If I was buying into a system today it wouldn't be Canon.This "halo effect" on people's choice of which system to enter is I suspect far more of an issue than the claim that a large proportion of serious, well-equipped photographers are swapping systems according to who has better specs this year. That, and the likelihood that there will be more upgrades from D700 to D800 than from 5D2 to 5D3. EDIT: as Les just put it:
...when I get new camera lust I don't see a Canon model to lust after. Sony and Nikon seem to be something more to lust for than the new Canon. ...In fact, I agree with everything that Les said: I missed it when I first made this post because he and I posted almost simultaneously. (Actually, a lot of us are lusting after something more mobile, like a Nikon V1, or Olympus OM-D E-M5, or Panasonic G3 or GH2 or GX1, or Sony NEX-7.)
The problem for me isn't that my current Canon isn't adequate it's that when I get new camera lust I don't see a Canon model to lust after. Sony and Nikon seem to be something more to lust for than the new Canon.
The problem for me isn't that my current Canon isn't adequate
it's that when I get new camera lust I don't see a Canon model to lust after.
But stills are the bread and butter. Years ago, a friend of mine and I mulled over shooting with a video like camera and then cherry picking the exact frame you liked. I've actually moved away from that thought, because I'd rather KNOW I was at least trying for the decisive moment, rather than hoping it's somewhere there in a video stream. But maybe I'm old fashion in that respect. 35 years of shooting can do that....
In find it interesting that cameras designed, with roots, as photojournalist / street photography tools are discussed in such depth on a landscape website.Are you referring to medium format cameras, which were pioneered by Kodak in the late 1800's as cheap, low quality snapshot cameras for the lazy masses who could not be bothered with a "real" camera, meaning a large format sheet film camera? Yes, technology progresses, mostly in the direction of smaller formats and smaller, lighter, less expensive cameras and lenses that in almost all respects outperform the larger kits of the previous generation.
Stitching is great for landscapes and inanimate objects. Horrible and impractical when shooting people. The 1Ds3 files have no problems if the AD picks a good, clean sharp shot. Unfortunately, one of my clients, because of poor vision, tends to pick soft images (which I warn them about), then expect miracles at 8 feet. Oh, and always tends to crop any environment out of a shot. THAT'S when Nikon's 36MP would come in handy. A blurry pixel (or really detail) is a blurry pixel, The the more you have, the more you can fudge.
No, Nikon is still lagging behind Canon and Sony in number 3 position (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-15/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models.html).
The article I referred to was for US sales, not world-wide. But Sony and Nikon nipping at Canon's heel is a wake up call.
in the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data.
The problem for me isn't that my current Canon isn't adequate it's that when I get new camera lust I don't see a Canon model to lust after
No, Nikon is still lagging behind Canon and Sony in number 3 position (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-15/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models.html).By those numbers, Nikon is about 10 million/year behind Canon, so I doubt the D800 will be enough to close the gap. But while we are counting all cameras, not just DSLRs, need I remind you (and Bloomberg) that the real unit sales leaders are Samsung, Nokia, and Apple.
By those numbers, Nikon is about 10 million/year behind Canon, so I doubt the D800 will be enough to close the gap. But while we are counting all cameras, not just DSLRs, need I remind you (and Bloomberg) that the real unit sales leaders are Samsung, Nokia, and Apple.
Why is that? Resolution? Really? Resolution is 99% hype. It does nothing at all for image quality. A good photo at 12mp is better than a mediocre photo at 36mp. And is THAT fact that most people either do not understand or do not want to.
I've used Canon cameras since 1980. I've always thought it was a technologically advanced and bold company that benefited from a multifaceted corporate environment (medical, opthomological, optical, etc.). And now, it swoops down to present us with (gasp!) a 22MP instead of 21MP 5D3, and (another gasp!) 18MP movie, I mean still camera -- the 1Dx. And the 1Dx is suppose to replace both the 1d and 1Ds series?? I own both the 1D4 and 1Ds3. I actually, except at higher ASA values (yes, I know ISO is the "correct term"), feel my old 1Ds2 had better image quality than my 1D4. And my 1Ds3 does a great job, except my commercial clients are starting to itch for more res in their instore posters. Because Canon is so far behind Nikon (and I'm also assuming Sony at this point), I've thought of buying a Pentax 645D.
Am I the only one who feels Canon has taken it's eye off the ball by thinking all photographers want to really be cinematographers (I was one one in my early days, and even won a Kodak film award, so I know where I'm coming from)? I'm curious about other thoughts...
Nemo
IPerhaps Canon crystal ball sees further up into the future than Nikon's. As some have said, maybe the future of photography is extracting stills from sequences. If true, in essence this means a big step further for the conversion of the spirited photographer into the savvy opportunistic digital technician.
The pendulum has swung back and forth a number of times over the decades, sometimes favoring Nikon, and sometimes favoring Canon. Canon's early digital cameras were far ahead of Nikon's, and in the last few years Nikon has taken the lead.
Bringing high quality technology to a lower price point is a kind of inovation-significant to allot of photographers. So IMO the 5D was breakthough technology at that price point.I agree that the 5D was transformational for exactly that reason. Allowing for savings on film and processing, it made the TCO of 35mm format digital comparable to that of a good 35mm film SLR for many amateur enthusiasts. It is striking that the new dramatically lower price level that it set, around US$3000, has basically stuck ever since. I am looking at pricing of newly released models, not discounted prices on aging products.
I lust for redesigned 45mm & 90mm TS-E lenses.
Canon won't ignore the amateur and pro-sumer market. That's where the money is. Professionals demand the best but make up for a tiny part of the global market. How many Rebel XT's were sold compared to the 1Ds?
The 1Dx has high ISO capabilities, but that feeds the photo-jo appetite, not the studio wonk. Will the color and dynamic range measure up to the hype from Canon? If Canon compromises resolution for cine features and lower resolution, how many customers will jump ship?
I lust for redesigned 45mm & 90mm TS-E lenses.
Why is that? Resolution? Really? Resolution is 99% hype. It does nothing at all for image quality. A good photo at 12mp is better than a mediocre photo at 36mp. And is THAT fact that most people either do not understand or do not want to.
Resolution is not hype. It's clearly defined in terms of 'line pairs per millimetre' (LPPM), or sometimes 'line widths per picture height' (LW/PH) at 50% contrast.
It's a fact that a sensor with a higher pixel count is capable of delivering higher resolution from the same lens. The only hype would be to assume that such increase in resolution is proportional to the increase in pixel numbers, that is, it would be an exaggeration to claim that a 4x increase in pixel numbers on the same size sensor is equivalent to a doubling of resolution. It's likely to be a bit less when one uses the same lenses.
If, by a 'good' photo, you mean an artistically pleasing and interesting photo, then neither resolution nor any other performance characteristic of the camera can ensure that. But even so, one usually needs a certain minimum level of camera performance. There's not much point in having a wonderfully artistic shot of a feathered bird sitting on the branch of a tree if the resolution is so poor you cannot tell what species of bird it may be, or even if it is a bird in the first instance.
If, by a 'good' photo, you mean a photo with smooth tonality and clean shadows, then it's true that increased resolution alone will not guarantee that.
However, in the case of the 36mp D800 compared with the 12mp D700, the D800 does produce smoother tonality and cleaner shadows, in addition to significantly higher resolution.
For example, at base ISO and equal print size, the D800 has over one stop lower SNR at 18% grey. At ISO 12,800 it has about 3/4ths of a stop better SNR, and at ISO 25,600 a whole stop better SNR.
