Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here's something sinfully off topic. Supposedly, on the 17th, 4 days from now, Canon will send emails to select friends and family detailing a new version of the 5D. In this age, it's already an old camera ready for a major upgrade, but it is also one of the most popular DSLRs among pro and amateur users. Now I know this is supposed to be a rangefinder forum and we are all rangefinder users. But tools are tools. Most of us who own a hammer also own a saw. And there are a not only DLSR users here, but 5D users. Can we outguess the rumor mill or at least come up with an intelligent wish list of features for this new workhorse?
I'll start. My guess and my wish is for a 14 bit file. I'll take anything that will give me more exposure latitude or tonal range (same thing really), even if it's just 2 bits worth.
Bill
I'll start. My guess and my wish is for a 14 bit file. I'll take anything that will give me more exposure latitude or tonal range (same thing really), even if it's just 2 bits worth.
Bill
photogdave
Shops local
I think it's a pretty safe bet we'll see higher ISO settings with improved noise reduction, Digic IV processor, larger buffer and faster fps, more durable body and shutter with some degree of weather sealing. Oh yeah, Live View too.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
My guess:
14bit A/D
16-21MP
12800 asa max
Weather sealing
8.5 stops range
Video?
I bought a Nikon D700 last week. Used to have a 5d, but sold it because apparently I am allergic to Canon ergonomics. Nice cameras, but we were not meant to be.
The D700 is very nice.
1600 / 3200 asa are amazing.
6400 asa looks like 400asa color neg.
25,400 asa looks like color TMY3200.
But as always it's like shooting slide film. 8.5 stops is just not the same as the 12 you get out of Tri-X or Portra 400.... I really wish the manufacturers will get over the mega-squiggle war and concentrate of increasing dynamic range. I would settle for 12-16MP, if it had a true 12 stops of range and 16bit color...
The guy in the store thought I was nuts when he saw me mount a black and chrome Nikkor H.C 2/50 on it...
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Hey Bill -
From what I understand dynamic range is the amount of 'zones' that can be captured between black and white. Extra bit depth gives you more steps. between the two. So, 16 will not get you more dynamic range, but tonal resolution. We need to increase both...
Picture this. If you had a sensor that captured 10 stops between black and white, but was only 8bit you would only have 256 shades of gray to describe the image between black and white (Zone 0-10). With 12bit I believe you would have 4096 steps of grayscale etc etc...
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Harry -
I think you're right on bit depth. And, like you, I'm not thrilled at the tonal limits of digital. I spent a lot of time shooting color transparencies for the mags who liked how easy it was to edit the raw film. So exposing for highlight detail before it becomes cellophane or digital cellophane is second nature, but I still love Tri-X and neg above all. That limited range is for me the biggest drawback of digital.
I have a friend who is one of the technical wizards at one of the big camera companies. Next time I see him, I'll ask him about brightness range and also ask him if he knows what the M8 is really doing to its raw files.
Bill
I think you're right on bit depth. And, like you, I'm not thrilled at the tonal limits of digital. I spent a lot of time shooting color transparencies for the mags who liked how easy it was to edit the raw film. So exposing for highlight detail before it becomes cellophane or digital cellophane is second nature, but I still love Tri-X and neg above all. That limited range is for me the biggest drawback of digital.
I have a friend who is one of the technical wizards at one of the big camera companies. Next time I see him, I'll ask him about brightness range and also ask him if he knows what the M8 is really doing to its raw files.
Bill
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
MichaelW
Established
Safe bet it'll be a full frame 50D, more or less.
They don't really have to do much with it, just bring it up to date.
They don't really have to do much with it, just bring it up to date.
oscroft
Veteran
I was talking to a friend who uses a 5D just a few days ago. We were talking about a comparison with the Nikon D700 that has recently been published by Amateur Photographer in the UK, and what was interesting about it was that though the Nikon is much more advanced in lots of technical areas, there really wasn't much to choose between them in low ISO image quality.
Anyway, we tried to guess what the new 5D might include, and came up with the following, short, wish list...
Better bit depth for better tonal gradation.
Better high ISO performance (Nikon wipes the floor with the current 5D).
Faster data I/O.
And that, pretty much, was it. Neither of us cared a hoot how many focus/metering spots it has - one is enough as long as we can see where it is, though three or four might be useful on occasions, but 51 (or whatever the Nikon count is)?!
