon use only analog ISOs or how's the D700 much better in comparison? Is there anything foundamentally different between Canon and Nikon in this regard? I know it has a larger individual pixel size and that yields a better signal collection - this is known by everybody here. I'm also deciding if i should switch to or add Nikon system, I'm reluctant to make such a move as it does not come very cheap, however, if it is worth it I will not mind to do it.
I'm confused now... Please help.
I was joking.
Some people have a hard time hearing any criticism about their favorite brand, but most photographers have no problem discussing all the issues that plague their chosen tools. I think flaws should be discussed openly and frequently so that people don't get surprised when they occur and so they can be fixed in the next camera. Many of the flaws that bother me aren't important to other photographers.
The Nikons don't apply the angle of incidence push like Canon does, perhaps because of their dual-element microlens design allowing for improved response. However, they do not implement metadata ISO either, so they have the same
problem in that regard. They do some things better (Auto ISO, don't
apply angle of response push), but other things worse (black clip,
color matrix).
Even with the litany of imperfections that I can discuss in the 5D2, Nikon has different (and worse) trade-offs. In my case, the 5D2 is the best camera for my needs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote