Messages

1021

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

« on: June 04, 2012, 03:59:31 PM »

ehhh what? 

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

Why do you think that Nikon D800's Exmor sensor settled at 36 Mpix?

Wouldn't be a much better solution WRT noise removal a, let's say, 22-24 Mpix sensor? Now I'm thinking that if Nikon would had a 18-24Mpix Exmor then the 5D3 would be in serious trouble, because Exmor's NR hardware correlated with a rather big pixel size would have an amazing output even at high ISOs.

What do you think?

I don't really think there would be that much of a difference, honestly. Pixel size has more to do with QE, or Quantum Efficiency, than with noise. Improvements to QE have the side effect of improving noise characteristics, however outside of the lowest ISO settings (and even then, only to a slightly lesser degree), the very vast bulk of "noise" is photon shot noise, rather than electronic forms of noise. Photon shot noise is a matter of physics, due to the random and otherwise unpredictable nature of light packets (photons.)

All things being equal, once you eliminate most electronic forms of noise (such as is the case with Exmor sensors), more pixels is always a good thing. Higher spatial resolution at that point is always better than lower resolution, regardless of diffraction. At some point you reach a spatial resolution where even the finest details that you could possibly photograph require representation by many pixels (i.e. the smallest aspect of detail requires at lest 10x10 pixels to be represented.) Assuming little or no electronic noise, there is a HUGE benefit to that, because now noise is a SUB-DETAIL level issue, and noise removal is now largely and intrinsically a detail-neutral process.

1022

EOS Bodies / Re: noise / moire pattern 5diii long exposure low iso

« on: June 03, 2012, 04:48:07 PM »

That is not moire, nor is it noise...its posterization. This kind of thing is often the result of image processing and compression, and can be seen frequently in JPEG images less than around 90 quality that have areas of smooth gradient (like a sky.)

I can't be sure what causes that, however I do believe I remember seeing some threads in the past about similar problems with the 5D II as well. I noticed that you have High ISO speed NR enabled... You might want to disable that. You might also want to disable the CA correction. Those are all post-processing effects, and they may be affecting the saved image. I know the Image Quality EXIF value says "RAW", however I am suspicious it might actually be a native-size form of mRAW (a form of YCC encoding, and definitely not an actual RAW format.) To actually apply aberration, peripheral illumination correction, and noise reduction, the output image couldn't be in a true RAW format, and if the data is encoded in some form, then that could be the source of the posterization.

1023

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

« on: June 03, 2012, 02:29:25 PM »

There is some good news out there, though. Have any of you seen the recent series of sample images? I thought for sure someone was going to post the link because they have been there for 36 hours or so, but I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet.

http://www.fotomagazin.de/test_technik/testbilder/detail.php?objectID=6204&class=&thema

If you toggle through the photos at full screen size (not 1:1), it's impossible to tell any difference until beyond ISO 12,800. At 1:1 it is great, no worse than ISO 400 on cameras five-six years ago. The top of the regular ISO range, 51,200, actually does look usable as well--certainly better than 25,600 on the 5D3.

I am so excited because I was still grappling in my mind with the worry that I should have gone with the D4 (I already own complete systems of both Canon and Nikon, so the array of lenses isn't an issue for me).

Hmm, I guess I would disagree that there are imperceptible differences till *after* 12800. At full size, it is readily apparent that there is some pretty heavy duty noise reduction going on at 12800, and its even visible at 3200. Below 3200, the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 is largely imperceptible at 1:1 crop.

When viewing the images scaled down to "fit on screen" (2560x1600 30", a tad less than 1/4th the native image size, so approximately 2x downscaling), there is minimal perceptible difference between ISO 100 and ISO 3200. At ISO 6400, things start to look ever so slightly "muddy" compared to ISO 100...fine details start to dull...although things still appear sharp. Fine detailed highlights in particular start to fade at ISO 6400. At ISO 12800, there is definite "muddying" of fine detail...the difference in the blue feather and thread wheels; the highlights of the silver bristle holder on the brush, the strainer, even fine highlight detail in the crumpled ball of foil; black printing on all of the highlight markers; finer detail in the queen playing card (which isn't really that "fine" overall)...all soften visibly between ISO 100 and 12800.