And we're really not interested in how many different fancy ways there are to organise a vast multitude of menus - we'd much rather see a camera that doesn't need a thicker operating manual than the Space Shuttle.
So my hope, at least, is that they've concentrated on a small number of genuinely valuable improvements and got them right rather than overwhelming us with secondary "features".
Anyway, we tried to guess what the new 5D might include, and came up with the following, short, wish list...
Better bit depth for better tonal gradation.
Better high ISO performance (Nikon wipes the floor with the current 5D).
Faster data I/O.
And that, pretty much, was it. Neither of us cared a hoot how many focus/metering spots it has - one is enough as long as we can see where it is, though three or four might be useful on occasions, but 51 (or whatever the Nikon count is)?!
And we're really not interested in how many different fancy ways there are to organise a vast multitude of menus - we'd much rather see a camera that doesn't need a thicker operating manual than the Space Shuttle.
So my hope, at least, is that they've concentrated on a small number of genuinely valuable improvements and got them right rather than overwhelming us with secondary "features".
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I'm in the same boat. I feed my M's with Tri-X and use a divided developer. I'm certain that I am getting something along the lines of 12 stops of range out of it and when the highlights do max out they 'fail' gracefully.
When ever I shoot digital I keep telling myself that I am shooting Kodachrome. The D700 is more forgiving than Kodachrome, but not even in the same ballpark as negative film. I'm finding it really difficult to do street photography with digital, because it can be very unforgiving, when it comes to exposure errors.
That would be great.
The M8 appears to use a variable compression scheme. In simple terms less energy (Photons) is present in the lower zones, so you want to apply less compression in order to retain information. In the upper zones there is more energy present, so it is less likely to show the effects of compression. Basically the compression ratio increases, as you travel up in zones. This is a very clever trick, but I would still like to see the option of simply writing out a straight 16bit file. Apparently the prototypes were able to do this. But this still doesn't solve the problem that like nearly all DSLR cameras the M8 is stuck at around 8 stops.
The Fuji FInepix S5 Pro hit 10 stops using it's SuperCCD, but it was only 6MP.
I would love to see a full frame version of that sensor in a D700 body...
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
We know; the tools always compare the 5D with the M8.
Oh oh oh, you mean working tools. My bad.
What a waste, Bill. Everybody knows that duct tape is the best tool on the planet. Anybody who says any different is an elitist and can't stand debate.
:angel:
Disclaimer for the Tongue-in-Cheek impaired: I agree with Bill.
willie_901
Veteran
Good point about bits, dynamic range, and tonality depth.
Nikon (Active D-Lighting) and others use a similar compression scheme. These compression methods help, but they are like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. If you look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page20.asp, you will see what I mean.
According to DPreviews tests, the M8 has a "usable" dynamic range of 8.4 stops at ISO 160 and the D300 has 8.8 stops at ISO 200. So both cameras have similar and limited (compared to negative film) dynamic ranges. This is empirical evidence that the compression methods will help with shadow recovery, but not with dynamic range.
By the way, different cameras may have similar dynamic ranges but they do not necessarily span the same range of E.V. values. Some are better at low E.V. at the expense of high E.V., and vice-versa (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page14.asp).
willie
Nikon (Active D-Lighting) and others use a similar compression scheme. These compression methods help, but they are like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. If you look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page20.asp, you will see what I mean.
According to DPreviews tests, the M8 has a "usable" dynamic range of 8.4 stops at ISO 160 and the D300 has 8.8 stops at ISO 200. So both cameras have similar and limited (compared to negative film) dynamic ranges. This is empirical evidence that the compression methods will help with shadow recovery, but not with dynamic range.
By the way, different cameras may have similar dynamic ranges but they do not necessarily span the same range of E.V. values. Some are better at low E.V. at the expense of high E.V., and vice-versa (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page14.asp).
willie
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Gabriel M.A.;895007Everybody knows that duct tape is the best tool on the planet.[/QUOTE said:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Well, Active-D Lighting is more like an in camera version of the shadow/Highlight recovery feature in Photoshop. The technology evolved from their p&s line to make out of camera jpegs look better (prevent blocked up shadows / clipped highs).
Active-D lifts the shadows and rolls off the highlights as they approach the clipping point. Active -D or the highlight exposure mode in Canon bodies does not extend the physical capability of the hardware. All the software can do is extract the maximum performance from the hardware. But regardless we're still stuck at around 8.5 stops.
