July 29, 2014, 07:39:47 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 250
1366
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 20, 2013, 09:32:45 PM »
Same thing would go for that Nat. Geo. photo of the young afghan woman with those stunningly piercing green eyes:

This is considered one of the best photos of the last 20-30 years. It is an emotionally evocative photo. It is also a technically superior photo as well! It has EXCELLENT image quality...perfect focus on her eyes, creamy boke, great color, etc.

I don't think it matters whether a photo has good IQ or bad IQ, and neither do I think that a world renown great photo "has" to have crappy IQ. The key is simply that it has emotional impact. Any photo, of anything, can have emotional impact, doesn't matter if it is of a person, people, animals, landscapes, still life, whatever.

Whoa, I have been keen to stay out of this thread, but I can't. Anybody that has seen actual prints of not only this image of Steve McCurry's but many others of his, knows they are far from technically superior, there is even an expression "Steve McCurry sharp" that refers to compelling images that are slightly soft or out of focus.

Don't get me wrong, the guy is an amazing photographer, though his modern output and techniques are questioned by many, but the strength of his main body of work is not technique (and that shows in his prints), it is his connectivity and very strong use of colour.

Don't forget he shot most of his famous work, including "the Afghan Girl", on 64 iso Kodachrome, the fastest that went to was 200 iso! Oh and depending on who you believe, I shot shed loads of it, had around 7-8 usable stops of dynamic range. You could probably buy the film Nikon and the 50mm lens he used for most of his work for $150. Mind you, they are comments for a different thread  ;)

I have the national geographic with that photo somewhere. It certainly never looked out of focus, slightly or otherwise, to me. If he enlarged the photo to multi-foot dimensions, well, the photo was taken, what, almost 30 years ago? I think that was even before the advent of AF, I believe.

Also, when I say the photo was superior technically, with great focus, boke, color, etc. I was speaking relatively. RELATIVE to the tank photo, the Afgan Girl is indeed technically superior. Given the technology of the time, ca. 1984 film and manual focus, it's a damn good photo, both technically and emotionally. Is it as good as you could get today, with something like the 1D X with all it's AF autofocus impressiveness? Probably not, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still a technically superior photo compared to a majority of photos most people would consider "the greatest photos of all time", which, as the OP already stated, are often of the poorest technical quality, grainy, blurry, poor color, etc.

1367
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 20, 2013, 09:25:59 PM »
Ok, now knowing the things discussed in this thread...
Lets revisit http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18061.0


Great talent trumps good equipment, yet that in no way diminishes the power of good equipment in the hands of great talent.

The notion that a great photographer can create the "Sistine Chapel" with a pinhole camera and expired film is a fallacy. A great photographer benefits, arguably even more greatly than others, from great equipment. A pinhole camera exposed on expired film can make a great, emotionally evocative photograph, but the chances that a 1D X with thousands of dollars worth of top shelf glass will create even more emotionally evocative photography on a more consistent and regular basis is still undeniable.


But what if this great talent used the 1Dx, pumped the crap out of the ISO, smudged the glass up so that the image is so messed up, but still provides the most "emotionally evoquitive" picture as opposed a very clean and sharp picture. And still, you could've used a
sh!tty $50 P&S to do the same picture.

You're going to say its equipment still?


I never said it was equipment. Please read my post again.

1368
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent
« on: December 20, 2013, 09:23:05 PM »
Some of this patent seems to overlap what Emil Martinec came up with back in 2008:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28750076


yeah I thought of that as soon as I first saw this patent


Seems similar, at least if I've read the patent correctly.

1369
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 20, 2013, 06:54:10 PM »
Ok, now knowing the things discussed in this thread...
Lets revisit http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18061.0


Great talent trumps good equipment, yet that in no way diminishes the power of good equipment in the hands of great talent.

The notion that a great photographer can create the "Sistine Chapel" with a pinhole camera and expired film is a fallacy. A great photographer benefits, arguably even more greatly than others, from great equipment. A pinhole camera exposed on expired film can make a great, emotionally evocative photograph, but the chances that a 1D X with thousands of dollars worth of top shelf glass will create even more emotionally evocative photography on a more consistent and regular basis is still undeniable.

1370
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:49:54 PM »

Thank you for the explanation! I got the gist of it, but I still don't understand the basics: how is it possible to read the same pixel twice simultaneously? I thought you can't eat your cake and have it too :)? I mean, wouldn't the signal become weaker if you split it?

