For sraw2, it’s not so obvious. After a bit of careful thought, though, it’s clear that pixel binning is possible only if neighboring sensor elements are of the same color (you may note that there are other cameras that have been designed specifically with this purpose in mind and have a nonstandard bayer pattern).

For sraw to work, the whole image must be demosaiced first and then resampled. This is all done in the camera’s linear raw color space, so the values remain raw values.

Canon is tight-lipped on the algorithm used. It’s considered a trade secret.

There’s still a pretty big difference between the 5D Mark II and the 1D series in the areas that count for concert photographers. Now I’m gonna have nightmares that Canon will introduce a new body that is in between the latest 5D and 1D cameras….

Thanks for following up.

The pointillism comparison does work in your favor.

The point I was trying to make specifically with digital camera sensors is that at high ISOs smaller pixels actually hurt image quality because each individual pixel from a high MP sensor holds less data than a larger pixel from a lower MP sensor.

At low ISOs, there is no comparison – the high MP sensor will out resolve the lower one any day.

At high ISOs, sensors with smaller pixels are at a disadvantage because after all of the signal amplification, each pixel contains more digital noise than real data. So even though you have more pixels, if all those extra pixels are filled with garbage, you end up with either a net-zero or worse.

The Nikon D2x was a perfect example of this. At base ISO, the camera was capable of resolving amazing details. (Macro shots were insane and portraits were often too sharp.) At high ISO, all of the fine detail seen at ISO100 was eaten by large, chunky luminance noise.

Canon seems to have done an extremely good job at squeezing as much out of this sensor as possible (Chuck Westfall says it’s as much as 3 stops better than that of the 1Ds Mark III). Since the sensors in the 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II are virtually the same, we can assume they’ve accomplished this by attacking the sources of noise.

When this stuff hits a lower MP sensor, like the one I assume will drop into the 1D Mark IV, the performance will be incredible. Assuming their AF redesign goes well, the camera will be enviable.

Thanks for your lengthy comment.

RE: Canon’s Long Term Establishment

Yes, of course, the company should not torpedo it’s 1D sales.

I’m just disappointed in the 5D Mark II as it relates to concert photography. I wanted a more well rounded camera in terms of features – specifically AF, Auto ISO, bracketing, and high ISO.

The ideal camera for shooting music is an odd beast indeed. While I’m sure the 5D Mark II will take great concert photos, it’s like using flat screwdriver when you really need a phillips head – it’ll work, but it’s not the ideal tool for the job. The 5D Mark II is really a landscape photographers dream.

I don’t fault Canon for appealing to the masses at all. I fault them for not building a more flexible tool.

RE: Focus Technique and AF placement

Focusing at rock shows is a bitch. Plain and simple. At f/2.8, there is not enough DOF to have the face in focus if the center AF point is on the chest.

Focus, Shoot/Shoot/Shoot isn’t a problem if the subject isn’t moving. The most likely scenario is that the musician is moving (back and forth) while singing. Since the center AF point is the only one that’s going to be reliable at f/2.8. this requires the following:

1) First Shot – Focus, Recompose, Shoot
2) Performer rocks head back
3) Second Shot – Focus Recompose, Shoot

The problem with this is the “money shot” often occurs while the performer is in motion. Taking one static shot to another static shot just isn’t the best portrayal of rock’n'roll.

I think we can all agree that having f/2.8 AF points on the periphery if the AF display would decrease the time from shot to shot and improve composition.

For comparison, my focus technique on the 1D Mark II when a singer moves back and forth is:

1) Set AF to Servo
2) Select proper AF point on the eyeball for the given composition
3) Enable AF via AF-ON button
4) Shoot burst of 3-5 shots at maximum attainable FPS without recomposing

I’m sad that they used the same 3 year old AF module as the 5D, which wasn’t known for focusing quickly or accurately with anything but the center point.

RE: Pixel-Binning vs. Crop

Agreed Canon did make the right choice. I think pixel binning is the superior technology except maybe for wire shooters who often need to deliver “composed in camera” shots direct to media outlets.

RE: Your final points

The samples I’ve seen in the past few days have been stunning. The detail retention at ISO 6400 is amazing.

3.9 FPS is stunning considering the amount of data. 3.9 FPS is still too slow for my needs (energetic rock shows).

The focus module is the same as the original 5D. I think people are disappointed that they didn’t improve the hardware it at all.

In my opinion, Canon left a football field of headroom between the 5D Mark II and the 1-Series for a lot of photographers. They could have added a lot of things without threatening the Pro level.

I don’t really appreciate being lumped in with the “It’s No Good” camp. I’d be fine with “It’s Not Great For Concerts” instead.