When it comes to dynamic range (or clean and detailed shadow charcteristics), the D800 advantage is even greater. At its base ISO of 100, the D800 has over 2 stops better DR than the D700. That's very significant. At ISO 400 the D800 still retains a 1 stop advantage, which is still significant.
The D800 does not need any any hyperbolic advertising to make it appealing. The facts speak for themselves.
Now, all that remains is for Nikon to contact me and offer me a free D800 for my wonderful promotional efforts. ;D (Joking of course!)
Present day 16 MP APS-C corresponds pretty exactly to 36MP on full frame, so we can predict performance of 36 MP FF sensors by seeing 16 MP APS-C as crops of 36 MP full frame.
Absolutely! It's uncanny how close the pixel performance of the D7000 is compared with the D800, at DXOMark in screen mode. The differences are so small one could almost attribute them to QC differences in the manufacture of the cameras.
Where differences do seem significant, for example DR at ISO 12,800, which at first glance appears to be 0.81EV better in the D800, one finds this is mainly due to different ISO standards. The D800 at its nominated setting of ISO 12,800 is really ISO 8,661, whereas the D7000 is actually ISO 10,549, so the results indicate that the D800 pixel at its lower ISO of 8,661 has 0.81EV better DR than the D7000 pixel at its higher ISO of 10,549.
Visually, comparing points on the graph that are vertically aligned, the improvement appears to be of the order of 1/3rd of a stop, which is of no great consequence. However, these results are for the pixel. At equal print size, that DR advantage of the D800 at a real ISO of 10,549 is transformed to approximately one full stop, which I guess would be noticeable.
Where the Canon 5D2 lags greatly behind in these tests of DR is at low ISO. At ISO 1600 and above, it's not too bad compared with the D800, but at base ISO of 100 (actually 73 and 74), the D800 has a whopping 2 & 1/2 stops' advantage, at equal print size.
As I understand, this would mean, when taking an ETTR shot of a high dynamic range scene, in order to get a similar level of detail and low noise in the deep shadows in the 5D2 shot, one would have to give 2 & 1/2 stops' greater exposure with the 5D2 than the D800 requires, thus massively blowing out the highlights.
It will be interesting to see how much improvement the 5D3 has in respect of DR at base ISO. I wonder why DXOMark are taking so long to test the 5D3.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/792%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon
... As I understand, this would mean, when taking an ETTR shot of a high dynamic range scene, in order to get a similar level of detail and low noise in the deep shadows in the 5D2 shot, one would have to give 2 & 1/2 stops' greater exposure with the 5D2 than the D800 requires, thus massively blowing out the highlights.
It will be interesting to see how much improvement the 5D3 has in respect of DR at base ISO. I wonder why DXOMark are taking so long to test the 5D3.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/792%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon
There has been some discussion that the 22mp range is currently the engineering sweet spot for compromises in design for a general purpose pro camera to use in low light, high ISO, fast action, studio, reception lighting from hell, etc.In one respect, I am fairly sure that 16-18MP is currently that sweet spot, as indicated by the D4 and 1Dx. That respect is simply the maximum that is compatable with the highest frames that the makers can get from the other components of those models. As to the 22MP of the 5D3, that is a slightly diferent sweet spot: its horizontal pixel count (as I predicted before the exact figure was published) is 5760 = 3 x 1920, fitting perfectly with the sub-sampling or down-sampling needed to produce 1920x1080 HD video.
Where can we see this high dynamic range?
Cheers,
I (and we are many) don't want 36mp on a 24x36 , 18 mp ... 22mp are enough on a small sensorYou seem to imply that there is a use for more than 22MP, but only in formats larger than 36x24mm. Why?
the highest resolution black and white film like TMAX 100, whcih easily resolves well beyond what a 22MP sensor can give.
Why is that? Resolution? Really? Resolution is 99% hype. It does nothing at all for image quality. A good photo at 12mp is better than a mediocre photo at 36mp. And is THAT fact that most people either do not understand or do not want to.
I would like to see some samples on this. Reason: already the ancient 16 MPix EOS-1Ds was equal or better than 645 Provia.Sorry, I do not have samples, and am using the extreme case of slow, fine-grained B&W film just to show that some photographers have already pushed the resolution limits of their 35mm format lenses further than 22MP or even 35MP sensor does, even if most have not. Also, resolution alone is not a good measure of overall "enlargeability", since film grain can make an image look coarser than low noise digital even when the film is resolving finer details.
(and how about Technical Pan?)
You seem to imply that there is a use for more than 22MP, but only in formats larger than 36x24mm. Why?in my opinion big pixels are better, it will be good to compare RAWs at f/16
in my opinion big pixels are better, it will be good to compare RAWs at f/16
and who needs more than 22mp ? 0.1% of photographers ?
in my opinion big pixels are better, it will be good to compare RAWs at f/16
and who needs more than 22mp ? 0.1% of photographers ?
Cramming more tiny pixels into a 35mm sized sensor makes the diffraction problem bigger. 22 MPix FF sensor already starts to loose resolution at f:8. MF sized sensor has f:8 as the diffraction limit at 60 MPix. Besides bigger pixels have less noise, better high ISO. For landscape photography sharp, small sensors are a problem as stopping down brings the effective resolution to around 5 MPix only (f:16-22 with FF sensor). With larger sensor with same MPix you can stop down more, which compensates most of the lost DOF when moving to bigger size sensor (but not all).
Comparing RAWs at f:16 means comparing two 7 MPix images, no matter what the original pixel count is on those two FF cameras.
Hi,
Typical area would be high contrast scenes like a picture taken in a dark church where we need to capture a mosaic window and still keep good detail in the shadows. Architecture photographers may need it for interiors and so.
In landscape photography we may need high DR in situations like this:
My experience this far has been that all DSLRs I have been using had ample DR for my needs. There is always an option to use HDR (combining several exposures into one) but I have seldom needed it.
So, in my view DR is an important quality in a camera, but it may be somewhat overrated. Here is a short discussion on extracting info from a single image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/63-lot-of-info-in-a-digital-image
Hi,
A few objections.
1) Shot noise is not dependent on pixel size just sensor size. If you collect 60000 photons it doesn't matter if you collect them in one single bin or four bins, they are still 60000 photons. DR is a bit different and there is some advantage to larger pixels.
Cramming more tiny pixels into a 35mm sized sensor makes the diffraction problem bigger.How many times does this myth have to be debunked?!
in my opinion big pixels are better, it will be good to compare RAWs at f/16As I indicated in another reply, comparing different formats at the same very high f-stop is pointless: the principal reason for using such a small aperture is tomget lots of DOF, and for that, what needs f/16 in 645 format only needs about f/8 in 35mm format.
and who needs more than 22mp ? 0.1% of photographers ?
How about the role of the lens in concentrating light?
I would think that the size of the sensor is in fact irrelevant. What matters is the true T stop of the lens, is it not?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi,
No, the T stop doesn't really matter for noise as long as exposure is the same. A lower T-stop allows for shorter exposure times or using lower ISO.
Besides bigger pixels have less noise, better high ISO.Another truism that gets repeated without apparent reference to faactsmor counter-arguments. Tests ofmtue D800 show that, when a lower resolution is sufficient so that 22MP is enough, downsampling to that lower pixel count essentially equalizes the npise levels and high ISO performance. Combined with the option to get higher resolution when noise levels will still be acceptable, it is hard to see noise as an argument against higher resolution.
