5D replacement announcement next week

cowpunk52 said:
James0b57 said:
Yeah, I haven't looked into it, but pixel size is not dictated entirely by pixels to surface area. They can be small pixels even if they cover a large area. I wouldn't be surprised that the C300 has smaller pixels than the D4.
Click to expand...

Here are the physical characteristics of the C300's sensor, for those interested.
View attachment 48774
Now, I don't want to hijack this thread too much, since it's supposed to be about the imminent 5DmkIII, but there seems to be a lot of unnecessary conjecture regarding the C300's sensor technology - and there's no need for it; Canon has published extensive white papers that take all the guess work out.

New 35mm CMOS Sensor for Cine Motion Imaging
RGB Resolution Considerations in a New CMOS Sensor for Cine Motion Imaging
Sensitometric Characteristics of the EOS C300 Digital Cine Camera

I promise, if you take the time to read and understand this information, there will be no need to come up with "theories" about how the sensor works (or doesn't, in whatever case you believe) and you'll know how it's different and why it's image is different from what you'll likely find in any DSLR.
Click to expand...

Well, the Nikon D4 pixels are 7.3 microns down from the 8.45 on the D3. The C300 pixels are 6.3 microns. Nikon D4 pixels are bigger. Again, not surprised. Wasn't expecting it, but not surprised.
 
I really don't see the point in comparing pixel densities between cameras because they're all different sensors. If it was the same sensor, with the same processors and wizardry- across the D4, D3, C300, 5Ds etc then yeah sure, but no...

eg: 5D has a pixel pitch of 8.04, whereas 5DmkII with a new sensor has 6.39 - yet the 5DmkII has a better dynamic range.

It's a definite that the new 5DmkIII will have better dynamic range yet the pixels will be smaller because it's going to be 26 megapixels reet?
 
Lammy said:
I really don't see the point in comparing pixel densities between cameras because they're all different sensors. If it was the same sensor, with the same processors and wizardry- across the D4, D3, C300, 5Ds etc then yeah sure, but no...

eg: 5D has a pixel pitch of 8.04, whereas 5DmkII with a new sensor has 6.39 - yet the 5DmkII has a better dynamic range.

It's a definite that the new 5DmkIII will have better dynamic range yet the pixels will be smaller because it's going to be 26 megapixels reet?
Click to expand...

Hey Lammy, why not talk about pixel size? It is all related to the mechanics of how these cameras work. Although, I wasn't referring to the performance of any of these cameras based on pixel size, it's just that a small group of people see the C300 as a 1080p camera and assume the pixels are much bigger than a dslr, and therefore assume the performance is based on it's pixel size. I was pointing out that, that is not the case.
 
Well I agree with you, and those other small groups of people are a little weird I think. "Why not talk about pixel size?" It's hard to talk about it comparatively, because it's just a number (all we know is, as a general rule things get smaller and better every year)... otherwise we'll end up discussing engineering techniques and materials, and basically chatting about things we're not too clear on. Although I actually would like to know what makes an actual better sensor compared to another similar spec sensor though...

Pixel peeping to ze next level!
 
Lammy said:
Well I agree with you, and those other small groups of people are a little weird I think. "Why not talk about pixel size?" It's hard to talk about it comparatively, because it's just a number (all we know is, as a general rule things get smaller and better every year)... otherwise we'll end up discussing engineering techniques and materials, and basically chatting about things we're not too clear on. Although I actually would like to know what makes an actual better sensor compared to another similar spec sensor though...

Pixel peeping to ze next level!
Click to expand...

I wish they shared this kind of knowledge but understand why they don't. I too am curious.
 
Probably the tears of exploited children and the raw materials belonging to their forefathers...
 
Lammy said:
Well I agree with you, and those other small groups of people are a little weird I think.
Click to expand...
If jumping to conclusions on limited information is weird, than yes, they are weird.

Lammy said:
"Why not talk about pixel size?" It's hard to talk about it comparatively, because it's just a number (all we know is, as a general rule things get smaller and better every year)... otherwise we'll end up discussing engineering techniques and materials, and basically chatting about things we're not too clear on.
Click to expand...
Now that just makes no sense whatsoever. Not talk about something because it is difficult? I thought it was important to point out that the phenomenal lowlight performance of the C300 wasn't all due to having bigger pixels than a dslr. Although, that wasn't my main point. I was just talking about pixel size, full stop.