The patent looks like a ramp ADC - they don't take the electrons out to count them, but use a voltage comparison. The unknown pile of e- on the right, you measure how long you have to add charge on the left side until both are equal(or the known one grows larger then the unknown). In theory nothing stops you from using multiple heaps that grow at different rates. You just have to keep crosstalk, external influences and such under control.

Yeah, that sounds very much like what they are describing. Here is the actual abstract from the patent:

ABSTRACT

An image sensor comprises plural sets of a unit pixel outputting a pixel signal based on an electric charge generated through photoelectric conversion and a conversion unit converting the pixel signal into a digital signal. A reference signal source generates reference signals and supplies the generated reference signals to the conversion unit through signal lines. The conversion unit of each set comprises a comparator which compares the level of the reference signal with that of the pixel signal, a count circuit which counts a clock based on the comparison processing, a selection circuit which selects among the signal lines, a signal line to be selectively connected to the input of the comparator, and a switch which selectively connects the selected signal line to the input of the comparator, and selectively connects a load to an unselected one of the signal lines.


I am still not entirely certain I understand what the purpose of this is. I read embodiments three and four, and the summary in the last section of each always refers to increasing the accuracy of ADC. I am interpreting that to mean less noise, but I am not sure how much less noise. Here is the summary from embodiment thre:

[0086] As described above, by selecting, from two reference signals which have been offset from each other and have different voltage ramp gradients, a reference signal to be compared with a significant signal (not sure what this significant signal is -jrista), it is possible to shorten the conversion period as compared with a case in which one reference signal is used to perform A/D conversion. At this time, the load of the reference signal line is used for comparison processing, and the load variations of the reference signal line depending on the pixel signal are suppressed, thereby enabling to prevent the accuracy of A/D conversion from decreasing.

From what I understand about Canon noise in their current setup, the high frequency ADC in their DIGIC chips is a significant source of banding noise. I've assumed that this patent, by increasing the accuracy if ADC, would reduce that noise, thereby allowing a gain in DR. Based on what I read in embodiment three, I am not really sure whether that is the case or not.

I hadn't read much farther than that before, but reading into embodiments five, six, and seven, they start talking about inverting one of the reference signals during reset read which is applied to the reference signal during normal read. That sounds especially like what Sony does with Exmor for Digital CDS...but they don't actually call it that. They also state that an analog CDS is still supported, but not necessarily required.

1371
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:25:25 PM »
I wouldn't call it HDR. HDR is a very misused term as it is. In its proper form, a High Dynamic Range image is an image with an EXCESSIVBLY HIGH dynamic range, stored as 32-bit floating point numbers with extremely fine precision and a dynamic range that could potentially equal thousands of stops (i.e. it can represent numbers from a couple billion down to billionths.)

HDR as it is commonly (mis)used simply refers to the mapping of tones into a limited dynamic range from a source file that might have slightly higher dynamic range. What Canon is doing isn't exactly HDR...it is a specialized read process that will allow them to better utilize the dynamic range they already have access to, but which is otherwise being diminished by read noise.

I didn't mean to call this process HDR in the strict sense - you're right, it is a misused term.

Regardless of the exact meaning, I was thinking of the common understanding of HDR along the lines of:
...HDR compensates for this loss of detail by capturing multiple photographs at different exposure levels and combining them to produce a photograph representative of a broader tonal range... (wikipedia)

I could be wrong, but isn't that the same idea? Creating the equivalent of two different exposures by applying two different gain levels and then combining them. The difference is pushing it onto the sensor rather than post-processing in software, so there is no need to take multiple shots at different exposure.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't know exactly how they get the two reference signals, but in the end, the gain isn't huge. Canon sensors currently get around 11.5 stops on average. This could allow them to get ~13.5 stops on average unless they move to an ADC with a higher bit depth. If they do move beyond 14-bit ADC, then it would definitely be a lot more line hardware HDR (imagine 15.5 stops or around there for a 16-bit ADC.)

1372
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent
« on: December 20, 2013, 03:30:19 PM »
They aren't splitting it. I am not 100% exactly certain what they are doing, but from what I do understand, when a pixel is read, it is amplified twice, and the results of those different amplifications are transferred to the CP-ADC units simultaneously (on different channels). Same source pixel, two separate but full power signals, which are then blended together at conversion time. It is basically the same thing ML did, only with the appropriate dedicated hardware fabricated right into the sensor to do it right.

