Samuel H

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1347897281' post='18359'] Here's an interesting quote from Canon Rumors forum: [i]"According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.[/i] [i]I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone."[/i] [i]"As it stands right now it's not really a FF cam - it's a crop camera with a 1.006x crop factor..."[/i] I suppose it won't be long til we find out. That would be seriously cheap, even for Canon. If we can find out the dot pitch of the sensor, then we should know... [b]EDIT: "With a pixel pitch of 6.55 microns, that could be a boon in the sensitivity department, as the 5D II was 6.4 and the 5D III was 6.25 microns." I'm assuming it's different then?[/b] [/quote] 5D2 is 36x24mm, 5616 x 3744 6D is 5472 x 3648 For those to be the same photosites on a firmware-cropped sensor, the active area on the 6D would have to be 35.1x23.4mm (1.0263x crop)

Yes, the specs are close to those of the 5D3... but they're even closer to those of the 650D (T4i). I want to hear about the aliasing/moire (or lack of it), and confirmation that the LCD screen resolution posted everywhere is a typo (102400 is the highest ISO for stills, and would mean 226x150 or so)

oh, the joy of shooting RAW!!! with the BMC, a better demosaic algorithm can get rid of that moire (better in the sense that it's geared towards reduced moire, instead of towards maximum detail) and if said better algorithm is released six months from now, you'll be able to apply it to the RAW footage you shoot today

(nearly) definitive solution to "will my glass work on that camera" troubles: buy vintage Leitz glass for the Leica-R mount It's not the cheapest vintage glass you can buy, but it's awesome glass indeed, and much cheaper than, say, Canon L glass. And it works on basically anything, including Sony A, Canon EF, Nikon F, and Pentax K: [url="http://www.similaar.com/foto/lensmount/lensmount.html"]http://www.similaar.com/foto/lensmount/lensmount.html[/url] The only downside is that you'll have a hole in the wide angle of things... the widest I've gone is 35mm, the 28mm, 24mm, etc, are not as awesome as the others, but are much more expensive But for a full frame camera, my set of Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8, Summilux 50mm f/1.4, Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8, Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8 is just perfect: awesome image quality, sharp and with the best bokeh most people can buy, all for less than the price of a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. Want to switch body brands? Spend $150 on a new set of adapters, and you're done.

I wouldn't be THAT optimistic. "We wanted to put real great PRO video into this camera" and "we added a continuous LED light on top of it" are somewhat difficult to mix together. I'd bet they've put more effort into AF than in using a great codec. As usual, wait and see...

If you can find a sensor that will deliver that, nothing prevents you from recording 20 stops of light on an 8-bit H.264 stream. You'll just have poor gradation, with something like 16 values per stop of light in the midtones. If you use a 10-bit codec, this problem dissappears, since you now have 64 shades per stop of light in the midtones. RAW is a completely different beast. It's not about dynamic range or color depth, but about preserving everything the sensor records, and making your choices in post. Of course, it usually also means 12-bit, 14-bit, or 16-bit, but it's usually on a linear color space, and I'm not sure I'd prefer 14-bit linear if I can get 10-bit log instead. Of course, you can also record 10-bit log RAW (the cinemaDNG standard supports things like this), and that would be my preferred option: the flexibility of RAW, with the gradation and bitrate savings or 10-bit log. And I want high bit depths even if my monitor can't display them, because I'll need them if I push the colors in post (otherwise, banding and codec issues will show up).

I think B is the GH2, and if that's the one you like, congrats, you can get the camera of your dreams in a tiny package and for a ridiculous price. I didn't like it, though: it looks much more "digital" than any other one. My take: My top 2 would be a tie between A and F: they both look great The next 3 would be tied too: C (which looks great except for the blown-out highlights), E (which has very slight aliasing) and H (which looked slightly too digital at times) After that would come G (somewhat soft, maybe less DR than others, some issues in the highlights) Then a tie between I (somewhat soft, less DR than others, lots of aliasing, some noise) and B (impressively clean -except for some slight aliasing-, but looking very digital) And finally D (horrible) Also, I think H is EPIC, G is FS100, I is 7D, B is GH2, D is iphone

all I was expecting from the new rebel is that it wouldn't have aliasing/moire, and it would have the new codecs (all-I and IPB) codec thing seems to be missing, and that doesn't bode well for the aliasing/moire thing I just bought myself a NEX-5N, if it's similar to the old APS-C canons but slightly improved, it will get me by while I wait for a blackmagic camera with a bigger sensor

great article and it confirms exactly what I was saying: for a true final 4K image, 4K Bayer RAW is not enough

it makes a lot of sense, but there are also a few silly notes in this rumor for example: [quote]It is 4K out of the box but from a 8K sensor. It downsamples for TRUE 4K unlike the Epic[/quote] if it records 4K RAW, it doesn't downsample to true 4K if it records 8K RAW, it downsamples to true 4K, but then it's not a 4K camera, it's an 8K camera! it doesn't add up