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here's the official answer -
The EOS 5D Mark II camera has finally been announced! Here are its important new characteristics:
21.1 Megapixel full frame CMOS sensor (yep, you read that right!)
Self-cleaning sensor system, enough said!
900,000 pixel LCD screen, same as the 50D.
Video, real HD video output. This is a video camera as well as a still photo camera.
$2,699.00 MAP
Bill
The EOS 5D Mark II camera has finally been announced! Here are its important new characteristics:
21.1 Megapixel full frame CMOS sensor (yep, you read that right!)
Self-cleaning sensor system, enough said!
900,000 pixel LCD screen, same as the 50D.
Video, real HD video output. This is a video camera as well as a still photo camera.
$2,699.00 MAP
Bill
Harry Lime
Practitioner
A PJ's dream come true? I'm not a PJ, but it sure sounds like it.
The HD video capture feature sounds amazing. If the image doesn't suffer from severe shearing when you pan or fast objects move through the scene (due to the electronic rolling shutter), this will be a stunning feature for journalists.
That's an awful lot of camera for that amount of money...
charjohncarter
Veteran
Sorry, I don't get it. I have a DSLR (APS sensor) that has 12 bit RAW, whatever. Still, I agree with Mr. Pierce, dynamic range is the biggest problem with Digital. I'm sure the Nikon and Canon just hope that we will get over the dynamic range thing. And they (Nikon-Canon) with excessive marketing will convince us we don't need an increase in dynamic range. I think one company Fuji or someone else had a Fovian (sp) sensor that had two 'layers' of sensors that increased the tonal range and as far as I know it hasn't been a success, so maybe they have already won.
charjohncarter
Veteran
sono, I hope you are right, but as you say d-cams have been around for many years and as far as I can see nothing has happened on my greatest complaint (dynamic range). We have lots of secondary improvements but not on this issue. If you are right, whoa, a lot of DSLRs will be on Ebay.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Interesting, for a long time folks have used other than Leitz lenses on M's. I even heard Leitz lecturers in the days of the M3 and M2 telling students that they could mount Canon lenses on their Leicas until the could afford the "best." I'd guess half the lenses on my M8 are Cosina.
It didn't take long before folks also started mounting lenses and DSLR's that didn't have the same brand name. I certainly wasn't going to throw away my Leicaflex lenses. 28 to 400 fit on a Canon 5D with adapter. Much of Eric Meola's new India book was shot with Leitz 19 on a 5D. A lot of Nikon 14-24's are mounted on Canons. Folks are raving about Zeiss lenses on all manner of cameras. And with DSLR's, with the focusing screen switched to one recommended for manual focus, it seems human beings can rival autofocus.
Bill
BillBingham2
Registered User
The silly idea of having lots of menu options on computers is a pain in many applications as you do about 12 things all the time. Key board short cuts rock for tasks you repeat. It's the same thing with cameras. Forgetting focus, we really deal with Sensitivity (ISO/DIN/ASA), Shutter Speed and Aperture (f-stop) when we are looking at exposure. IMHO the vendor that makes a semi-pro camera that handles like an F2, OM-1 or F1 with those controls will clean up a sizable part of the market. Nikon is close from what I can see with their old AI glass on the D300/700 bodies (and the D200 I think) but Canon has gone the way of menus from what I've seen.
I'm not opposed to the bells and whistles, but when I want simple (straight forward) I want simple and those three controls are the core of what I want. I want to be able to change the resolution but it does not have to have the same ease as changing shutter speed. I do not want to have to take my hand off the camera to change shutter speed or f-stop, sensitivity might be OK.
I am impressed by the new Canon, same way I am about the Quad-Core HP servers. I'm happy with my dual-core MacMini.
B2 (;->
I'm not opposed to the bells and whistles, but when I want simple (straight forward) I want simple and those three controls are the core of what I want. I want to be able to change the resolution but it does not have to have the same ease as changing shutter speed. I do not want to have to take my hand off the camera to change shutter speed or f-stop, sensitivity might be OK.
I am impressed by the new Canon, same way I am about the Quad-Core HP servers. I'm happy with my dual-core MacMini.
B2 (;->
charjohncarter
Veteran
I can't believe you guys. I had a Sony Mavica from 1998, it cost $1000. I still see no improvement in dynamic range. Plus, the color isn't very good on any of them unless you use the sterile, plastic approach of PS. I'm not saying that digital is bad. I've had 5 d-cams and still have three. I still use them, but they suck the soul out of my photos.