I would call every ISO setting up through 25600 "usable"...however if you need fine detail, 3200 seems to be the limit (most fine detail, including highlight detail, is preserved up through ISO 3200.) I would call 51200 usable in certain circumstances, however it definitely obliterates finer details. If I wanted to make a recording like the one NASA Astronauts made from the ISS of earth and the auroras at night, I would say that 51200 would do a better job than the Nikon D3 did on their first video, preserving even finer earthly details.

It is a bummer all of these photos are JPEG's though. I would really love to see how the same photos fare with RAW and some more meticulous, manual noise reduction and sharpening. I wonder how much detail could be preserved.

1024

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

« on: June 03, 2012, 02:30:09 AM »

ehhh what? 

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

1025

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

« on: June 03, 2012, 02:22:10 AM »

Your post needs more acronyms 

Awww you're being tough. FWIW he's probably from the Democratic Republic of Acrynomia (DRA).
Famous for some great photographers and excellent BLT's.

PW

Hmm...gonna have to look DRA up. (And get me some BLT's...MMM!)

1026

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

« on: June 03, 2012, 02:19:06 AM »

BSI primarily benefits sensors with small pixel pitch, and the aim is to increase QE (quantum efficiency), which only might affect noise levels as more of a byproduct of its primary job. (BSI basically "flips" the fabricated sensor upside down, putting all the R/C activation and readout wiring behind the photodiode, and therefor out of the light path from the pixel/microlens.) The pixel pitch on the 1D X sensor is relatively very large, and it would benefit little from a BSI design. The D800 does not use a BSI design either...it is still FSI.

The difference between Sony cmos sensors and Canon cmos sensors is that Sony integrates FAR more hardware-level noise reduction technology than Canon. Currently, to my knowledge, Canon sensors only employ CDS, Correlated Double-Sampling...however I believe their patents date back nearly a decade. Sony sensors employ a newer and more effective form of CDS, a form of transistor differential compensation to reduce FPN, integrated column-parallel ADC (a smaller, slower ADC for every column of pixels built right into the sensor...slower ADC's produce less noise of their own, and having one ACD per column also helps reduce FPN), and a few other smaller improvements that I currently can't find the patents for. Its these explicit noise reduction features that make a Sony Exmor sensor produce cleaner pictures than a Canon sensor.

Canon could benefit from a BSI sensor in their compact and bridge cameras, but the improvement to QE in a large sensor with a very large pixel pitch like the 1D X would be very small...maybe 1-2%...definitely not enough to put them in the same league as a Sony Exmor. (It should be noted that Canon uses a gapless "microlens" sensor design...but the pixels themselves still have gaps between them...most of the activate and readout wiring exists within the spaces of the gaps, with minimal intrusion into the light path from a pixel. If this were not the case, as might indeed be the case with a very high density full-frame camera (say 60mp or more, the 2-3 micron pixel pitch range), then a BSI design would probably benefit a full-frame high resolution sensor as much as it benefits a tiny point and shoot sensor.)

Your post needs more acronyms 

Hah! I could probably conjure up a few more for ya... ;P

1027

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

« on: June 01, 2012, 07:10:50 PM »

I had in mind that they could try NOT to put a "last-minute improvement" (significant or not) but to include a "big" improvement which they have behind the closed doors - something like a BSI sensor - they have the technology...

A BSI sensor, if it ever be true, will place Canon at the same starting line as Nikon/Sony, and should be worth of the long bitter waiting period...

BSI primarily benefits sensors with small pixel pitch, and the aim is to increase QE (quantum efficiency), which only might affect noise levels as more of a byproduct of its primary job. (BSI basically "flips" the fabricated sensor upside down, putting all the R/C activation and readout wiring behind the photodiode, and therefor out of the light path from the pixel/microlens.) The pixel pitch on the 1D X sensor is relatively very large, and it would benefit little from a BSI design. The D800 does not use a BSI design either...it is still FSI.