I thought this was a crazy idea when I first read about it, and still think it is after seeing your pics I have declicked and repaired lenses, repaired point-and-shoots, opened up laptops... but I'll stick to post sharpening, this is frightening  ??? ??? ??? plus: reading that the filter affects video but not stills makes me think it's not a standard passive filter: it's somehow controlled by electronics, and I look forward to having Magic Lantern solve the 5D3's softness issue in a much less aggressive way :)

[quote author=MattH link=topic=481.msg3119#msg3119 date=1332938713] You then say "This goes for contrast as well."  but I have to say in my experience I wouldn't agree with this.  I find you can easily add contrast to a dull image by raising the black level or applying curves, whilst it is difficult to do anything with a really contrasty image with crushed blacks and blown highlights.[/quote] You're absolutely right. What I mean is this: * if you only use chrominance values in the range [0,128] and push them back to [0,256] in post, you're using 7 bits instead of 8 for the color channels, and your final image will look worse * same way, if you only use luminance values [16-199] and push them back to [0,256] in post, you're again throwing away another big chunk of the codec's color space, and the effect on final IQ will be similar; and by doing this you're not expanding dynamic range at all (clipping points in highlights and shadows are the same in CineStyle and Flaat_10, but Flaat_10 uses all of the codec's color space, not just a small portion of it) (actually CineStyle uses luminance values [16-256], but reserves [200-256] for the brightest stop of light: 23% of the used color space is dedicated to 10% of the recorded DR, without affecting the point at which the highlights clip, which is basically the same in all picture styles I've tested, including "portrait with contrast=-1")

11 stops on the old cameras (Flaat_11 and Flaat_12) is noisy in the heavily-pushed-up shadows; some people say it's useable, some say it isn't this is the light response of Flaat_11: [img]http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/chart-waveform/flaat_3.jpg[/img] I count 32 unclipped wedges, which means 11 stops of DR (my synthetic chart works in 1/3 stops) the bottom 9 wedges are very noisy, not easy to distinguish from each other, but those are 1/3 stop marks, if you jump every two then they're clearly distinct; but that noise is nasty, so for many they're unuseable anyway; it's subjective, in any case the cleaner image of the 5D3 should lend itself better to these expanded-DR picture styles

thanks a lot for the recommendation!! I'll pay back saying the following here first: if the 5D3 gets Magic Lantern, this will probably unlock the extra DR that's available in stills mode but not in video mode so, without ML, all I can get on the 5D3 in video mode is 11.5 stops of DR, basically the same as with a T2i but with ML, all the DR captured by the sensor will (probably) be available in video mode too; that means 11.5 stops on the T2i, but clearly more with the 5D3 (the dxomark review is not out yet, but from my quick tests there's clearly more than the 11.5 I can get in video mode!!)

I've been working on Flaat v2 for the 5D3, here's what I've found so far: * the good news: picture styles for the old cameras work just as well on the 5D3; that includes CineStyle, and of course Flaat; cutting 5D3 and 5D2 footage shot with the same picture style should be relatively easy, at least in terms of light and color * the bad news: this means that, compared with my old APS-C canon, with the same picture style, dynamic range is basically the same; if the 5D3 has any extra DR to offer in video mode, it will require new picture styles * the even worse news: it's not easy to get more dynamic range with picture styles; the information is there, I can see it playing with the RAW stills in DPP, but no matter how hard I fight with the picture style editor, so far 11.5 stops seems to be the limit; unless Canon gives us a new way to control how the RAW information from the sensor is converted to video footage, the 5D3 has exactly the same DR as the 60D or the old rebel * the still unknown: even if DR is not any wider, useable DR may be better, given the 5D3's lower noise levels and hopefully improved codec; so if you have a 5D3, try Flaat_12p and let us know how it looks! you can download version 2.0 of my suite of Flaat picture styles here: [url=http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/index.html]http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/index.html[/url] you'll see there's a name change, now they are called by the number of stops of DR that they get: Flaat_1 is now Flaat_09 (slightly modified) Flaat_2 is now Flaat_10 (very slightly modified) Flaat_3 is now Flaat_11 (very slightly modified) Flaat_4 is now Flaat_12 (very slightly modified) (it doesn't get to 12 stops, but it's more than 11) also, there are two sets of picture styles: * one based on Portrait, for nice skin tones, but with some color shifts (e.g. blue goes a bit towards cyan) * one based on Neutral, without those color shifts I always use the ones based on Portrait, the others I only made them because some people wanted to avoid any color shifts. I'd rather have nice skin tones than correct blue, but it's your choice. Also, note that the recommendation for Tone has gone from =0 to =1.