For landscape photography sharp, small sensors are a problem as stopping down brings the effective resolution to around 5 MPix only (f:16-22 with FF sensor). With larger sensor with same MPix you can stop down more, which compensates most of the lost DOF ...I very much doubt that most use of a camera like the D800 will require stoppoing down to f/16-22, but when it does, you are right that the extra stopping down in a larger format can give the sam balance of diffraction limits on resolution againsts DOF. There is another dogma that larger formats are worse for getting great DOF, based on the recurring error of comparing at equal f-stop, but in fact the only issue for a larger format is that the higher f-stops needed require some combination of higher Exposure Index (confusingly called ”ISO") and longer exposure times. With similar sensor technologies, the larger format can get the same shutter speed by using a higher EI and still get comparable noise levels due to the "large pixel advantage". However, this is far from true in comparisons between recent 35mm format CMOS sensors and medium format CCDs, so that for now, MF is stuck with needing longer exposure times (or accepting worse noise) to get equally large DOF.
Erik and Bernard,
As far as total photons counted from the subject, which as we all seem to agree is what determines the shot noise, regardless of how many sensels we gather them in, or the size of those sensels:
1. With full exposure at low exposure index, making optimal use of the full well capacity of the sensels, T-stop is irrelevant. A higher T-stop, due for example to a zoom lens that loses more light to internal reflections, simply requires a longer exposure time to fill the highlight sensels.
2. When requirements of adequately high shutter speed force the use of a higher EI, so undefilling the sensels, then T-stop matters. In fact, for cross-format comparisons, a nice single number measure would be an "adjusted effective aperture diameter", being focal length divided by T-stop. Why? For equal exposure time of the same scene with same lighting, the photon count reaching the sensor is proportional to the square of this. (To get a bit more mathematical, pi/4 times the square of this adjusted effective aperture diameter is an adjusted effective aperture area, and this is the "area" that measures which fraction of the photons from the subject are caught by the lens and delivered to the sensor.)
For most purposes, the above could just be done with f-stops instead of the cinematographer's T-stops, and then the quantities I am talking about are the "effective aperture diameter" and "effective aperture area", standard quantities in scientific studies of photographic optics.
To Bernard in particular: these measures of "effective aperture area" are the relevant measures of "the surface of the front glass of the lens" that you referred to.
How many times does this myth have to be debunked?!
Thanks for the explanation.Bernard, [Edit: Bob Fisher take note too!]
So in essence, when a lens is used, sensor size is not a relevant factor to assess the amount of light reaching the sensor, and therefore not a relevant factor to assess shot noise, correct?
Thanks for the explanation.
So in essence, when a lens is used, sensor size is not a relevant factor to assess the amount of light reaching the sensor, and therefore not a relevant factor to assess shot noise, correct?
Cheers,
Bernard
What I naturally meant was that diffraction problem gets worse in the sense that you are not getting the promised resolution if you turn the aperture too small. Of course the final resolution is not worse than with a less dense sensor, but it is not better either.Yes, I see what you mean now: making full use of extra resolution requires extra effort and restrictions (more careful focusing, better control of camera motion and freezing subject motion, f-stops that avoid excessive diffraction, etc.), but on the other hand, if you operate the same as with a lower resolution sensor including displaying at the same size, nothing gets worse; you have at worst squanded some or all of the potential advantage.
...
One myth which creeps up is the need for better focus with sharper systems. That is not true either, as focus is critical only with bigger than normal enlargements. With lesser systems you need to focus just as well, lack of resolution just does not show you missed!
What comes to small versus large sensor with the same MP figure and stopped down to an aperture for the same DOF, what is the exact truth in this matter? Of course, again, we have to use smaller stop with the larger sensor camera, but do the DOF and diffraction walk hand in hand, or does one system pull ahead?Ignoring factors like lens abberations, and the quirks at very close focusing range, it is a tie: adjusting focal length in proportion to sensor size to get the same FOV, and then adjusting aperture ratio in proportion to focal length (so, equal effective aperture diameter) will increase the size of the Airy disk due to diffraction in the image formed on the sensor in that same proportion, and will also increase the size of the circle of confusion (OOF effect) at each point of the image in the same proportion. With equal pixel counts, the pixel size is also increased in the same proportion. So when you display at equal size (e.g. equal PPI for sensors of equal pixel count), everything comes out the same size!
When the sensor can be given "full exposure", a larger sensor typically has a greater total well capacity (electons per sensel times sensels per sensor) and so can count more electons and get a better ratio of signal to shot noise, and in all but extremely deep shadows, this should win out over read noise and give a better SNR. The only trade-off for tue laeger format is either a longer exposure time (if for example you equalize DOF by using a higher f-stop in the larger format, or the larger format lenses limit you to a higher minimum f-stop), or less DOF (if for example you use equal f-stop).
And even when the tecnhological gap between modern CMOS sensors and CCDs is taken into account, I am fairly sure that CCDs can count roughly as many electons per unit area, and so win on maximum total counts of electons and thus of photons. It even more clear that the best 35mm formats sensors win over smaller formats for shot noise control at minimum EI.
How many times does this myth have to be debunked?!
The truth is that once you need to use a small aperture (high aperture ratio) in order to get enough depth of field, the effect of difraction is the same in any format, so the degree of the problem of balancing DOF againsts diffraction is almost entirely dependent on the image resolution that you are aiming for, or loosely speaking, on the pixel count.
Your mistake is comparing at equal f-stop, forgetting that with a larger sensor amd thus a larger focal length needed to get the same composition, the DOF is less in the larger format in proportion to focal length/format size. So tomget equal DOF, the large format needs to increase f-stop inroportion to focal length, which increases diffraction effects so that on same sized prints, both diffraction effects and OOF effects are equal.
Smaller formats have a disadvantage if one is seeking so much resolution that the f-stop needed to control diffrcation in a smaller format is so low rhat lens abberations become a significant factor. With 36MP in 35mm format, f/8 is fine for avoiding any problems, so we are not there yet. If you wish to avoid going below f/5.6, the resolution limit would be reached by about 120MP. Even in tiny 4/3" format, where many lenses have resolution sweet spot at f/4 or lower, the limits due to diffraction would. Ot be hit until about 60MP. In each case, I expect that other factors will limit resolution before diffraction does.
We need a new maximum sharpness nature photography group, called F/6.3 ...Maybe we have already had it for a long time, without knowing. The f/64 group was working with 10“x8" format, and when you scale down by a factor of 8 to 35mm film format to get equally great DOF, you get a rather familiar f/8.
Seems this is the answer to a question that was plagueing me long since I didn't find yet time to do the math properly.Yes, that is my understanding, having dug through the formulas of lens optics and sensor electonics.
So - do I get it right like this? :
1. The F-Stop to reach a certain DoF at a certain viewing angle is linear to the sensor size as well as the diameter of the Airy disc so, that it all is basically geometrical linear and equals out.
2. The remaining problems for the smaller formats then lie in different fields like:
- DR due to smaller pixels
- More stress on the MTF of the lenses and system tolerances which need higher precision with miniaturization
Correct so or did I miss something?
I'm curious about other thoughts...
Nemo
Cramming more tiny pixels into a 35mm sized sensor makes the diffraction problem bigger. 22 MPix FF sensor already starts to loose resolution at f:8. MF sized sensor has f:8 as the diffraction limit at 60 MPix. Besides bigger pixels have less noise, better high ISO. For landscape photography sharp, small sensors are a problem as stopping down brings the effective resolution to around 5 MPix only (f:16-22 with FF sensor). With larger sensor with same MPix you can stop down more, which compensates most of the lost DOF when moving to bigger size sensor (but not all).
Comparing RAWs at f:16 means comparing two 7 MPix images, no matter what the original pixel count is on those two FF cameras.