No one seriously demands infinite anything. For the record, I wanted:

15MP FF CMOS
ISO 100 – 6400 (with expansion)
9 Point AF f/2.8 sensitive, in a 1D arrangement
5FPS
A better shutter (faster response, less blackout)
$3000 MSRP

I wanted a versatile tool that would go well as a backup camera to my 1D Mark III, I think I wanted the fabled 3D or a D700 with an EF mount.

What I feel like Canon produced was an amazing sensor in an otherwise vanilla body. Now that I think about it, it’s exactly like the original 5D, just 3 years later.

“Concert photographers, I give you the appropriately named 5D Mark II. It’s got almost nothing you hoped for but absolutely everything you expected from the Mark II brand.”

The 8 bit audio comparison is valid only if you goose the sample rate. Furthermore, Captain Fairly Obvious didn’t say what the alternative to the 8 bit audio would be. I will assume 16 bit. So now we’re comparing 8 bit to 16 bit. In the camera example, it’s more like 14 bits vs. 13 bits. Or 14 bits vs. 15 bits. There is a difference of many orders of magnitude between the audio analogy and the camera one. To make the audio analogy relevant, you’d need a sample rate 256 times as high as the 16 bit version.

The pointillism analogy, ironically, just proves my point. The smaller the points in pointillism picture, the more realistic it looks. Or, the further away from the painting you view it from, the more continuous the tones. The camera analogy here would be to make the pixels smaller.

For every concert photog, there are about 1 million nature photogs.

That they decided as they did, is sane, from their perspective, re configuration.

( it also makes clear that that rule, don’t torpedo the 1D sales, applies across the board, not just concert photogs )

2. If you can stick “Focus, Now” on another button, and shoot at a high enough f# to give a bit of depth of field, then focus, shoot/shoot/shoot shouldn’t be much of a problem.

Re pixel-binning, versus crop, each has its place, but crop can be done afterwards, in post, whereas pixel-binning *cannot*.

Therefore Canon made the right choice, IF the 5Mpx resolution gives 6400 ISO noise at 12800 ISO or higher ( if it gives no noise benefit, then why the hell bother? just to save filespace? the only justification for that would be higher frame-rate in a card-limited burst )

comment erors, above:
more pixels = less image-noise, not necessarily, or even likely.
If the dynamic range is trashed, because the pixels are too small to store a decent range of values, then how the hell can you have any dynamic range in the image?
Try listening to an 8-bit-depth audio file, and if you *can* enjoy that, maybe you can enjoy garbage dynamic range. ( think “posterization” as one example of junk dynamic range )

further, CMYK printing doesn’t work by having only 4 colors, overlaid, it works by having 4 colors, at MANY different size dots, spread out in a pattern, so the color-density is given by dot-size, by density of dots, and by density of pigment ( photo printers, the pro ones, are 8 or 9 color, btw ).

Look up “pointilism”, or however that’s spelt, for the oil-painting rendition of it, and you’ll understand that spacing of dots can create variation of density, but, as noted earlier, the piezo nozzles in the Epson printers, ferinstance, have multiple dot-sizes.

If it were 4 colors = infinite colors, as suggested, then litebrites would need only 4 colors to present full photo subtlety ( though they’d have to be VERY BIG to do so at high resolution )

—

Having seen examples of its images,
6400 ISO is stunningly good, better than the D700 ( someone had a comparison, and there was *no* comparison! the 5D II was brighter, clearer, cleaner, and sharper, all at once )

3.9 fps is about 30% faster than the previous edition, and at 20.1 Mpx? more than stunning, in a $3000 camera. The data-rate must be incredible, in that bus ( ~ 80Mpx/sec, RGB, so 240 000 000 photosites read, at 14-bits each, per second, nearly 500MB/sec coming off that sensor, being processed, and thrown into buffer )

Focus: the focus-assist points seem to be good, & they have to keep this machine at the “semi-pro” function level, to protect their Pro level, so what on earth is everyone complaining about?

Everything: it’s stunning.
No SLR film camera could equal it, for image quality*speed*capability, or for effectiveness ( processing in wet chemistry means one doesn’t know if anything surprising went wrong until too damn late ).

I agree with the ones who’ve used it, who say it’s a “Game Changer”.

For all those who have established themselves on the “It’s No Good! I want infinite ISO, infinite framerate, infinite resolution, and infinite focus-perfection, for $3.99, and I want a discount on weekends” mode, grow up: you couldn’t possibly have produced what they did, it blows away 99.9% of all cameras produced in the entire planet’s history, and at $3000 its price is good.

Rock on, man,