The difference between Sony cmos sensors and Canon cmos sensors is that Sony integrates FAR more hardware-level noise reduction technology than Canon. Currently, to my knowledge, Canon sensors only employ CDS, Correlated Double-Sampling...however I believe their patents date back nearly a decade. Sony sensors employ a newer and more effective form of CDS, a form of transistor differential compensation to reduce FPN, integrated column-parallel ADC (a smaller, slower ADC for every column of pixels built right into the sensor...slower ADC's produce less noise of their own, and having one ACD per column also helps reduce FPN), and a few other smaller improvements that I currently can't find the patents for. Its these explicit noise reduction features that make a Sony Exmor sensor produce cleaner pictures than a Canon sensor.

Canon could benefit from a BSI sensor in their compact and bridge cameras, but the improvement to QE in a large sensor with a very large pixel pitch like the 1D X would be very small...maybe 1-2%...definitely not enough to put them in the same league as a Sony Exmor. (It should be noted that Canon uses a gapless "microlens" sensor design...but the pixels themselves still have gaps between them...most of the activate and readout wiring exists within the spaces of the gaps, with minimal intrusion into the light path from a pixel. If this were not the case, as might indeed be the case with a very high density full-frame camera (say 60mp or more, the 2-3 micron pixel pitch range), then a BSI design would probably benefit a full-frame high resolution sensor as much as it benefits a tiny point and shoot sensor.)

1028

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mk3 - A few complaints

« on: May 27, 2012, 07:52:56 PM »

perhaps i am splitting hairs or maybe in this case eyelashes

first image is dpp preview crop screen shot
second image is acr6.7 crop screen shot

shot at f2.8 1/500 sec ISO 100 AWB
these are 100% crops
obviously 5D mk3 and lens is the 50mm f1.4 canon

These samples are pretty interesting. I think one of the core problems is the color rendition. In terms of sharpness, if you look at that lone strand of hair on her cheek, it actually looks sharper and has a cleaner edge in ACR, the DPP one looks a bit fuzzier and has more aliasing. If you really closely inspect her eye (the one in focus), from a sharpness standpoint they seem to be nearly identical, with DPP having a slight edge on sharpness. I don't think the difference in sharpness actually has to do with sharpness though. I think DPP introduces more microcontrast due to however it is demosaicing, where as ACR seems to use less...and I think the color (which, imo, looks rather off with ACR) seems to do a good job making fine details look less sharp even though at a pixel level the same exact detail is there.

1029

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 650D - sensor size?

« on: May 17, 2012, 08:50:41 PM »

@askiev: Hah! Well, at least I have a nice long life ahead of me, seeing as I want one of those 300ppi puppies in 27" 16:9 format! I guess that would be...what, 7660x4309? Yeah, doubtful I'll see that in the next decade, unless something really spurs along high density screen development. Oh, and did I mention...I want it as an OLED?

My desktop is currently 1980 x 2160 with 2x 24inch screens. Oled would be nice - roll it up and put it in a draw when not using it

Its not about the number of pixels, its about how densely those pixels are packed. I want 300ppi, not just a certain number of pixels. 7660x4309 only comes into the equation because thats the dimensions of a 300ppi 27" screen. Multiple screens increases pixel count but does nothing for pixel density. I am not so much concerned about rolling up my screen and storing it in a drawer, or having it be thin enough to be translucent. I just want it to be AMOLED because those screens are amazingly bright, clear, accurate, dense, and technologically superior to RGB-LED, not to mention they are one of the key reasons 300ppi+ devices exist at all (iPhones with Retina are around 300ppi OLED devices.)

1030

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 650D - sensor size?

« on: May 15, 2012, 08:37:33 PM »

I would actually DIE for a 300ppi screen...

You are not going to die young. That's for sure.
Consumer 5750x3237 22" / 6276x3533 24" monitors will take a while till they hit the shelves. When this happens, you will finally be able to rest in peace.

You can strap 4 screens together pretty much seamlessly which would do that for you

Dear brian you 're missing the whole point of ppi. Read more carefully next time! 

@askiev: Hah! Well, at least I have a nice long life ahead of me, seeing as I want one of those 300ppi puppies in 27" 16:9 format! I guess that would be...what, 7660x4309? Yeah, doubtful I'll see that in the next decade, unless something really spurs along high density screen development. Oh, and did I mention...I want it as an OLED?