Here is a graph of resolution of the D3 and D3x as a function of aperture with a typical lens (from a post at DPReview, taken from DxO data, IIRC):
My head is about to explode over this.
Here is a graph of resolution of the D3 and D3x as a function of aperture with a typical lens (from a post at DPReview, taken from DxO data, IIRC):
(http://g2.img-dpreview.com/3ED841BFBC7448E6AEF72B33C996E7CA.jpg)
So just how has the sensor with more pixels 'made the diffraction problem bigger'?
OK, so we are saying that the amount of photons reaching the sensor is the same regardless of the sensor size, but that larger sensor have a greater well capacity.
I can understand that. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
But, Ray, the shutter speed won't be the same in both cases. If the correct exposure at f8, ISO100 is a shutter speed of 1/60 then using an aperture of f5.6 will lead to a different shutter speed to maintain the same exposure. I understand what you're saying about trying to equate the two based on the aperture diameter. But if you use the same shutter speed in both cases you'll have different actual exposures of the two images. One may be properly ETTR'd.True if you use equal Exposure Index, like ISO100 in each case, as when seeking "ETTR". But if instead you use equal shutter speed along with Ray's equal [effective] aperture diameter, you gather an equal total amount of light, just spread at different intensity over the different sensor sizes. As Ray indicates, aperture ratios give a measure of the intensity of ilumination (photons per unit time per unit area), which mesh nicely with measures like a film's sensitivity and Exposure Index, which are also "per unit area" measures.
It is perfectly true that the sensor with less pixels never resolves better than the sharper sensor. What happens, though, it that the sharper (more MP) sensor starts to suffer form diffraction EARLIER than the less MP sensor of the same size. You can see that from the graph also if you interpolate the graphs a bit (lesser MP sensor sharpness peaks later than the other). The only thing that means is that you are not getting the resolution advertised unless you are careful with that aperture ring.
Emil, while the sensor with the higher pixel count doesn't suffer from diffraction earlier, the effects of diffraction are greater (which makes some intuitive sense since the higher resolution will show the effects more finely) than on the sensor with the lower pixel count. The graph only goes to f16. I'm wondering if the graph were continued out to, say, f32 whether they would meet or whether the lines would cross.
People seem very afraid of "being lense-limited". Even to the point where they will refuse to buy a new, higher MP count camera. Why is that any worse than being "sensor limited"? Isnt the pragmatic issue that of being limited at all, and how restricting this limit is for your photography?
One might say that a racing car with aerodynamic tuning stop being "grip limited" and instead become "engine limited". So what as long as it goes from 4th place to winning the race in the process?
-h
But, Ray, the shutter speed won't be the same in both cases. If the correct exposure at f8, ISO100 is a shutter speed of 1/60 then using an aperture of f5.6 will lead to a different shutter speed to maintain the same exposure. I understand what you're saying about trying to equate the two based on the aperture diameter. But if you use the same shutter speed in both cases you'll have different actual exposures of the two images. One may be properly ETTR'd. The other won't be.
So again, it is not the case that the higher MP camera starts to suffer diffraction earlier than the lower MP one.
Diffraction just shaves off the "extra" resolution of the bigger MP sensor a bit faster, maybe, but resolution stays above the lesser sensors all the way to the smallest apertures.It is of far more practical relevance to say that sensor limitations "shave of resolution faster" as you open up from small apertures!
P. S. The subject line that I created long ago is now a bit off-topic, but no one gave a straight answer to that question! So, if 35MP, 40MP and more have their place, why not in 35mm format, given the very favorable per-pixel comparisons between the D800/D800E and MF options of similar pixel count?
Bob and others,
This whole affair of complaining about one camera having worse diffraction limits or being diffraction limited "earlier" gets the bottom line of image quality completely upside down.
There is no sense in which a camera offering inferior resolution wins in any practically relevant comparison of resolution!
So why does the wider angle lens with the smaller F/stop number (but same physical aperture diameter) require a faster shutter speed? Good question.
Answer: Because the same light-gathering capacity, wshich is directly related to the same field of view, is directed to a smaller sensor, in the case of the cropped format. The smaller sensor, if the FoV of the scene and the light intensity is the same, would have to receive the same amount of light as the FF sensor used with the 36mm lens at F8, if the exposure were the same. In order for it to do that without overexposure, the ISO would have to be half that of the full-frame sensor, and its sensels more efficient and deeper.
For the record, I wasn't complaining about any of it.Indeed: my comment referred to other people (and mostly in other threads, and even at other sites) who keep claiming that having a wider range of f-stops at which the resolution is not "sensor limited" is a bad thing!
One issue may be, if diffraction at F16 removes the need for an AA filter, is resolution still slightly compromised at F16 if the sensor also has an AA filter? Are the two blurring effects of diffraction and AA filter additive?Yes. Diffraction ("h1") will enlarge the PSF and so will the AA filter ("h2"). Both together will make for an even larger PSF (convolution of h1 and h2). From the perspective of aliasing vs sharpness tradeoff, there will probably exist an "optimal" PSF, but you are unlikely to find it in a real camera, and even then it will probably only exist for one (or a couple of) aperture(s)/settings.
.....the presence of an AA filter will only add to the loss of sharpness (however, its effect will probably be minute compared to that of diffraction).
[....] For example, resolution at F16 appears hardly worse than resolution at F11. Likewise, resolution at F11 appears hardly worse than resolution at F8. One has to do serious pixel-peeping to see it. However, I've found that the resolution difference between F16 and F22 is more clearly noticeable. [....]
Since the diameter of the airy disc is direct proportional to the F-Number your observation makes sense.
For green light it is about F-Number*1.35=Airy Disc Diameter in µ.
I've used Canon cameras since 1980. I've always thought it was a technologically advanced and bold company that benefited from a multifaceted corporate environment (medical, opthomological, optical, etc.). And now, it swoops down to present us with (gasp!) a 22MP instead of 21MP 5D3, and (another gasp!) 18MP movie, I mean still camera -- the 1Dx. And the 1Dx is suppose to replace both the 1d and 1Ds series?? I own both the 1D4 and 1Ds3. I actually, except at higher ASA values (yes, I know ISO is the "correct term"), feel my old 1Ds2 had better image quality than my 1D4. And my 1Ds3 does a great job, except my commercial clients are starting to itch for more res in their instore posters. Because Canon is so far behind Nikon (and I'm also assuming Sony at this point), I've thought of buying a Pentax 645D.
Am I the only one who feels Canon has taken it's eye off the ball by thinking all photographers want to really be cinematographers (I was one one in my early days, and even won a Kodak film award, so I know where I'm coming from)? I'm curious about other thoughts...
Nemo
There was a time, long ago that long gray lenses were the norm at sporting events.....no so much any longer.
I just wanted to make clear, that since the F-Numbers grow with the square of the EVs the size of the Airy disc also grows with that square.
So its pretty obvious, that increasing the F-number from 16 to 22 has a greater effect on diffraction blur than increasing the F-number from 4.0 to 5.6.
Like this:relative EV: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
F-Stop: 4.0 5.6 8 11 16 22 32
Airydisc (green): 3.4 4.7 6.8 9.3 13.6 18.6 27.2
I've used Canon cameras since 1980. I've always thought it was a technologically advanced and bold company that benefited from a multifaceted corporate environment (medical, opthomological, optical, etc.). And now, it swoops down to present us with (gasp!) a 22MP instead of 21MP 5D3, and (another gasp!) 18MP movie, I mean still camera -- the 1Dx. And the 1Dx is suppose to replace both the 1d and 1Ds series?? I own both the 1D4 and 1Ds3. I actually, except at higher ASA values (yes, I know ISO is the "correct term"), feel my old 1Ds2 had better image quality than my 1D4. And my 1Ds3 does a great job, except my commercial clients are starting to itch for more res in their instore posters. Because Canon is so far behind Nikon (and I'm also assuming Sony at this point), I've thought of buying a Pentax 645D.