I assume there is something clever somewhere in the implementation. HDR has been around for a while, even before ML. It's hard to believe nobody thought earlier about pushing the process into the sensor instead of software.

I wouldn't call it HDR. HDR is a very misused term as it is. In its proper form, a High Dynamic Range image is an image with an EXCESSIVBLY HIGH dynamic range, stored as 32-bit floating point numbers with extremely fine precision and a dynamic range that could potentially equal thousands of stops (i.e. it can represent numbers from a couple billion down to billionths.)

HDR as it is commonly (mis)used simply refers to the mapping of tones into a limited dynamic range from a source file that might have slightly higher dynamic range. What Canon is doing isn't exactly HDR...it is a specialized read process that will allow them to better utilize the dynamic range they already have access to, but which is otherwise being diminished by read noise.

1373
Lenses / Re: teleconverters and resolving power
« on: December 20, 2013, 03:18:15 PM »
Remember... it's a crop camera. I tried the same test with a 5D2, the 70-200, and the teleconverters and found that both the 1.4X and the 2X increased resolving power....

Ah, sorry. I guess I misunderstood that. The wording "past experience" somehow made me think you were testing with FF.

I think that over Christmas I will try my friend's 5D2 and my 60D with and without teleconverters on my bird target and see what happens... I will try them both at low ISO and at high ISO..

I would really love to test a 1D X in comparison to a 7D. The intriguing thing about such a test is that both cameras have the same megapixel count...so scaling is in a convenient ratio. Maybe next year, when I have some money to rent a 1D X, I'll give it a try.

The Sigma 120-400 is a really soft lens in comparison to the 70-200. It doesn't surprise me in the least that it does not play well with teleconverters... my experience has been that unless you have a sharp lens, to ignore them.

True. If the Sigma is that soft, it is probably best to avoid TCs. Even the EF 100-400, even though it has relatively good IQ, doesn't play well with TCs.

1374
EOS Bodies / Re: Do you have a 4K display?
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:50:15 PM »
If it sells cameras, it will come.  There is a lot of discussion about the visual benefits, but that's not relevant, profit is what drives new technology.

But profits are only attained when the consumer sees a benefit. Given that the primary talk about 4k screens among photographers is the visual benefits...finer detail, less ability to "pixel peep", higher microcontrast, 10-bit support/wider gamut, etc. Those are all the reasons photographers would buy a 4k screen. Without the visual benefit, there are no profits. ;)

1375
Photography Technique / Re: What makes a photo great?
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:41:12 PM »
We love CR, and we're here because it's fun to discuss and debate new technology, engage and speculate upon rumors, share techniques and advice...among so many other great reasons. That said, I feel like someone needs to lower the boom every once in a while to keep things in check. MTF charts, megapixels, noise and JPEG artifacts have their place!

Let's not forget what an iconic photo looks like. The reality is most of them are soft and grainy; and any one of us would be blessed to bear witness and capture such a moment just once in our lifetime.

The last thing I want in my portfolio is a bunch of perfectly-lit, ultra-sharp, mural-sized, noise-free crappy photos. I'd be happy with a single epic image that I can be proud to have captured. That search continues.

Soapbox dismount!


I think the critical component you are describing, which literally has nothing to do with image quality, is emotional impact. Regardless of what emotions the images you shared may evoke from each individual (which are bound to be different from individual to individual), the key factor is their emotional impact. Every great photo throughout history, the ones that stand the test of time, damn the IQ, are the ones that pack a hell of a lot of emotional impact.

The man who stopped a train of tanks...doesn't matter what emotion that evokes, it is still an emotionally evocative photo. Same thing would go for that Nat. Geo. photo of the young afghan woman with those stunningly piercing green eyes:



This is considered one of the best photos of the last 20-30 years. It is an emotionally evocative photo. It is also a technically superior photo as well! It has EXCELLENT image quality...perfect focus on her eyes, creamy boke, great color, etc.

I don't think it matters whether a photo has good IQ or bad IQ, and neither do I think that a world renown great photo "has" to have crappy IQ. The key is simply that it has emotional impact. Any photo, of anything, can have emotional impact, doesn't matter if it is of a person, people, animals, landscapes, still life, whatever.