1031

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Info? [CR2]

« on: May 15, 2012, 12:12:23 PM »

fingers crossed for 27mp aps-h with 18mp APS-C crop mode

and maybe 8fps in APS-H 10fps in APS-C

That would be great!

Personally, I'd throw my stake in for f/8 AF as well. Canon needs to start competing with their primary competition on every level. Nikon offers multi-point f/8 AF for multiple cameras now, not just their flagship line. And f/8 AF would be intensely useful for bird/BIF photography.

1032

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X shooting birds

« on: May 12, 2012, 08:20:40 PM »

Anyone tried the "taping the pins" trick yet?

No one has a 1D X yet, this article was written by a Canon :Maker of Light", they loaned him equipment.  There is no way he would tape pins or use another brand of TC.

True, however the 5D III has the same AF unit. Its just matched with a different meter, which isn't going to affect f/8 AF with either the pin trick or an off-brand TC.

1033

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X shooting birds

« on: May 12, 2012, 02:00:25 PM »

Apparently, you can also use Kenko DGX teleconverters to achieve the same effect as pin-taping. The IQ and quality of the Kenko TC's seems to be pretty high as well.

1034

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 11, 2012, 11:09:14 PM »

I may have to grab a 1.4x Kenko and try it on my 100-400 until I can afford something along the lines of a 600/4 II.

Just be sure to order the right model (DGX) and read the post people in which people have had problems with them. It seems like they possibly did a silent update that has increased compatibility, so I would recommend ordering one new from Adorama (I bought mine through Amazon but the order was filled by Adorama).

http://www.adorama.com/KN14XPEOSDGX.html
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4977.0

Thanks for the links. I'm definitely going to check that out. I've been thinking about the way AF is rated, and why Canon may not want to rate their new AF system for f/8. Generally speaking, I think AF systems works with more infrared light than visible light, and as such, they are capable of functioning to very low exposure values. I think most of the time Canon AF systems are rated for -1 EV operation, while Nikon's newer AF systems are rated for -2 EV operation. I am curious if the f/8 AF "limitation" is only once you start to approach this limit. Based on your videos, f/8 AF certainly seems to work great when there is a decent amount of light.

I guess one could try to AF in full moonlight (which would be about -2 EV) on the 5D III or 1D X, or maybe a dimly lit room with dimable lights, etc. to see how f/8 AF works at those levels. I believe birds at or just after sunset are probably around 8-10EV, which is probably roughly the same as @bchernicoff's second video (maybe a bit darker), in which case f/8 AF and a Kenko TC with Canon's f/5.6 AF sensor is probably entirely viable for bird photographers.

1035

EOS Bodies / Re: For those interested in 7D2

« on: May 11, 2012, 10:55:20 PM »

Not sure I understand the poll...some of the options seem to duplicate each other.

I work as a professional in another industry, and photography is primarily a hobby. I have been learning the type of photography I love most very heavily this year, though, and I hope to make a side profession out of it in the near future. Currently, the 7D is my primary camera, and I use it very heavily...full day weekends and several times for several hours a day during the week. For what I shoot, the functionality, capabilities, and importantly the crop factor of the 7D serve me extremely well. The only drawback is the IQ, and if I were to ask for just ONE thing in a 7D II, it would be a top-notch APS-C sensor with very low noise at all ISO's and a couple extra stops of ISO (i.e. 25600) with similar performance to the 5D III.

Would I buy one for $2500? No, probably not...that price point would be way out of proportion with what the 7D line offers, particularly vs. the competition and the competition's price point. Would I buy one for $2000 or less, sure. The list price for the 7D was around $1800, which was just about right for back when it was introduced, but it is far too much these days given the IQ. I purchased my 7D for $1300 last year, so introducing its successor for $1200 more (or $700 more than its predecessor's introduction price) is a bit too much to swallow. If you threw in a nice new AF system with at least 41pt/21pt X-type that was similar to the 1D X/5D III 61/41pt AF system, a much better sensor that ALSO offered more resolution (say 24mp, and therefor more cropping power at around f/5.6 or wider), etc. then I'd be much more willing to drop more than $2000 on one.