Comments
arabic_slave_girl t1_j0g2cwq wrote
> To be clear, this sensor is unlikely to make its way into a camera that will make it onto general store shelves as it is designed for use in industrial or security applications, but it does show that Canon is making advancements in the global shutter space that could point to a consumer-level sensor at some point in the future. It’s not clear if there is any reason why this sensor couldn’t be deployed in a camera made for the general public, though.
Might be more for image / product recognition for conveyer lines… not really for normal cameras.
19MP isn’t that impressive when you think about it.
NotAPreppie t1_j0g65nu wrote
Car-face t1_j0g8c5v wrote
> Article doesn’t provide any useful metrics (e.g. physical sensor size)
It's a full frame sensor, so 24mm x 35mm.
Avieshek OP t1_j0g95n2 wrote
19MP is more than enough to capture 4K, what you see in the mobile world ends up to pixel-binning and this is a commercial product at first stage avoiding any marketing theatrics for pure function.
LordOfTheTennisDance t1_j0gcrof wrote
If it ain't Sony then it's phony.
Cool-Specialist9568 t1_j0gfbyk wrote
Filmic motion, and no rolling shutter artifacts like flash-banding or motion skew? Take my money! Oh wait, global sensors exist, they all come with compromises though, usually in DR. If there are no compromises with this sensor...take my money!
urnotthatguypal__ t1_j0gfld2 wrote
Why would you ever buy new entry level when there is a robust used market and you can get an older prosumer level instead.
And if you are willing to manual focus, there's the abundant supply of cheap vintage fast glass.
If you are a professional, then by all means buy new.
gladamirflint t1_j0gfz22 wrote
It’s for commercial applications, so I doubt it has good color science and dynamic range. But it’s promising for the future
Cool-Specialist9568 t1_j0gg934 wrote
decibles t1_j0gidtp wrote
Because the R6 is still hovering around $2000 with low shutter counts and the R5 is $3300 all day long, while the R is still going for $1400 being notably meh. (Also my clumsy ass loves a protection plan)
They’ve rounded out their lineup with the crop sensor cameras, put out a second generation of the R6… it’s time to refresh the lower end of their full frame lineup.
girlfriendsbloodyvag t1_j0givnj wrote
The EOS RP is a great little camera, it’s right at 1k body only
DjPersh t1_j0gl6dh wrote
You can get the Canon R for like a grand and it’s an amazing FF camera.
decibles t1_j0gm6fx wrote
It’s a 5D Mark IV without a mirror.
Is it a good camera? Sure. Is it ready for a refresh. Yes.
Edit: fixed a typo because Roman numerals are hard
decibles t1_j0gmmes wrote
Currently own an eos RP and love it but given the first generation of cannons mirrorless full frame bodies were just re-packages of their existing full frame DSLR‘s it’s time for a refresh.
We know they can do better
Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0goxm5 wrote
And honestly if you can’t create good stills work with even an old 5dm2, the problem isn’t the camera. That was, in recent memory (10 years ago), what a lot of working pros I knew were using. I just bought a 5d3 for a few hundred bucks as a back-up body I can bring into situations where I don’t have to worry about my big investment getting damaged.
If you need a hybrid with great video specs for cheap Canon may not be the company for you (Fuji is who I’d recommend)
Her_name--is_Mallory t1_j0gslad wrote
There’s a 5D MK6?!
decibles t1_j0gsxk2 wrote
[deleted] t1_j0gvddr wrote
[deleted]
SlackerAccount t1_j0gyizi wrote
SlackerAccount t1_j0gyrpf wrote
My Red Komodo has Global shutter and some damn nice DR
Cool-Specialist9568 t1_j0h0zq6 wrote
Yeah, I have used the Komodo and the range is fine, but again, it's a tradeoff, non-global sensors are still beating global across the board.
kyuubixchidori t1_j0h1eu2 wrote
Yeah exactly. a 5D3 is going to be more capable then most entry level photographers will ever need with proper glass.
I have a RP with some used lenses, I think I have $1500 total and it’s absolutely more then I’d need any time soon. the consumer class has basically died out anyway because of smart phones. you used to see people out and about all the time with $500-$1000 set ups, now it’s only people who are absolutely hobbyists or professionals, and they aren’t going to buy entry level gear anyway.