Am I the only one who feels Canon has taken it's eye off the ball by thinking all photographers want to really be cinematographers (I was one one in my early days, and even won a Kodak film award, so I know where I'm coming from)? I'm curious about other thoughts...
Nemo
Canon has had no answer to the Exmor
Frankly it doesn't need an "answer". For the vast majority of photographers, in the vast majority of shooting situations, the qualitative difference between Canon's current sensors and the Exmors is too close to worry about - and then, only really at base ISO.
Well, base ISO is where the majority of landscape photography takes place. And dynamic range and resolution are two other critical areas for landscape photographers - areas which the latest Canon offerings are distinctly lacking in.
Canon has had no answer to the Exmor - ever since its introduction, Nikon has had Canon beaten at every (non-video) turn, in dynamic range, low-ISO noise, high-ISO performance, and now resolution. With nothing to match Nikon/Sony in still photography, Canon seems to have decided to pursue video instead, hoping that superior video performance in consumer-level bodies (often bought to replace a point-and-shoot and used to take both stills and video) will help them cement their lead in that field, even if their pro-level bodies (usually bought either for video or stills, but not both) lag behind the competition.
Canon's DSLRs are worthless for P&S style video though. Only Sony offers a decent solution for that in their dSLT cameras.
Canon's DSLRs are worthless for P&S style video though.
I guess they're no worse than Nikon in that regard, at least... but these are meant to be primarily still cameras!Indeed: the greatest lack in the 1D C is not having an EVF, so that:
Only Sony offers a decent solution for that in their dSLT cameras.except that I would add Panasonic to that list, and maybe even Olympus with the apparently good in-body video image stabilisation with all lenses of the OM-D E-M5. With Canon's recent heavy emphasis on video and video+stills combinations in its SLRs, isn't it time to follow Sony [SLT, NEX] and Panasonic [GH2 and "HD ready" lenses] in offering SLR-like cameras with EVF's? It could be a hot-shoe accessory for a traditional SLR if the OVF is still wanted.
Indeed: the greatest lack in the 1D C is not having an EVF, so that:except that I would add Panasonic to that list, and maybe even Olympus with the apparently good in-body video image stabilisation with all lenses of the OM-D E-M5. With Canon's recent heavy emphasis on video and video+stills combinations in its SLRs, isn't it time to follow Sony [SLT, NEX] and Panasonic [GH2 and "HD ready" lenses] in offering SLR-like cameras with EVF's? It could be a hot-shoe accessory for a traditional SLR if the OVF is still wanted.
Those at the higher end are usually either stills photographers or videographers, not both; the rare people who shoot both normally want optimal quality in each, i.e. not a hybrid.
Hybrids are, by their very nature, a compromise - not the best set of features for stills, and not the best set of features for video. Therefore, they are usually most attractive to the lower end of the market, in the consumer-oriented lines.That makes sense overall, but the Canon 1D X and now the $15,000 1D C push hybrids way beyond the normal "consumer" price range, and are being marketed by Canon as for professional usage. I can see that for some journalists who need to single-handedly bring home both video and stills, as Canon says at http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/14/Canon-4K-who-is-it-for
One can always just shoot two frames instead of using ND grads. I prefer this approach, actually.
Here is a graph of resolution of the D3 and D3x as a function of aperture with a typical lens (from a post at DPReview, taken from DxO data, IIRC):
(http://g2.img-dpreview.com/3ED841BFBC7448E6AEF72B33C996E7CA.jpg)
The thing is, even if Canon released a 45MP full-frame body tomorrow, for landscape photographers, they'd still need a filter-capable UWA to match the Nikon 14-24. The upcoming Zeiss 15mm Distagon seemed to be a solution, but it now looks to have a fixed lens hood, making it incapable of taking a Lee filter system and using ND grads.
Maybe. But they have a 17mm TS lens which is excellent. And I would rather use a perspective control lens, to avoid diverging or converging trees etc. As for the filter, I guess I am fine to use exposure blending in this case.
Here is an image from Roger Cicala's blog on lensrentals.com
(http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d-resolution-tests )
(http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2012/03/zeiss-100-test.jpg)
This graph is different from the one above. It seems to show that the Zeiss 100mm peaks in center resolution at f/4 for the D800, at f/5.6 for the D700. The higher pixel count sensor does always outresolve the lower pixel count one, however the aperture where diffraction starts limiting resolution can be different.
I think Nikon has the edge like it is right now. That is good, Canon has been in a comfortable place in the past, with Nikon playing catchup. Right now the tables have turned, this should push Canon to do better in the future.
I would love to have D800 and D800E with some good prime lenses. Right now I have 5D Mark III and Mark II with what I consider to be the best lens combo for my needs.
Who is to say that Canon is developing a 45MP DSLR with low ISO performance not yet seen in a DSLR? That body with 5DIII would be a perfect setup.
But right now, it looks like it's Canon's turn to catchup...
Hi,If the disappointing DR at base ISO offered by Canon is due to readout noise, while the DR for all manufacturers converge at higher ISO dut to being shot-noise limited, is it likely that the subjective quality of images at large ISO may be different due to read-out noise being larger for Canon (but overpowered by shot-noise in simple DR measurements)?
There are three areas where Canon may be lagging behind the competition
1) DR, it seems that Canon has noisy readout electronics and they made zero progress from the 5DII to 5DIII
2) Megapixels. Decreasing pixel size has a negative effect on DR.
2) Megapixels. Decreasing pixel size has a negative effect on DR.
, is it likely that the subjective quality of images at large ISO may be different due to read-out noise being larger for Canon (but overpowered by shot-noise in simple DR measurements)?An excellent thought: a sensor with photosites of higher well capacity but higher dark noise levels in electron counts can have lower engineering dynamic range, due to worse SNR in very dimly lit parts of the scene, but also have a better SNR in better lit parts of the scene, where photon shot noise dominates, and somtue SNR is the square root of the photo-electon count.
2) Megapixels. Decreasing pixel size has a negative effect on DR.
The 1Dx has larger photosites, and with it, hopefully a better DR. I'm looking forward to real world tests of this new sensor. We'll find out if the marketing info matches real-world results.Having fewer, larger photosites on a sensor of the same size might increase the "engineering dynamic range", but is of little or no practical value in comparisons of images viewed at equal size. The Dx0 "print quality" measurements, adjusted for the effects of viewing at equal print size, illustrate this nicely, especially if you switch back and forth between "print" and "screen". In brief: with a sensor having more, smaller photosites, downsampling to a lower pixel count increases the per pixel DR, back to very much what you would get by having fewer, bigger photosites to start with.
An excellent thought: a sensor with photosites of higher well capacity but higher dark noise levels in electron counts can have lower engineering dynamic range, due to worse SNR in very dimly lit parts of the scene, but also have a better SNR in better lit parts of the scene, where photon shot noise dominates, and somtue SNR is the square root of the photo-electon count.