1376
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:31:50 PM »
I keep wondering what is going to happen in the future with dual-pixel technology. They have the ability to read both sides of the pixel seperately, I wonder how much work it would be to set the two sides to different ISO values, read them both, and combine the values for greatly expanded DR.

This would obviously require more computing power than just reading the sensor would, but comments out of Canon about the greater computational needs of future cameras ties in with this... I am really curious to see what happens with the 7D2..... It should be dual-pixel and dual processor (Digic6 or even 6+????) so it will be able to do a lot more computing than a 70D. The next year or so could be interesting.

They wouldn't need to bother with the dual-pixel approach with this patent. They simply read "the pixel" (regardless of whether it is a single photodiode, or two/four binned, whatever) with two different gain levels (different ISO settings, done simultaneously on different signals). This patent offers a much better way to solve the problem without resorting to "hackish" approaches like what ML did, or like what you suggest with reading one half the pixel at one ISO and the other half at another ISO (which wouldn't be nearly as good, since each half pixel is only getting half the light, so the half-reads would already be at a disadvantage large enough to completely eliminate any gains you might make with the dual-read process in the first place.)

Even better than simply reading half pixels at different ISO settings, this patent reads each pixel twice simultanesously at different gain levels, while also bringing the ADC on-die and column-parallelizing them, allowing them to run at a lower frequency, thus reducing their potential to add downstream noise. With column-parallel ADC, they could do what Sony Exmor does...per-column read tuning to eliminate vertical banding. It also brings in the benefit of shipping image data off the sensor in an error-correctable digital form, eliminating the chance that the data picks up even further noise as it travels along a high frequency bus and through a high frequency DIGIC chip. This patent would single-handedly solve a LOT of Canon's noise problems.

The only real difference between Canon's Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent and Exmor's is that Exmor uses digital CDS and digital amplification (basically, it is an entirely digital pipeline)...I see no mention of Canon's patent referring to digital data processing on-die. There are theoretically pros and cons to both digital and analog readout, so only time will tell (assuming Canon actually IMPLEMENTS this design sometime soon) whether Canon's approach produces results that are as good as Exmor or not. Sometimes it is easier, and more accurate/precise, to apply certain kinds of processing and filtering on an analog signal rather than digital bits.

Thank you for the explanation! I got the gist of it, but I still don't understand the basics: how is it possible to read the same pixel twice simultaneously? I thought you can't eat your cake and have it too :)? I mean, wouldn't the signal become weaker if you split it?

They aren't splitting it. I am not 100% exactly certain what they are doing, but from what I do understand, when a pixel is read, it is amplified twice, and the results of those different amplifications are transferred to the CP-ADC units simultaneously (on different channels). Same source pixel, two separate but full power signals, which are then blended together at conversion time. It is basically the same thing ML did, only with the appropriate dedicated hardware fabricated right into the sensor to do it right.

1377
Lenses / Re: teleconverters and resolving power
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:26:23 PM »
@Don: Before I comment any further...is it safe to assume that you maintained subject framing for each and every photo, or did you keep the camera at the same distance and only change the focal length?

The reason I ask is, if you normalize subject framing, then in every single case, fewer optical elements will be better. That does not, realistically, demonstrate the real-world use case for a teleconverter, though...which is to increase focal length to get you more reach from the same camera distance (and, therefor, enlarge the subject relative to the frame).

I am not saying your analysis is wrong...just that if you maintained framing, it doesn't actually demonstrate the strengths of a TC in the situations they were intended to be used. It would be very cool if you could re-do the test, but keep the camera at the same physical location, and scale up the crops to the same dimensions as the images with the TC's attached. (Would be best, in that case, to start with the subject filling the frame at the longest possible focal length, then work backwards to the shortest focal length from there, and crop to maintain framing after the fact.)

Everything was shot from a tripod 25 feet away from the target. The camera did not move.

Hmm. I'm rather surprised by the results, then. I'd have expected the 1.4x to put more pixels on subject, and produce better normalized results in pretty much every case. With the 2x, there is bound to be more degradation, so tough to predict.

I understand the SX50...it's pixel pitch is incredibly small, and with such a small sensor, creating lenses with high resolving power is a lot easier. So the fact that it resolves more detail with digital zoom (cropping) than the 70-200 @ 200mm isn't really all that surprising.