Messier_82 t1_j0h52qq wrote
It’s important for video, maybe high speed flash photography too.
CMOS sensors use a “rolling shutter”, where the image is taken one line of pixels at a time across the sensor. For video of fast moving objects this can distort the appearance and motion significantly. If you’ve ever tried to take a video of a propeller plane engine you’ve probably seen this effect. It can also cause the entire image to wobble back and fourth like jello if the entire camera is moving rapidly or vibrating.
https://youtu.be/dNVtMmLlnoE @2:44
A global shutter would have all of the image lines captured at once, eliminating this problem and making any high-speed motion look better in general.
RooseveltBulletTrain t1_j0h54ks wrote
Holy shit, you can get 5d3 for a few hundred? Those were the shit make in my early videography days.
fatogato t1_j0h56mr wrote
Canon has announced a new 19-megapixel, full-frame, global-shutter sensor that it says is ideal for capturing fast-moving subjects without distortion.
fatogato t1_j0h57xv wrote
Canon has announced a new 19-megapixel, full-frame, global-shutter sensor that it says is ideal for capturing fast-moving subjects without distortion
DoctorRunef t1_j0h5jja wrote
Afaik, normal camera sensors acquire the image row by row from top to bottom or vice versa. I forget. So if you are recording video and sweep the camera left to right youll see that vertical lines like telephone poles etc will be staggered (stair-stepped) and have rolling shutter. But with a global shutter the whole sensor is captured at once and not line by line so when you shoot video and pan the camera vertical lines look straight. You can get over this by having the top to bottom scanning time be super fast (and this i think varies from camera model to camera model) or all at once like this new sensor.
Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0h6vcm wrote
Exactly. I used to see civilians rocking Rebels all the time and now it’s only younger people who just need to get in the game and got in cheap to upgrade later
Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0h7h1w wrote
Yeah check KEH. I got one in pristine condition for like $500-$600 (can’t remember). Like it looks brand new and has less than 13k shutter actuations. For stills work you can literally create world class images with this sensor and the AF is crazy fast.
It’s older, but perfected tech and is built like a tank so if anyone is balking at paying $2500 for a camera it’s a fantastic option
[deleted] t1_j0h8ii4 wrote
[deleted]
ppmch t1_j0h8z87 wrote
thank you so much for answering this!
Useful_Low_3669 t1_j0hbify wrote
Vintage glass is my latest obsession. There are cheap adapters available for any lens combo you can imagine. I put an old Leica lens on my Sony a7r and I’m getting some really striking cinematic looking shots. Even if you’re a professional there are endless opportunities for unique, creative images with vintage lenses.
Argarath t1_j0hdwo8 wrote
Ohhhhh!!! This makes a lot of sense and also seems really useful for many different areas! Yeah I can def see how this tech is important! Thank you!!
Her_name--is_Mallory t1_j0he2z2 wrote
Argarath t1_j0he9zv wrote
Thank you, yeah this is really cool tech!!! I really hope they bring this to general market as well, so many things could benefit from this! Tha k you for the explanation!
Kaio_ t1_j0hit07 wrote
Lmfao what is that link
G8M8N8 t1_j0hjfb2 wrote
RP body only was $600 on the canon refurb store
Greenpoint_Blank t1_j0hjhui wrote
I agree. But the problem is that most vintage glass is stupid heavy. The EF 85mm 1.2L which is around 700 used is like 2.5 lbs so it is a terrible carry around/travel lens. It weighs about the same as my Hassy x1d ii with the 45p lens.
BlastMyLoad t1_j0hkber wrote
Fast vintage glass is hardly cheap these days with the mirrorless video shooters gobbling them up and destroying them by making them “cine lenses”
Still cheaper than modern equivalents for the most part tho
Greenpoint_Blank t1_j0hlhau wrote
I think it is more a ding on the non L rf lenses. They are pretty slow for the price and some of which use plastic elements. The 85mm f2.0 rather than a 1.8 for example on the slow side and the 50mm 1.8 that definitely uses plastic elements.