An excellent, though very technical point - which seems to throw some questions on DxO's methodology (or at least what they think they are measuring)In defense of Dx0, I think the problem instead is that many people misinterpret the DR measure, and put too much emphasis on it while ignoring other possibly more informative measurements also provided by DX0. In particular, the measure of SNR at 18% is more relevant to visible noise at the midtones, and probably a good indication of noise levels anywhere near the midtones, including perhaps all relevant tonal levels in a "normal" print where deep shadows have not been lifted substantially. Also, the Tonal Range seems like a reasonable indication of the handling of fine tonal gradations away from the extreme deep shadows.
... What is more important a true measure of signal to noise, or the maximum difference between an observable clean bright patch and clean dark patch in an image?
. . . therefore, there will be an illumination where SNR is maximum and minimum dependent upon which type of noise dominates . . . However, does it actually matter?
You know, the only time I've ever felt the need to pull the shadows a couple of stops is when I maxed out my 1Ds3 at ISO3200.That might be all that matters for you, and maybe for a great many other photographers, but to repeat what has been said in other threads:
Other than that I correctly exposed the image and knew how to use my equipment.
Looking at those other two measures, the quick summary is that:
1. the 5D3 improves significantly over the 5D2 at all exposure index ("ISO speed") settings
2. the 5D3 and D800 are very close, in the resolution-corrected "print" comparisons.
3. In per pixel "screen" comparisons, then D800 about matches the 5D2 and trails the 5D3.
See Dx0 comparisons (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795|0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/792|0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483|0/(brand3)/Canon)
I have a pretty big investment in Canon lenses, and was becoming increasingly frustrated with the autofocus limitations of my 5D Mark II, so I bought a 5D Mark III shortly after they went on sale here in Australia. It has many improvements over its predecessor, but my own informal tests and real world photos indicate that the sensor isn't one of them. It's a little better, at least at high ISO, but not dramatically so.
Based on what I've read about the D800, I would recommend it over the 5D Mark III to anyone who doesn't already own Canon lenses. I don't consider switching brands to be an option for me, because switching my lens collection would be such an ordeal, and Canon might well regain the lead with their next sensor design.
However, all the rave reviews of the D800's sensor are making me wonder if it would be worth owning both brands. It's not the resolution that appeals to me so much, but the dynamic range.
I actually own one Nikon lens, the 14-24 F2.8, which I've been using on my Canons with an adaptor. Using it on a Nikon body would obviously be a lot more convenient. If I got the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 (or maybe a few primes) I could use the Nikon for wider shots, and the Canon for telephoto. Carying an extra body around wouldn't add much weight, and might even be convenient since it would reduce the need to change lenses.
The only down side that I can think of (admittedly a big one) would be the cost. I'm not poor, but I'm far from rich.
Does this sound crazy? Does anyone else use both Nikon and Canon? Has anyone been tempted to do so? Would it be problematic apart from the cost, a bit like polygamy?
If I was not that invested in Canon, I would buy Nikon D800.
Does anyone else use both Nikon and Canon? Has anyone been tempted to do so? Would it be problematic apart from the cost, a bit like polygamy?
If shooting mostly landscapes and other not so fast moving subjects having two different cameras would not pose quite the same problems, but I would consider just switching brands all the way, maybe starting with a smaller, well thought out set of lenses to minimize the inevitable financial pain...Probably as soon as I sold my last Canon lens, Canon would announce a new model with a 50 megapixel sensor, 16 stops of dynamic range, and almost no noise at ISO 25,800. :)
Probably as soon as I sold my last Canon lens, Canon would announce a new model with a 50 megapixel sensor, 16 stops of dynamic range, and almost no noise at ISO 25,800. :)
Canon must surely be pulling out all the stops to produce a camera that rivals the D800.I have no doubt that Canon closely monitors the market, sales, debate forums like this, and quite possibly the internal development within Nikon.
The 5D3 is already on a par with the D800 at very high ISO. Surely all they need to do is boost the analog signal at base ISO, as they currently do at high ISO, in order to reduce noise at lower ISOs. I guess all that would be required are larger and more robust transistors and A/D converters to handle the greater signal.I think that if improved DR at base ISO was simple, everyone would offer it. The fact that Sony sensors are doing better than most others in this department, and have so for some time, suggests to me that Sony are doing something clever that the others cannot (either due to patents, expensive existing production lines, priority of video or something else.)
I actually own one Nikon lens, the 14-24 F2.8, which I've been using on my Canons with an adaptor. Using it on a Nikon body would obviously be a lot more convenient. If I got the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 (or maybe a few primes) I could use the Nikon for wider shots, and the Canon for telephoto. Carying an extra body around wouldn't add much weight, and might even be convenient since it would reduce the need to change lenses.
Probably as soon as I sold my last Canon lens, Canon would announce a new model with a 50 megapixel sensor, 16 stops of dynamic range, and almost no noise at ISO 25,800. :)
I have no doubt that Canon closely monitors the market, sales, debate forums like this, and quite possibly the internal development within Nikon.
Did they throw away all existing plans at the release of the D800 to make a worthy competitor? My guess is no, the development time for a given camera is probably measured in several years, and the development of new sensor technology may be on the order of 5 years (wild guesswork). It is possible that Canon have the resources to develop a large number of radically different camera/sensors in parallell, and pick only those needed at introduction date, but I doubt that it makes business sense.
I think that if improved DR at base ISO was simple, everyone would offer it. The fact that Sony sensors are doing better than most others in this department, and have so for some time, suggests to me that Sony are doing something clever that the others cannot (either due to patents, expensive existing production lines, priority of video or something else.)
I recall reading a news item a number of years ago, 4 or 5 years ago I think, that Canon had succeeded in producing a 30mp sensor. I can't remember what size of sensor that was.Actually it was 120mp (http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html).
Actually it was 120mp (http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html).
As for low light photography then the K5 is the one to go for, I know I keep saying it but it really is.
That difference is good 14-bit column parallel analog-to-digital conversion. Sony, at its second atempt, can now make 14 bit ADCs small enough to have one at the bottom of every column of photosites, while all signs are that Canon cannot, yet, and so has t mtransport the analog signal along the sensor's edge to off-board ADCs. This has two disadvantages for Canon:
Firstly, that transportation along the sensor edge is at very high speed, far higher than transfer from photosite to sensor edge, and is significant source of read noise, one that is completely avoided by column parallel ADC. The speed problem is that there is (almost) no parallelism at this stage: the photosite signals have to be read out one after the other, or at most four at a time if there is an output at each corner of the sensor.
Secondly, this same sequential signal transfer stage is a read-out speed bottle-neck, and seems historically to have been the main reason why so many DSLRs have lower frame rates than their film cousins (the exceptions being dedicated highbframe sports/PJ models, with lower pixel counts helping to allow higher frame rates than even more expensive higher resolution models). Sony's column parallel approach seems to eliminate this bottle neck, allowing for example the US$1400 Sony A77 to offer frame rates of 8fps and 12fps with a 24MP sensor, compared to a maximum of 6fps with the 22MP sensor of the US$3500 Canon 5D3.
There seem to be many photographers who think the Canon DR at base ISO is sufficient. Erik Kaffehr of this site, for example, and many studio workers who can control their lighting.
...
I personally am more interested in improved dynamic range, improved image stabilisation, improved 'merge to HDR' software, and improved stitching software that can overcome the lack of a pano head.
