I think that is always the problem and main source of confusion / debate...it is almost impossible in this argument to compare "apples to apples"
The DxO Mark data helps a little but even that doesn
I think that is always the problem and main source of confusion / debate...it is almost impossible in this argument to compare "apples to apples"
The DxO Mark data helps a little but even that doesn
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
That's not really correct. See this thread:
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/photography_gear1/f/7/t/1055.aspx
Large pixels have the exact same quantum efficiency (photons collected) as small ones. The only possible low light benefit of larger pixels is less read noise, but that doesn't always happen, and when it does it only affects very high ISO.
Thanks for the update, Joel. I found and read DPR thread you alluded to as well. Good to know that Chuck Westfall provided confirmation, of sorts, but unfortunate.I hope that Canon addresses it before release, but I have doubts - I don't think it was an oversight. My cynical side wonders about marketing's role - take away the 1.3x, but some users can compensate by adding a TC; take away f/8 AF and that forces more people to buy longer lenses. But beyond that, the speculators at DPR missed a key point - the 1D X is the first 1-series body to have the diagonal cross points (40D -> 7D have one in the center, 1D X has a row of 5, no prior 1-series has it). That's the f/5.6 +-shaped sensor with an f/2.8 x-shaped sensor superimposed on it. That's a pretty crowded arrangement already, and it may there was just no room for the additional f/8-sensitive line. Maybe the engineers at Canon can redesign it...but that's a pretty tight timeline for design, testing, and production to meet a March release.
Sigh. Oh well - it's yet another reason I'm glad I'm viewing this as a replacement for my 5DII only, and plan to keep using the 7D for birds. It's certainly bad news for those with 1D bodies who rely on their 1.3x and f/8 extender combos.
One final thing to point out - the irony. Canon announces new MkII 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 lenses and touts their impressive performance with MTF curves showing performance with the new 2x III extender that's nearly as good as the bare MkI lenses. Quite tantalizing. Then they replace their professional bodies with the 1D X, which cannot AF with that combination. Oops.
and
I bet they have an active wood shed role now. Now that the shareholders can get a good view of this.
For years they push larger and larger mp on us....More is better....Go to a store what is the first thing the salesman says, "this camera has x number of mp" and now.........it suddenly doesn't matter because of other unseen changes they made that are vaguely referenced?
At the least it is a marketing flop.
I am hoping that somehow Canon works the magic and we never notice the missing pixels with this camera. Maybe we will see better information as the release gets closer, right now I am on the fence about replacing the 5D II with it. The bright side I guess, is that I intended to get the IDs IV as replacement for the 5D's and was expecting to pay more than $7,000 for it. So if it is an upgrade to the 5D II then I would probably be on board.
However think back to the 7D vs 5D II thread, we found that the 7D was only slightly better than the 5D II crop. And in some areas the 5D II crop was better. So really a person would think that if the new 1D X is better than a 5D II, that "slightly better" gap should go away. In which case you get to use the new AF system, and crop to match your 7D framing. It just doesn't sound like there will be enough pixels for that crop to work.
From the past test my thinking on this is that if you can't crop the 1D X and match the current 7D's IQ, then there wasn't much of a resolution upgrade. This only leaves all of the other options to base our decision on, those alone are awesome. I suppose if the resolution was only equal to the current, but color, ISO, frame rate and all the other little nifty improvements I would pre-order.
I do really hope that the missing f/8 point was just left out of the
literature, but reading the last page it does sound more and more that
it just doesn't exist.
Given that, i'd certainly hope that it's an engineering impossibility
and not marketing on purpose to make people buy longer lenses. Let's
face it, there's only so far you can push the wallet of even the biggest
fanboy before they jump ship.
.
Thinking about it another way, for whom is this camera?
- Take your studio pro, sit-down portraits or product/food
photography. The lower-noise is definitely helpful (i'm presuming 18mp
of the 1dx gives same or better IQ than 21mp of 1ds3 printed at the same
size). But flash/strobes don't recycle 12 times per second, fps is
useless. Unless IQ is *a lot* better than the 5D2, why don't i just get
one (or two) or them and save a packet, and/or get some very nice glass
which will help IQ more than the step (up) to the 1Dx.
- Birders, it's pretty much decided they won't like this, unless you
can crop to 8 (or whatever) very nice megapixels that look better than
the 1D4's 16MP or the 7D's 18MP. The 12fps will definitely help, but is
the 2-more-than-1D4 worth it? Lower-noise for higher-iso will help
higher shutter speeds. But if I have to buy a new body that's more
expensive than a 1D4, *and* a longer lens that's more expensive and
heavier, i'm going to consider other brands, taking a hit on 2nd-hand
prices to jump ship may still end up cheaper than upgrading and staying
canon. If I can't AF with my 600 f/4 and 2x TC v3 that I ordered on
announcement, that's just another nail in the coffin.
- Other wildlife, you can generally get a lot closer than BIF
(although some you may not want to get too close to). For them, they can
probably get away with their current glass so if the IQ is better than
the 1D4 for same-framing-same-lens (zooming with your feet), they'll be
happy with the fps-upgrade. Anyone who can't zoom with their feet come
under the 'birders' above.
- Who really needs widest-angle-high-fps? The APS-H disadvatage
against FF is the crop-factor, with no 'EFs' equivalent lenses to get
wider. If 14mm is the widest you get on FF, that's 18.2mm on APS-H. Who
really needs to shoot more than 5fps (1Ds3) between 14-18mm wide?