The real issue is that canon went after both Samyang and Viltrox for making cheaper and better 85mm and 35mm rf autofocus lenses. So basically you either have to adapt older ef Lenes many of which are 20+ years old and not really made for modern sensors and AF or pay the L premium or settle for sharp but slower rf non L glass that is kinda over priced.
Messier_82 t1_j0hpfog wrote
Lmao I clicked on the first video showing the effect but I guess I accidentally shared the ad instead
Just fixed it!
unskilledplay t1_j0ilkk3 wrote
Leaf shutters solved rolling shutter for still images a long time ago, but they cannot be used for video.
Film video cameras use rotary shutters while digital video cameras do not use any mechanical shutter at all. The rolling shutter effect in digital video is a consequence of not being able to do a readout of charge on all photosites at the same time, or more technically, fast enough that it doesn't matter.
"Global shutter" in this sense is not a mechanical shutter. It's technology on the image sensor. Maybe a better term is global electronic shutter. Unless it's a fundamentally different tech, this would work the same as any image sensor, just faster. A good image sensor these days will complete a readout in under 20ms, so if they are calling this much better than what they already sell to the point they brand it as a 'global shutter', I would guess it's in the range of 1ms or so.
Stratusheart t1_j0imsrz wrote
In addition to all the cool stuff the top comment who responded to you said, I think this also fixes issue with flash syncing. That is to say, sometimes if you try pushing your shutter speed too high on a camera with the other kind of sensors, flashes that come from things like speedlights could start producing strips of darkness in your image because the sensor is capturing part of the image before the flashes go off, then part of it when the flashes are actively going off. My understanding is that a global sensor would allow you to shoot at higher shutter speeds with speed flashes as long as the device you’re using to sync them to the camera is also fast enough to handle that fast of a shutter speed.
I know very little about digital photography (analogue photographer here) so I could be completely wrong, but that’s what I’m inferring based on what I do know.
robust_nachos t1_j0ioaej wrote
This is correct.
Jmich96 t1_j0is8me wrote
What's a good, cheap fullframe camera for strictly photography? I was eyeing up the Nikon Z5 when it came out, but a lense and everything would total $2000+.
sudiptaarkadas t1_j0j0ymt wrote
Action and sports photographer's dream!
dj-Paper_clip t1_j0j41dk wrote
I have been paid for my photography for almost 10 years now. I just ditched my full frame for a crop Fuji. There are very few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between full frame and crop.
adaminc t1_j0j5qtz wrote
It looks more like film, where the entire exposing surface is exposed at the same time. Global shutter sensors do the same, versus rolling shutter that does it line by line.
Winter_Criticism_236 t1_j0jlxk2 wrote
Canon needs to make a iso independent chip.. ever tried lightening the shadow areas in a canon digital file? It goes to crap very fast.. Recently switched to Sony for this reason, that and in body stabilization and very customizable buttons.. Nikon uses Sony chips for a good reason.
Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0jyg5q wrote
What’s the budget and what do you shoot? You could just get the 5D mkIII like I did. Then the lens to start would be the real expense
byDMP t1_j0kb6d6 wrote
>If you need a hybrid with great video specs for cheap Canon may not be the company for you (Fuji is who I’d recommend)
The R7 and especially the R10, are not expensive.
byDMP t1_j0kbhc9 wrote
>I agree. But the problem is that most vintage glass is stupid heavy. The EF 85mm 1.2L which is around 700 used is like 2.5 lbs so it is a terrible carry around/travel lens.
The EF 85/1.2 is neither vintage nor a typical example of the size and weight of vintage optics.
byDMP t1_j0kfm23 wrote
>I think it is more a ding on the non L rf lenses. They are pretty slow for the price and some of which use plastic elements. The 85mm f2.0 rather than a 1.8 for example on the slow side and the 50mm 1.8 that definitely uses plastic elements.
The RF 85/2 lost 1/3 stop to its EF predecessor while the RF 35/1.8 gained 1/3; it's a minor difference and f/2 is definitely not slow. But yes, the variable zooms are slower at their longer ends.
Canon have been using plastic in some of their optical designs for many years now; it's nothing new or bad, and hasn't just been used in lower end models, either.