The patent for this type of technology was issued a long time ago, 12 years ago to be precise. I believe it's held by a Chinese person, Peter Hong Xiao. Refer attached link. http://www.google.com/patents/US6137432it is not just the patents that matters, and certainly not a single patent. By the way, that patent is not launching the idea of a column parallel ADC itself, but is on one particular approach to the idea, with the key words being "low power". Note also the prior art cited there from Stanford and Kodak. That 1997 Kodak patent might in fact be the real starting point! http://www.google.com/patents/US5613156
it is not just the patents that matters, and certainly not a single patent. By the way, that patent is not launching the idea of a column parallel ADC itself, but is on one particular approach to the idea, with the key words being "low power". Note also the prior art cited there from Stanford and Kodak. That 1997 Kodak patent might in fact be the real starting point! http://www.google.com/patents/US5613156
Multiple companies have been making sensors with column-parallell ADCs for some years, including Samsung, though primarily for video cameras, where the advantages are perhaps even greater. My guess is that Panasonic also uses column-parallel ADC in its more video-oriented sensor for the GH2, but Panasonic only says that that sensor produces a digital output signal rathe than the analog signal form other Panasonic 4/3" sensors. A search will reveal numerous papers on improvements in column-parallel ADC technology form a wide array of authors (mostly Korean and Japanese lately, it seems) so it is far form being controlled by one company or one patent holder.
No: it is the quality of implementation of the new technology that matters more. For example, the first Sony efforts only gave 12-bit output, with Nikon also offering 14-bit output but only at a very reduced frame rate. This parallels what happened a few years ago with active pixel CMOS sensors: Canon did not invent the active pixel CMOS sensor (Eric Fossum at the JPL did), but even when Sony and Panasonic followed Canon in adopting that active pixel CMOS technology for DSLRs, Canon for some years had a lead in the quality of its implementations.
The main principle in reducing noise, as you probably already know, is to boost the analog signal from the sensor prior to A/D conversion and all other signal processing, not so that over all noise is reduced in absolute terms, (in fact it must be increased to some degree at the time of analog amplification), but so that the noise is less as a proportion of the signal. That is, SNR is improved.Boosting signal _before_ a noise source contributes to SNR. Boosting signal _after_ a noise source does not improve SNR (wrgt that noise source at least). If the signal is noisy early in the signal chain, no amount of amplification later on will improve things.
All that may be true. I can't dispute it. There are many ways of skinning a cat. Sony may well have a clear advantage in a particular type of miniaturisation of a process which Canon has decided not to emulate for various reasons which might include unattractive trade-offs in cost and frame rate, for example.The most interesting internet hearsay that I have read was that Canon have invested heavily in manufacturing capacity that limits their development. Surely, this investement must have secured them large amounts (or larger dimensions) of sensors at sensible prices.
I will get back to my analogy of the frame rate of the P&S camera. Is there any fundamental technological or patent impediment why a P&S camera with 12 fps could not be offered, and a bracketing capacity of 5 or 9 frames with a 1EV interval? Such a facility would be tremendously useful for merging to HDR and improving the inherently poor noise characteristics of the P&S..suggestions:
Boosting signal _before_ a noise source contributes to SNR. Boosting signal _after_ a noise source does not improve SNR (wrgt that noise source at least). If the signal is noisy early in the signal chain, no amount of amplification later on will improve things.
If you want a good SNR, you want to have a large signal and little noise. I think that what Sony/Nikon did is the opposite of what you are suggesting: they reduced the noise contributed by electronics.
-h
Processing bandwidth, bus bandwidth, storage bandwidth. Sensor thermals. Contrast-based AF.
Lack of interest among typical customers.
-h
Hi,
I'm not exactly of the opinion that Canon DR at base ISO is sufficient.
Decisions as to trade-offs between frame-rate and pixel count are marketing decisions. 5D3 owners are pleased that there 22mp sensor has a faster frame rate than Nikon's 36.3mp.True, and that is a quite legitimate factor: indeed, I suspect that this is the only real reason that a camera maker ever offers a new sensor with less resolution than another it already has in the same format, or another that it could have offered instead, and that
By the way: Eric Kaffehr's A900 is a Sony with column-parallel ADC; the sensor that moved Sony and Nikon ahead of Canon on DR. SO I do not see why you take his satisfaction with its DR as evidence of satisfaction with the DR of Canon's sensors.
The DR of the A900 is only 1/2 a stop better than the 5D3 at its base ISO. That's the minimum improvement that DXO considers significant. Above base ISO the 5D3 excels. At ISO 3200 it's 1 & 2/3rds stops better than the A900. That's a huge difference.
Above base ISO ...Ray, you have an amazing ability to change the subject in an tempt to win an argument. Eric, and I, are clearly talking about maximum possible dynamic range, with proper exposure, meaning at base ISO speed (or whatever ISO speed setting maximizes it.) That is, the dynamic range that the sensor is capable of, between full well capacity and the noise floor.
Ray, you have an amazing ability to change the subject in an tempt to win an argument. Eric, and I, are clearly talking about maximum possible dynamic range, with proper exposure, meaning at base ISO speed (or whatever ISO speed setting maximizes it.) That is, the dynamic range that the sensor is capable of, between full well capacity and the noise floor.
Indeed, "dynamic range at elevated ISO speed", where the maximum well capacity is not even being made use of, is rather an abuse of the established meaning of "dynamic range". Once one is significantly above base ISO speed, so-called DR is essentially just another measure of the dark noise floor. But that is another topic that I should probity not get into here.
My point all along has been that Canon could deliver better DR at base ISO if it were to boost the analog signal in a manner similar to its boosting of the underexposed signal, at high ISO.
. . .which Canon has decided not to emulate for various reasons which might include unattractive trade-offs in cost and frame rate, for example.
Which is why the $900 24MP Alpha 65 shoots at 10 FPS with DR equal to the 5D3, right?Oh yes, I was behind the times withe the 12fps 24MP $1400 A77 now that there is the $900 10fps 24MP A65.
But I should give up: it is futile fighting "my imaginary camera is better than your real camera" hypotheticals: you are clearly in full-on brand-loyalty obfuscatory defense mode!
The expected 36x24mm format Sony SLT will be interesting in that regard: if 12fps @ 24MP is possible, so should be 8fps @ 36MP, and maybe a 36MP sensor could offer a 16MP to 24MP crop mode at 12fps or more. That could shake up both Nikon and Canon a bit, and make them think more seriously about ditching the flippin' mirror!
I'm completely sold on EVF/SLT for legacy SLR lens mounts and wouldn't consider another dSLR myself, but it seems that most photographers with lots of disposable income for purchasing aspirational photo gear are in love with optical viewfinders.
Sony could release a FF 30FPS 36 MP camera for $1000 and the majority wouldn't consider purchasing it.I might, but not because of the 30fps. I have no use for higher framerates.
I think this is, in large part, because serious photographers are typically over 40 or 50 and pretty well set in their ways.That is probably part of the reason, but being heavily invested in lenses can make you as conservative as being heavily invested in knowledge.
Chris, what adapter are you using? for the 14-24 on the Canon platform, is the one by Mark Welsh? or another. How do you set aperture?I use the one from 16:9. You can read about their latest version here: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/
BTW, I agree with your findings on the MKIII, I purchased/returned one pretty quickly.I'm going to hang onto mine. I've already sold my 5D Mark II, so it's too late to reconsider now. Besides, even with its mediocre sensor it's a worthwhile upgrade, which fixes most of my gripes about the 5D Mark II. You can't buy a better camera that you can attach a Canon lens to, with the possible exception of the much more expensive 1DX.
Doesn't Ray own at least one Nikon dSLR?!
But I should give up: it is futile fighting "my imaginary camera is better than your real camera" hypotheticals: you are clearly in full-on brand-loyalty obfuscatory defense mode!