1378
Lenses / Re: teleconverters and resolving power
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:10:26 PM »
@Don: Before I comment any further...is it safe to assume that you maintained subject framing for each and every photo, or did you keep the camera at the same distance and only change the focal length?

The reason I ask is, if you normalize subject framing, then in every single case, fewer optical elements will be better. That does not, realistically, demonstrate the real-world use case for a teleconverter, though...which is to increase focal length to get you more reach from the same camera distance (and, therefor, enlarge the subject relative to the frame).

I am not saying your analysis is wrong...just that if you maintained framing, it doesn't actually demonstrate the strengths of a TC in the situations they were intended to be used. It would be very cool if you could re-do the test, but keep the camera at the same physical location, and scale up the crops to the same dimensions as the images with the TC's attached. (Would be best, in that case, to start with the subject filling the frame at the longest possible focal length, then work backwards to the shortest focal length from there, and crop to maintain framing after the fact.)

1379
EOS Bodies / Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2013, 01:03:06 PM »
Why wouldn't we also expect ISO performance equivalent to the 6D (which is 3 stops or more better than my current 7D)?  With fast shutter speeds needed for BIF, I'd love to be able to crank up the ISO, rather than close down the depth of field.

Why not expect the sensor to have 2.56x more surface area?  That would give you the big ISO improvement you're asking about...  A 180nm process might get you part of the way there with a Canon APS-C sensor.  Until then, the great AF / fast fps / high ISO choice is the 1D X.
OK, thanks.  I'm not a physicist, so I really don't know the ins and outs of sensor manufacturing.  If I read this correctly, it's the sensor size that's causing the ISO performance of the 6D?  The current 7D has about 63% of the sensor size of the 6D, doesn't it?  Why 2.56x to get comparable?

Just trying to learn here.

A FF sensor is 1.6 times as high and 1.6 times as wide as an APSC sensor... the area is 1.6X1.6 times larger, or 2.56... the area of an APS-C sensor is 39% of the area of a FF sensor, not 63%.

A good analogy is to think of a pixel as a rain guage. Both rain gauges have the same size bucket, but the FF rain guage has a funnel with 2.56 times the area of the APS-C rain gauge. If it is raining hard (bright light) then the size of the funnel really does not matter much as both of them fill up really fast. The difference comes when there is light rain (poor light/high ISO) where the bucket does not fill. In this case the FF rain gauge collects enough water for a decent reading while with the APS-C rain gauge you have to guess. If the FF gauge gives you the readings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 the APSC rain gauge would give you 2, 5, 8, and 10..

Because the APS-C rain gauge is smaller, you can fit a lot more of them in the field. You will get 2.56 times as many collection points as with the FF rain gauge and this will allow you a denser sampling of the rain pattern.

So that sums up the difference between the two. You get  denser sampling with APS-C, but at the cost of the samples being less accurate.

Great analogy! Love it!

1380
EOS Bodies / Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2013, 01:02:41 PM »
To  be technically accurate, the noise is higher on APS-C because the gain is higher (must be in order to produce the same ADU values after ADC). Think of an APS-C pixel like a FF pixel used at a higher ISO. On average, ISO 100 on APS-C is about the same as ISO 250-400 on FF from a noise standpoint. This is because the smaller pixel area means the photodiode area is smaller, and charge capacity in a photodiode is primarily based on area.

Jon, I always appreciate your answers and your patience with those of us less technologically inclined. It's frankly a sharp contrast to some other people here who prefer to serve up every answer with sarcasm.

I do wonder though, based on your example of ISO 100 noise on APS-C being comparable to ISO 250-400 on full frame, what do you think is a reasonable high-end for a 7DII? ISO 6400 is pretty darn impressive on the 5DIII and I would be very pleased if ISO 1600 on the 7D could match that, which is seems like it should be possible based on your comments.

What are you looking for in ISO performance from a 7DII?

I guess there are two factors to ISO settings, for different ranges of the ISO "spectrum", so to say. At low ISO, read noise is the critical factor. The lower your read noise, the greater your dynamic range. By reducing read noise from levels that used to be pretty normal to the industry (20-40 e-, depending on pixel size), Sony Exmor (which has a relatively constant 3- read noise) was able to properly utilize the dynamic range allowed by 14-bit ADC. This affects ISO settings 100-400.