>The real issue is that canon went after both Samyang and Viltrox for making cheaper and better 85mm and 35mm rf autofocus lenses. So basically you either have to adapt older ef Lenes many of which are 20+ years old and not really made for modern sensors and AF or pay the L premium or settle for sharp but slower rf non L glass that is kinda over priced.
Yes there are some 20+ y.o. EF designs, there are also plenty of newer designs too. But I'm yet to adapt an EF lens onto RF that hasn't AF'd at least as well—if not better—on the mirrorless body than on Canon's DSLRs. As for sensors, Canon's most-demanding FF sensor is still the 50MP one in the 5DSr; in APS-C it's the 33MP one in the R7, essentially the same as that in the 90D's, so it's not like the mirrorless sensors are any more demanding than those in the DSLR lineup.
Your summary of lens options neglects to mention that 3rd party EF lenses can also be used, something that frequently gets overlooked by people complaining about a lack of options on RF. If 3rd party optics and pricing are so compelling, people can simply adapt it.
Finally, the non-L RF lens pricing is actually fairly competitive when you start comparing it to other brands and the launch prices of comparable EF models.
byDMP t1_j0kga5k wrote
>I have been paid for my photography for almost 10 years now. I just ditched my full frame for a crop Fuji. There are very few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between full frame and crop.
By the same logic you could probably ditch your crop Fuji setup and replace it with M4/3—there are likewise few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between APS-C and M4/3...
byDMP t1_j0kghk8 wrote
>Canon needs to make a iso independent chip.. ever tried lightening the shadow areas in a canon digital file? It goes to crap very fast.. Recently switched to Sony for this reason, that and in body stabilization and very customizable buttons.. Nikon uses Sony chips for a good reason.
I lighten the shadows in files from my R5 all the time—they are very malleable and look great! The R5 also has IBIS, and fun-fact: Canon IBIS performs better than Sony's.
byDMP t1_j0kh2oo wrote
>Thank you, yeah this is really cool tech!!! I really hope they bring this to general market as well, so many things could benefit from this! Tha k you for the explanation!
It'll definitely make it into mainstream consumer cameras one day, there are just limitations that need to be overcome first.
byDMP t1_j0khmam wrote
>What's a good, cheap fullframe camera for strictly photography?
'Do you actually need full-frame?' is the first question.
byDMP t1_j0kmxzq wrote
>Why would you ever buy new entry level when there is a robust used market and you can get an older prosumer level instead.
Buying used camera gear isn't really a beginner's game. It's very easy to get scammed, overpay, or buy something with problems that won't be found until later.
AJ_Mexico t1_j0lhel2 wrote
I think this is correct, and important. Higher-speed flash sync is the first thing I thought of when I saw "Global Shutter".
dj-Paper_clip t1_j0m0m64 wrote
Probably could as long as you can find one with enough megapixels for your uses. But the only two cameras that could possibly considered a pro level 4/3rds camera are around $2,000, so it’s not really worth doing, mostly because of the lens options available. Big difference between the crop factors as well, so anyone shooting real wide will have issues finding lenses.
There are more lenses available for Fuji x mount, than all of the 4/3 lenses combined.
Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0m9r0l wrote
Ah you’re right the R7 seems to be pretty capable shooting 10-bit log. Bit rates aren’t as good as Fuji, but it almost certainly has better AF. Looks like a good option
nicetriangle t1_j0tu4jo wrote
They're still great cameras too. I finally sold mine earlier this year and it was still working great and taking killer shots after 9-10 years.
[deleted] t1_j12pw98 wrote
[deleted]
cocktails5 t1_j18gzzh wrote
>The R5 also has IBIS, and fun-fact: Canon IBIS performs better than Sony's.
Not anymore.
teh_fizz t1_j20tmf4 wrote
This is correct. Some film cameras have leaf shutters in the lens, and this allows flash sync speeds higher than the focal plane shutter speed of 1/125. For example old Hasselblad lenses could flash sync at 1/500. The downside to those lenses is they aren’t capable of opening the shutter fast enough to go higher then 1/500 or 1/1000. With mirror less cameras, that isnt an issue.
LittnPixl t1_j0fwxep wrote
Is it blue and black or white and gold?