Indeed he does. For the past year I've been using almost exclusively a D700 and D7000 with two Nikon zooms, the 14-24/2.8 and 24-120/F4.Ray, that is actually a surprise: last I read, you used the Nikon 12-24, and thus one Nikon body, and Canon for the rest. When did you abandon your substantial collection of Canon gear (like the 100-400) for a relatively minimalistic two zoom lens kit?
Ray, that is actually a surprise: last I read, you used the Nikon 12-24, and thus one Nikon body, and Canon for the rest. When did you abandon your substantial collection of Canon gear (like the 100-400) for a relatively minimalistic two zoom lens kit?
I don't think it is feasible, at least for raw images. Technology is quite mature. Canon can reduce read noise at low ISO, but at high ISO your are running into limitations of physics. With JPEG the vendors can cheat a lot.You're probably correct. I don't really expect noise-free images at 25,000 ISO any time soon - I used a little hyperbole for effect. My point is that I don't want to get rid of my Canon gear just because Nikon has the best sensor at the moment. Canon might come up with their own killer camera in a year or two.
Am I the only one who feels Canon has taken it's eye off the ball by thinking all photographers want to really be cinematographers
Nemo
I haven't got rid of my Canon gear. ...Good; I am not losing my mind after all.
Time will tell whether or not Canon has the technology to deliver a camera equalling, and perhaps even exceeding the qualities of the D800. Perhaps the coming Photokina event this September will be too soon for a major announcement from Canon, but they must surely be pulling out all the stops.Agreed all round: I am sure that Canon is pulling out the stops, and needs at some stage to deliver a significant step up in some aspects of its sensor technology, like its ability to handle scenes of very high subject brightness range (maximum dynamic range). Also, given the established three to four year product cycle for 35mm format sensors and the fact that Canon (like Nikon) just replaced both of its previous generation of sensors in this format, I also agree that Photokina 2012 is way to soon. Nor is Canon going to turn around within months of finally shipping the 1D X and say that it was lying about that being _the_ new top of the line model.
Good; I am not losing my mind after all.Agreed all round: I am sure that Canon is pulling out the stops, and needs at some stage to deliver a significant step up in some aspects of its sensor technology, like its ability to handle scenes of very high subject brightness range (maximum dynamic range).
No, I think Canon took their eye off the ball in respect of their sensor technology. In respect of everything else, especially lenses, they are more than competitive.
For their DSLRs, Canon's strategy seems to centre on retention of in-house sensor Fab while Nikon has gone fab-less and use Sony's offerings which appear to be materially ahead of Canon's. Nikon then follow up with a very effective jab to the kidneys being highly aggressive pricing.
Canon must respond and quickly because the Nikon offering is sufficiently compelling for a lot of people to swap systems, and that is quite a rare market advantage existing right now.
Either way it is a very fascinating case-study of both technology company strategy and human/consumer phsycology (have a quick look at the dp forums if you can stomach it - fascinating reactions).
I get the impression that Canon's R&D department is involved in all sorts of fascinating sensor development. ... Wayne Fox found a more recent news item reporting on a 200mp sensor developed by Canon, and just today whilst browsing the internet I came across the following report of an 8"x8" CMOS sensor that Canon has produced. ...Unfortunately, none of those "extreme" sensors involve the sort of innovations that Canon needs in the DSLR market. They just adjust the size and number of photosites (the 120 MP [not 200] and the earlier 50 MP [not 30 MP] ones use compact camera photosites on APS-H sized sensors), without changing the fundamental design of the individual photosites or the subsequent signal transfer and processing. In short: no sign yet of doing the ADC in parallel on chip before the high speed transfer along the sensor's edge, which seems to be the next step that sensor design is taking, for the sake of reduced read noise combined with high frame rates.
If one needs to shoot fast action at high ISO, the 5D3 is superior to the D800. As always, the best tool for the job should apply.
Unfortunately, none of those "extreme" sensors involve the sort of innovations that Canon needs in the DSLR market.
I get the impression that Canon's R&D department is involved in all sorts of fascinating sensor development. I mentioned that I vaguely recalled many years ago reading a news item that Canon had succeeded in producing a 30mp sensor. Wayne Fox found a more recent news item reporting on a 200mp sensor developed by Canon, and just today whilst browsing the internet I came across the following report of an 8"x8" CMOS sensor that Canon has produced.I am sure that they are. Doing something for the heck of it, for defence/NASA, and doing something for a mass-market price-sensitive DSLR may be 3 different things.
http://www.canon.com.au/About-Canon/News-Events/News-Press-Releases/Canon-develops-worlds-largest-CMOS
There are also details on the 'canonrumors' site of the very recent issuing of a patent to Canon for a back-illuminated sensor for APS-C and Full-Frame formats. (January this year)
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2961.0
We should try to get things into perspective. Just a few years ago Nikon broke into the full-frame DSLR market with a relatively low resolution model (the D3) which had better high-ISO performance than any Canon model.I think that this figure is nice for perspective (dxo, brought to my attention by Guillermo)
By the way, there is a next step beyond column-parallel, which is ADC at each photosite, used in some exotic sensors for surveilance cameras. Those can use time-based measurement of when a highlight photosite gets full to greatly extend highlight handling. I mention this just as an example of what Canon (and others) might be working on.That would be interesting.
Those would be D4 and 1DMk4 and 1DX then...Cost is an issue for a lot of buyers.
I am sure that they are. Doing something for the heck of it, for defence/NASA, and doing something for a mass-market price-sensitive DSLR may be 3 different things.I think that this figure is nice for perspective (dxo, brought to my attention by Guillermo)
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/perfect/dxomark2.gif)
I thought we'd got beyond the DXO weighted and biased scores. Hasn't that been the cause of so much distrust and disbelief in DXO results?
It's the overall score that's weighted, not the individual scores, of which DR is one. The DR results are also backed up by other independent tests.
Individual DR scores are always rated at specific ISOs. These are general DR scores judged to be appropriate for landscape photography. One presumes they are at base ISO. Also, I wouldn't consider the APS-C format to be best for landscape. For landscape photography, the Nikon D3x was the first Nikon full-frame that could exceed the Canon full-frame models in terms of both resolution and DR at base ISO. The D3x is a fairly recent model. The 5D3 beats the D3X in terms of DR above ISO 800, but this fact would not be reflected in a DXO Landscape score, even though there will be occasions when a high ISO may be required to freeze movement in a landscape shot.
All Canon cameras have shadow banding though, so Canon dynamic range is overstated if you want to avoid lifting those artifacts out of the shadows.
I thought we'd got beyond the DXO weighted and biased scores. Hasn't that been the cause of so much distrust and disbelief in DXO results?My point was that Sony/Nikon seems to be doing DR at base ISO better than Canon at the moment. It is my impression that this is a consensus among those that try to estimate DR, not only DXO.
My point was that Sony/Nikon seems to be doing DR at base ISO better than Canon at the moment. It is my impression that this is a consensus among those that try to estimate DR, not only DXO.
As a Canon user, I hope that Canon will be able/willing to supply my invested lenses with a competitive sensor (=at least as good as the competition) when time comes to swap my 7D.
-h
While I feel in reality, Canon ... has chosen NOT to lead in the world of still photography. ... Professional cinematographers ... in my mind, THAT is where Canon is headed and why it no longer cares as much about the professional STILL photographer.I agree that video and cinematography are getting a lot of attention from Canon, but the 1D X clearly addresses one type of professional still photographer: those interested in speed and action, such as a photojournalist or sports photographer. It is just that Canon is no longer pushing so hard towards "medium format" territory, and is consolidating more on what it did best with its 35mm film SLRs.
And in my mind, THAT is where Canon is headed and why it no longer cares as much about the professional STILL photographer.
Nemo