New Canon high MP cameras - press release

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sim - I'm not sure how this sample shows anything about dynamic range. Can you elaborate please?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dizzydoug/16275228787/in/photostream/"><em><strong>Here</strong></em></a> is the live link to the site posted by Sim above:</p>

<p>Well, Andrew, I certainly would not want to try to quantify DR based on my casual viewing, but I have to say that that photo is very rich in both tone and hue.</p>

<p>Everything that I am seeing so far about this camera is pretty impressive. I like the idea of having a camera of very high resolution, especially if one has the option of not shooting at lower resolution just by pushing a button. Perhaps the next generation will take it for granted that one may shoot with fifty or more megapixels, or as few as one or two, depending on what the file is needed for. If so, some of the objections to high res cameras are going to sound rather quaint. With storage space getting cheaper and computers always getting faster and faster, these files will not even be considered all that big in the not too distant future.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just to be official, this image is in the Canon Japan 5DsR version (<a href="http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/">http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/</a>) of the 5Ds link that Alan shared above.</p>

<p>I agree, there's nothing wrong with the photo. It <em>does</em> show good colours. I just don't think it says much about whether there's detail that can be recovered in image manipulation - I can't guarantee it, but I'd say the image looks rendered lit as shot, although possibly with a saturation boost. It's a perfectly good demonstration of why Canon's historical dynamic range disadvantage doesn't matter if you have proper control over the lighting. But I'm interested in how much detail could be pulled out of the dark background, although at ISO 400, the Nikons have lost more than a stop compared with ISO 100. I think we'll have to wait for tests.</p>

<p>I agree with Lannie - so far, it seems that these are perfectly good cameras. It may help - though I've never used it - that Canon's SRAW is more mature than Nikon's equivalent. Has there been any mention of buffer size yet? If I were eyeing up a 5D3, I'd be looking at these (well, in the summer), but I can understand those who don't feel the need. I'm unlikely to be tempted over from Nikon, but if it stops people leaking the other way, Canon have done their job.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I'm looking at the image on my laptop, so I can't really see the full dynamic range. When I get home, I'll look deep into those dark areas, but I'm not expecting a huge DR increase. All I've read from Canon doesn't seem to promise any such thing. </p>

<p>As an owner of the 7D MkII, which has the same pixel-pitch as these new cameras, in comparison to the 5D MkIII, it does not match the DR of the 5D3. I don't understand expecting higher DR with higher pixel-density. In general, it works the other way around. </p>

<p>In the 200 to 400 ISO range, viewing at 200%, I see more detail (resolution) in the 7D2 files. My lenses (15mm fisheye, 24-105mm and 70-200mm) generally favor the full-frame sensor of my 5D3, so I grab that body for landscape, portrait and travel; however, if I had equivalent lenses for the crop-sensor, then I'd be very tempted to use the 7D2 for landscape, to enjoy the extra resolution, but not expecting any additional DR. At higher ISOs, the 5D3 leaves the 7D2 in the dust; however, NR works much better with the 7D2 than with my old 7D.</p>

<p>I expect that these new bodies will shine at moderate ISOs in situations where high resolution is a high priority. </p>

<p>I'm really excited about the 11-24mm f/4. I can see myself using that on both the full-frame sensor and the crop-sensor. With that, maybe the 7D2 will become my primary travel camera.</p>