- Weddings and indoor events. OK, they're going to love it, no
argument there (unless you really need to print a billboard-sized
hand-held no-flash-indoor shot at 300dpiand 18MP isn't enough)
- Billboard-printers, and they do exist, although they're very few in
number. Some were definitely hoping to keep their EF glass and get a
nice upgrade to 30+MP. The D3X may be better than the 1Ds3 now, but the
difference isn't so great to justify jumping-ship. But what's next for
nikon? 36MP D800? Is the 1DX's 18MP going to beat that in IQ? No comment
until we can get both side-by-side. Is there a Canon Medium-Format
coming? If there is, and I have to upgrade my glass and entire kit, then
I'm going to have to consider the Leica S2, Hassy H4D, P645, and the
Leaf and Phase One 80MP backs for Contax 645 etc, and canon may not be
able to compete with them (again, if it happens, no comment until
they're all side-by-side).
- Technology in general. I drew a nice graph this morning, of the
top-of-canon models, and almost every trend has been bucked. Top lines (right axis)
are pixels/mm of sensor width (ie, pixels-on-target). 7D obviously wins
but they're not the prettiest pixels. Trends in the 1D/s lines should
have gone to 170-200 or so (ie up to a 34MP FF sensor or so). The middle
line is pure MP, and the lines should have hit 25MP or so by this time.
FPS at the bottom seems to be the only one that's evolved, but at what
cost?
[img]/photography_gear1/resized-image.ashx/__size/624x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/7/8750.1D_2D00_graph.png[/img]
.
This
whole thing reminds me of the CPU-race of the last ten years. Intel
just kept making faster-and-faster CPUs, the last pentium 4 chips were
pushing 4GHz and put out more heat/mm than the surface of the sun. AMD
kept back, and made more efficiency-per-MHz, more cores, better memory
controller, and beat intel on almost any benchmark of the time.
But
then the tables turned, intel came out with the Core, and started
beating AMD at their own game. It's taken a few years, now it's totally
reversed, AMD are the ones that have to push up the GHz to get anywhere
near intel's performance.
Is there a parallel to the cameras?
Canon kept pushing up the MP, and nikon languished behind. But nikon had
some advantages, (arguably) 'prettier' pixels even if there were less
of them, better DR/noise/etc. Now Canon's gone down, bigger
photodiode-sites, (allegedly) better noise, in short,
less-but-'prettier' pixels, and Nikon's the one rumoured to have the
36MP out soon. But unlike computers, will nikon win this round? No
comment until the D800 is no longer vapourware, but even 36MP in FF,
even if they're the quality of 7D pixels, shrunk down 1/2 to 18MP, would
that not theoretically be better than the 1DX's 18MP? We'll compare
them when they come.
.
What next for the 5D3 then? it can go two ways:
-
Reuse the same 1DX sensor? Must have a year or two time lag, by that
time any pro who would have gotten a 1DX will have one, so
sales-cannibalisation will be low. Crippling the AF, video, and sealing
etc will help differentiate markets, so the 1DX will still sell better
(ie, if the 5D2 didn't have video, or the 1Ds3 did, i reckon the 1Ds3
would have sold a lot better after the 5D2 came out)
- More MP? Then the IQ will have to be worse than the 1DX printed
same-size, or with a big time-lag, and/or stupidly-crippled (like 9pt
AF and low-sealing again). But personally, if i ever buy a FF camera,
it's for landscapes, maybe sit-down portraits and macro. All Manual
Focussed, don't need high fps, as long as it has live-view. 2nd-hand 5D2
is definitely in my sights.
.
And now I have no idea what the 7D2 looks like, if there
is one. Current 1D4-users who can't afford the 1DX upgrade might be
hanging out for a 7D2 to be their new birding body. Or the market for
2nd-hand 1D4 will stay high for a while yet. 1D4 is still an upgrade to
the 7D, once they get cheap enough i might splurge.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
In Bryan
Mark
Mark, one of the press releases stated US$6800.
$6,800.....
Perhaps the price point can tell us something about the resolution of the new sensor. Do you really enter the market with an "improved" camera and offer it cheaper? In today's economy the price even makes less sense, it should have jumped.
Maybe Canon's marketing is making one of the "new coke" "classic coke" moves.
By the way
Roland's Prophecy may yet be fulfilled
[View:http://community.the-digital-picture.com/photography_gear1/f/7/t/5461.aspx:550:0]
This is a very excellent, pragmatic analysis, Dr. Croubie.
Is the frame rate the holy grail now? I thought it was megapixels? Maybe the next generation will have 24 fps. Oh, wait, that's already here. It's video!
Personally, I'd take the increased megapixels over a lower frame rate. And, since I'm not printing billboard sized prints, my 5DMk2 is just fine. More than fine, actually.
Personally I'm very excited about this camera. I'd love to be able to take photos at ISO 6400 with results comparable to ISO 800 on the 1DsIII. Obviously we haven't seen any large examples, but I'm guessing a 21mp ISO 6400 file from the 1DsIII would have less detail than a 18mp ISO 6400 file from the 1DX.
I think the 1DX will be amazing for shooting sports. The loss of 1.3x crop and drop in megapixels might be a problem for some, but if the image is less noisy then the resulting image quality might be better anyway. Also considering where many of these photos end up (the internet and magazines), having fewer megapixels might not be a big deal. For wildlife photographers and others that really want reach, there's still the 1.6x crop cameras. I've had no issues with the quality of the autofocus on the 7D. I'm excited to see what the 7DII brings (even if it is a drop in megapixels to reduce noise).
The 1DX doesn't mean Canon is closing the book on higher resolution. I think the 1DX is targeted at the professional sports, wedding, or photojournalist that can benefit from its features. The 5DII probably cannibalized the 1DsIII sales, since many studio and landscape photographers don't really need more than what the 5DII had to offer. As others have said, perhaps the future still holds a 5DIII with more megapixels. Honestly though, I personally still would buy a 5DIII even if it had the 1DX's 18 megapixel sensor with an improved autofocus over the 5DII.
- Trowski
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote