Next Generation of FF Bodies

[Kayaker72]

If you believe the rumors, we might start seeing the next generation of full frame bodies from Canon as soon as next week with the 1DX II. First, I am likely to buy one of the next generation bodies, so I am interested. Not necessarily soon, as I am happy with my 5DIII, but somewhere between 2017 and 2019, as my 5DIII gets older and more actuations, that seems about right.

This was one of the topics of conversation when Mike (Busted Knuckles) and I got together a week ago to photograph birds at Merritt Island.

I tend to think of cameras as hardware and do not really believe in the "mirrorless revolution." As such, I am at the point where I expect incremental upgrades. But, Mike surprised me and got me thinking as he started talking about all the software upgrades that Canon could put in the next generation.

So, I was wondering what upgrades everyone else thought were possible with the next generation?

Regarding the 5D4. I have been wanting:

• Whatever improvement at high ISO they can give me for faster shutter speeds.
• Less noise in blacks for long exposures (nightscapes). I am hopeful the rumored on chip ADC will accomplish this.
• Linking exposure to AF point. Time for this feature to flow down from the 1DX.
• More powerful battery to better drive the AF. Ok, another 1DX feature.
• Faster write speeds to the SD card slot (if they even keep the SD card slot).
• 8-10 fps
• ~24-28 MP
• Wi-Fi where I can control the camera remotely from my phone.
• Same form factor. Same button layout.

Above would be about the perfect camera for me. But really I am only concerned with the first four. I often turn off the SD card slot. FPS, I end up with too many pictures to sort through anyway. More MP, I am pretty happy with 22 MP, but a few more might be nice. I only want wifi as I read that Roger likes to play with it on his 6D. I do want the same form factor. I do not tend to care about features that get a lot of discussion such as 4K video, GPS, more dynamic range (other than that gained by cleaning up blacks on long exposures), etc. In camera RT control of the flashes would be nice, but I already own the ST-E3. Not that I am opposed to their inclusion, as long as they are done well. I have also heard about a near silent shutter mode. Sure, that would be interesting, but mostly for other people.

To blow me out of the water and make me buy it soon? About 2-3 stop boost in high ISO performance as well as the features above. I do not think this is possible, but that is what would get my attention. The ability to shoot ISO 25600 as clean as ISO 3200 is right now.

But Mike also got me thinking about software upgrades and now I also want Canon to include a built in intervalometer and a time lapse video camera mode. A legitimate crop mode with increased fps and significantly decreased file size would also be interesting.

So, that is my list. I was wondering what others were thinking?

[HDNitehawk]

I could care less about a 5D IV, and I have my doubts there will be one. The 6D will probably get an upgrade.
I suppose there are marketing guru's at Canon that are deciding if they need a body between a new 6D II and the 5Ds.

Personally I am hoping the next generation 1D body is released soon. Earlier this month I went elk hunting, I took the 5Ds R with me. I regretted not bringing the 1D IV because of the brutal conditions. Single digit temperatures, near blizzard conditions and it was always wet.

In the new 1D I would like to see;

Dynamic Range, we can make fun of the Nikonian and Sonyites that pound that drum. Camera's do not capture even close to the range you can see with the human eye. This is something I would like to see improved in any future bodies.

Higher ISO performance would be good, but no doubt we are trading that for mp. I want both.

[Kayaker72]

Supposedly next week we'll get the 1Dx II.

As for dynamic range, this is from Wikipedia:

Device	Stops	Contrast
LCD	9.5	700:1 (250:1 – 1750:1)
Negative film (Kodak VISION3)	13[46]	8000:1
Human eye	10–14[47]	1000:1 – 15000:1
High-end DSLR camera (Nikon D810)	14.8[48]	28500:1

BTW...reference 48 is DXO.

This is consistent with what I've seen over the years. We are already at or even exceeding what the human eye sees. We are also far exceeding our typical outputs. Last time I looked, most jpegs were 8-bit, so limited to 8 stops DR. I understand that there are higher bit jpegs (I've heard of 12 bit), but those are not commonly used (unless something has changed). Then our monitors are 9.5 stops according to Wikipedia. HDR monitors exist, but are currently very expensive. I am not sure about printing. From what I know and can find, DR in cameras is not the limiting factor right now. So the only real benefit to more DR in cameras is the ability to pull details from outside 8-9.5 stops so that they can be presented in the chosen output's range. So, pull deep shadows to be brighter. Make something look illuminated when it wasn't. Sure, I am interested in that, but how many stops do I want to pull from..before it looks unnatural? As I said above, I'd like less noise in shadows/blacks, or even highlights. A couple stops might help prevent me from blowing out egrets.

This is why I have trouble desiring more DR or listening to those that are pounding the Sonykon drum.

[HDNitehawk]

That is testing that is not real world.
You see a bird in the bush and you take the picture. The background is blown or you can't see the bird.
With my eye it has enough range to see both.
The camera does not. In LR you can kill the highlights and raise the shadows but it is still less than the what you see.
We are talking usable range, if modern DSLR have more range they do not have more usable range due to noise.

[NFLD Stephen]

Biggest feature I'd like to see added is intervalometer capabilities in-camera. No reason why this can't be added to the camera firmware. Would also be nice to have RT control of flashes (but I doubt that will happen as it would kill the sales of the ST-E3). Other than that, I'd always like to have improvements in AF, FPS, MP, DR, etc. I would expect that any improvements there would be incremental considering that this is a mature product line.

Just to weigh in on the DR issue, I would think that measuring the DR of the human eye would be very difficult. Wouldn't your eye be constantly adjusting the pupil diameter as you change what you are focusing on? So in Rick's example when you focus on the bird your pupil dilates to see the bird brighter and when you focus on the background your pupil shrinks to not "overexpose" the background? I know the eye doesn't adjust always that quickly, but I would think it would have some effect on perceived dynamic range. In any case, I don't see increasing the DR of a sensor or camera to be a bad thing and any improvement would be welcome!

Stephen

[jamsus]

The human eye is not only a lens, it has a brain behind that does a lot of operations on the images (it actually acts more like a movie-cam than a reflex-cam )... including some tricks to isolate a subject in a difficoult environment

[Kayaker72]

Just clicked on the link in Wikipedia for the human eye range of 10-14 stops....pretty interesting and agrees what you are saying, the human eye quickly makes adjustments and has a total range of about 24 stops.

"THE HUMAN EYE

The human eye can actually perceive a greater dynamic range than is ordinarily possible with a camera. If we were to consider situations where our pupil opens and closes for varying light, our eyes can see over a range of nearly 24 f-stops.



On the other hand, for accurate comparisons with a single photo (at constant aperture, shutter and ISO), we can only consider the instantaneous dynamic range (where our pupil opening is unchanged). This would be similar to looking at one region within a scene, letting our eyes adjust, and not looking anywhere else. For this scenario there is much disagreement, because our eye's sensitivity and dynamic range actually change depending on brightness and contrast. Most estimate anywhere from 10-14 f-stops.
The problem with these numbers is that our eyes are extremely adaptable. For situations of extreme low-light star viewing (where our eyes have adjusted to use rod cells for night vision), our eyes approach even higher instantaneous dynamic ranges (see tutorial on "Color Perception of the Human Eye")."

Anyways, DR.

[HDNitehawk]

I think a good comparison are sunsets and horizons. Without filters your sky is blown out or the ground is all shadow. To the naked eye you can look at the sunset and still see detail in the ground and sky at the same time.

Of course there are many things going on in our brain and our eye that make this happen. For the discussion of a camera's DR it is my opinion those things are unimportant. The camera will never function in the same manner as the eye, but that shouldn't be the excuse of why the camera will not have more DR. It should only be a problem to solve.

What is important is how your mind perceives the sunset and the camera's ability to duplicate that perception.

Lifting shadows and killing highlights has improved in LR. Noise is still an issue. A few more clean stops of range would be very welcome.

[Busted Knuckles]

The human changes ISO pretty darn quick and often not perceived by the viewer. Combined w/ real time continuous aperture control this is a powerful combo.

Depth of field is also a bid difference.

None the less - I am thinking their might be another step or two in the DR/resolution games. Certainly with post processing there are some trick the photo dudes can play.

Having missed "the shot" because of only 5 fps - yep I am a fps buyer. odd that I really do landscapes more than anything else but....

What I am trying to resolve (pun intended) is that 99.999999999% of images are viewed on the internet is color depth JPG are 8, I need to check this, current 4k TVs are 10. It takes some serious effort then to view an image beyond 10 - printing and large scale at that? to get the value of tonal ranges?

All this leads me to is the confluence of the consumers of images vs. the producers of images. Where is this confluence going and how can Canon help in that direction.

[Kayaker72]

I think a good comparison are sunsets and horizons. Without filters your sky is blown out or the ground is all shadow. To the naked eye you can look at the sunset and still see detail in the ground and sky at the same time.

Of course there are many things going on in our brain and our eye that make this happen. For the discussion of a camera's DR it is my opinion those things are unimportant. The camera will never function in the same manner as the eye, but that shouldn't be the excuse of why the camera will not have more DR. It should only be a problem to solve.

What is important is how your mind perceives the sunset and the camera's ability to duplicate that perception.

Lifting shadows and killing highlights has improved in LR. Noise is still an issue. A few more clean stops of range would be very welcome.

Yep. I would love to see Canon clean up the noise, especially in the shadows/blacks. For your example, here is a sunset. Single shot exposure with the shadows/highlights pulled and pushed.


Small-8114 by kayaker72, on Flickr

I very much like this shot, but I do know that there is shadow noise and some banding if I were to look at some of the rocks at 100%. It would be nice to get that cleaned up in camera, but, as you say, LR is a powerful tool.

What I am trying to resolve (pun intended) is that 99.999999999% of images are viewed on the internet is color depth JPG are 8, I need to check this, current 4k TVs are 10. It takes some serious effort then to view an image beyond 10 - printing and large scale at that? to get the value of tonal ranges?

All this leads me to is the confluence of the consumers of images vs. the producers of images. Where is this confluence going and how can Canon help in that direction.

I've been coming around to the idea that we are output limited. If correct, then all the extra performance we get from our cameras is about having more material to post process. To pull and push those 12-15 stops to fit them into 8-10 stops so that we can view them on an output device. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that. It is useful in making a single image appear as we would have perceived it. I am still working on finding a good reference on printing, but if the "Cambridge in Color" link above is correct, prints are even more limited than monitors. I actually find that hard to believe which is why I am still looking.

But, the more I think about it, the more I think I am limited by higher ISO performance (noise, color, tone, etc). I would love to see cleaner ISO 3200 for nightscapes. And higher quality output for high ISO shots for indoors.