For the other end of the range, high ISO, read noise is a factor, however more important than read noise is pixel quantum efficiency. Thanks to very efficient CDS, or correlated double sampling, Canon already has very low read noise at high ISO (from around 3.5e- to less than 1.7e- at the highest native settings), so their sensor performance is largely physics bound. Increasing quantum efficiency is the only real way to reduce noise at high ISO. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Assuming we want a "true" one full stop improvement in high ISO performance (i.e. a reduction in apparent noise by one full stop) without increasing pixel size, then quantum efficiency would need to be doubled (twice the real sensitivity, twice the rate of conversion of photons to charge). That means a Q.E. of 82%. In Canon's best sensors recently, like the 6D, they have achieved Q.E. around 50-51%. The best Q.E. for room temperature CIS these days is around 60-65%.

If we figure Canon makes some amazing strides in their sensor fabrication technology, and are able to achieve 65% Q.E., that is about a half stop improvement in high ISO performance. I don't believe Canon can reach 82% Q.E. without taking a more radical approach. The only time I've read of such a real sensitivity being achieved is with extreme cooling, usually a dual-stage TEC (peltier) cooling system with a passive or passive/active cooling system for that (i.e. a heat pipe setup to a heatsink which is further cooled by a fan.) A lot of astrophotography CCD cameras use dual-stage TEC cooling with a fan (and the good ones, the FF sensor ones, cost about $4000-6000!)

There was mention, a while ago back near the beginning of the year, that Canon might try to employ some kind of active cooling technology. A simple fan probably wouldn't do much...all it would really serve to do is cycle the air locked inside the camera body, so eventually the ambient temperature is going to increase and the benefit of having a fan would be largely negated. Some kind of peltier, however, along with proper heat venting or other form of expelling heat to the exterior of the camera body, could reduce sensor temperature by a lot, thereby reducing dark current and increasing Q.E. I don't know how much thermoelectric cooling would be practical. You have a delicate balance of power usage (peltier's suck power like it was candy) and cooling capacity. Canon would need a battery capable of holding a much greater charge, and one capable of providing a higher continuous voltage. Practically speaking, I am not sure the digital photography world is ready for thermoelectric cooling yet.

So, at best, absolute best, I suspect we will see a 1/3 to 1/2 stop improvement in high ISO performance in the 7D II, assuming the pixel count (and pixel size) stay the same. If pixel count increases, pixel size must decrease, so I suspect we will see a 1/3 stop improvement at most, if that (assuming Canon actually achieves 65% Q.E.) If Canon increases the pixel size, then that will implicitly result in larger area. A megapixel reduction along with an increase in Q.E. could result in better high ISO performance. I don't really expect that to occur...the trend is, has always been, and will likely always be towards higher and higher megapixel count.

So, assuming Canon makes some modest gains in Q.E., increases megapixel count to around 22 megapixels (give or take 2mp), does NOT use any kind of thermoelectric cooling...I don't foresee any real improvement in high ISO at all. I see it staying roughly the same, which is saying something at the very least if megapixel count does indeed increase to 24mp.



As a side note, since it would take an increase to 82% Q.E. for the 7D II to gain a true ONE stop improvement in high ISO performance, we can never hope to see a true two stop improvement. The 7D II, nor any successor, nor any new pro-grade APS-C line of cameras from Canon or anyone else, will ever perform as well as a FF sensor that has larger pixels. So long as the average pixel size for FF sensors remains larger than the average pixel size for APS-C sensors, FF sensors will always perform better at high ISO. Nothing we can do about that...its just physics.

Additionally, on a composition and size-normal basis (i.e. when scaling the output images of FF and APS-C sensors to the same size...equivalence), FF sensors will always perform better than APS-C sensors, no matter what the pixel size. Assuming you frame your scene identically with a FF camera and an APS-C camera, the FF camera is going to gather more total light, period. Since you can usually pack more larger pixels into the area of a FF frame than an APS-C frame, the FF image will always be sharper and have less noise than the APS-C. Even if the FF sensor had pixels the same size as the APS-C, or even smaller than the APS-C, when normalizing the results the FF sensor will always do better. (One possible case where APS-C might achieve parity with FF is if, at ISO 100, the APS-C sensor had a stop or two better dynamic range...then, you might get similar results, but I doubt APS-C would ever produce a better result than FF.)

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 250