I believe we shouldn't run about spreading misinformation. And, I agree that it can be frivolous talking about tech if you are not interested in it. But I whole heartedly disagree with you in regards to talking about things we don't understand. That is the antithesis of learning.

It's kind of weird that you go through all that above, just to do a 180 and disagree with yourself...
Lammy said:
Although I actually would like to know what makes an actual better sensor compared to another similar spec sensor though...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anyway, back to your other post:
Lammy said:
I really don't see the point in comparing pixel densities between cameras because they're all different sensors. If it was the same sensor, with the same processors and wizardry- across the D4, D3, C300, 5Ds etc then yeah sure, but no...
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. My earlier statements about the D4 having larger pixels than the C300 made no judgement on performance. It was a lone statement of fact. I haven't even seen any D4 low light images, and was not insinuating anything. That is why I only stated the pixel sizes.
The pixel size is related to certain factors and performance abilities of current technology in sensors. Though efficiency and improvements make up for one area or the other.

The reason it is important to understand sensors, and share what knowledge we learn, is because the companies (canon nikon) are consumer based. If people will buy more megapixels, they will make more megapixels, if people buy retro design, they will make retro design. So if consumers are informed, then and only then will we get the best products to market. And if it is all pointless? Well, I enjoy it, and I am fascinated by it all.
 
Last edited:
To recap...

Rick Burnett commented that the 5D and C300 had the same pixel dimensions. This didn't seem all that odd to me, so I mentioned I wouldn't be surprised if the D4 had larger pixels, to highlight that pixels are small points on the sensor and do not take up the entire surface of the sensor. Then Cowpunk quoted my post, and wrote "there's a lot of conjecture about the C300 sensor..." Not wanting to throw around "conjecture", I decided to look up the actual numbers, and posted them. Again, I made no reference to performance.
 
I should qualify that they both have the same pixel pitch, but that which defines a 'pixel' is a lot more complicated. There is active area, non-active area, lenses, wires, different fabrication processes and layers, thicknesses, etc. It's REALLY complex. I work with CMOS and I see how variety there is all the time with different fabs, different libraries, different foundry options.

But, I think it goes a step further, it's also understanding the software tech behind the sensor as well. There is A LOT of work that takes the image from the CMOS sensor and then makes it better (or worse) depending on your opinion of what it is doing. It can be hard to measure things because sometimes, you can't turn off that special sauce to separate out what is sensor, and what is the electronics/code after the sensor. Perfect example is F3 and FS100. Same sensor but definitely different performance after it goes through the support circuitry.

I have NO idea what to expect from the 5D honestly. Looking at the 1D, the C300, who knows.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I should qualify that they both have the same pixel pitch, but that which defines a 'pixel' is a lot more complicated. There is active area, non-active area, lenses, wires, different fabrication processes and layers, thicknesses, etc. It's REALLY complex. I work with CMOS and I see how variety there is all the time with different fabs, different libraries, different foundry options.
Click to expand...
I didn't think you were making any judgement of camera performance based on the pixel size alone. I just assumed you were just bemused about the same size pixel paper specs wise. Anyways, have you thought about checking the patents out? You should be able to find out more that way. Not sure how much information they are required to publish, but should be enough to get an idea.
 
James0b57 said:
I whole heartedly disagree with you in regards to talking about things we don't understand. That is the antithesis of learning.

It's kind of weird that you go through all that above, just to do a 180 and disagree with yourself...
Click to expand...

I'm only emphasizing that varying pixel pitches being near impossible to know, as Rick stated earlier to cowpunk. Especially without knowing what the whole picture (or pixel rather) actually is. I didn't mean to make it sound like "Let's not talk about things we don't understand."- only, it'd be very hard.

Not really disagreeing, I do actually want to learn and know things about why and how they perform the way they do etc. so by all means let's research what the Canon mojos are...
 
Last edited:

My reaction on Friday if nothing happens.
WARNING: Hilarious Genuine Anime Dub + Tourettes.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Meaning it hasn't happened yet, just thought it was strange that the rumor was like 2 consecutive days, then a day later on. I also read that a Canon rep in Canada said it was a t4i being announced, not the 5dm3.
Click to expand...
You do realize that today is Feb 29th the leap year right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top