November 22, 2017, 11:11:50 PM

Author Topic: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS  (Read 7688 times)

dgatwood

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2014, 02:35:59 AM »
One thing that newer camera bodies do have is slightly better noise reduction circuitry on the sensor chip.  That's why you see a slightly better high ISO performance.

Not noise reduction circuitry, so much as less noisy circuitry, AFAIK.  You commonly reduce noise by:

  • Cooling the image sensor to reduce thermal noise (mainly used when doing astrophotography)
  • Moving amplifier circuits closer to the actual detectors—the photo sites, in this case—so you're amplifying less induced noise
  • Using cleaner amplifier circuits that add less noise to the signal
  • Improving the ADC circuitry that converts the analog voltage into a series of bits—adding precision, lowering the noise floor, etc.
  • Increasing the consistency of amplifier circuits and ADCs to avoid banding when multiple ADCs are needed to capture a single frame (for speed reasons)
  • Increasing the effective size of the photo sites on the image sensor by increasing the sensor's dimensions, moving chip features that partially occlude the sensor, etc.

There are probably many other techniques that I'm forgetting.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2014, 02:35:59 AM »

dgatwood

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2014, 03:21:55 AM »
Fundamentally, ISO/noise performance is a factor of two things: Real sensitivity (quantum efficiency) and total sensor area. Assuming you frame your subject the same, the only way to really reduce noise is to use a larger sensor. Pixel size does not really play a role unless your only putting the same number of pixels on the subject (which means you are not necessarily framing the same). With the same number of pixels on subject, then pixel size matters, and larger pixels do better.

That's only true for shot noise.  You're forgetting read noise and thermal noise, neither of which is necessarily tied to sensor size in any way.  For more info, read:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#SNR

Zv

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1765
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2014, 09:48:37 AM »
I think maybe what OP is experiencing is shutter lag. I noticed this on the rebel T2i. I'd see something like a person making a funny expresion and by the time the camera took the picture the moment was gone. I got frustrated and bought a 7D for it's speed but 99% of my shots were in One Shot mode. The 7D has very little shutter lag and as long as you have a decent CF card you'll not be waiting for ages to take your next shot.

I'm not saying buy a 7D but buying anything above the rebel line will show improvements in speed and useablity. With good timing a 6D should suffice. I find the 5D 2 to be just fine for most things. It hasn't let me down yet. I can only imagine the 6D to be even better, especially in low light.

I think investing in a good USM lens will also help you. After that try using back button focus technique to speed things up and to be always ready!

Good luck!
Move along nothing to see here!

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2014, 01:59:47 PM »
Fundamentally, ISO/noise performance is a factor of two things: Real sensitivity (quantum efficiency) and total sensor area. Assuming you frame your subject the same, the only way to really reduce noise is to use a larger sensor. Pixel size does not really play a role unless your only putting the same number of pixels on the subject (which means you are not necessarily framing the same). With the same number of pixels on subject, then pixel size matters, and larger pixels do better.

That's only true for shot noise.  You're forgetting read noise and thermal noise, neither of which is necessarily tied to sensor size in any way.  For more info, read:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#SNR

Well, partially true. Pixel area is died to read noise. Larger pixels, as much as they are capable of carrying a larger charge due to photon strikes, are ALSO prone to experiencing more noise from dark current. This is evident in the actual measurements of Canon sensors. Check out sensorgen.info...you'll notice a very high correlation between pixel size and read noise levels.

There are indeed some other components of read noise, which are primarily caused by high frequency component oscillations, however overall, read noise is a TINY contribution of noise overall. At higher ISO settings, read noise is at its minimums (~3e-), where as photon shot noise is at it's maximums. For a very high ISO setting, say ISO 3200, where the saturation point may be around 1000e-, the photon shot noise is ~32e-. Even though there is some read noise, it's trounced by photon shot noise (by a factor of ten or more, usually).

So I stand by what I said before. At higher ISO settings, noise performance is by far a factor of pixel size, not of read noise. Realize, a read noise of 3e- is the same as the D800 has at ISO 100. It's extremely low, trivial. ISO/noise performance is a factor of pixel size and quantum efficiency, read noise is such a small factor that it doesn't matter.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2014, 02:14:18 PM »
One thing that newer camera bodies do have is slightly better noise reduction circuitry on the sensor chip.  That's why you see a slightly better high ISO performance.

Not noise reduction circuitry, so much as less noisy circuitry, AFAIK.  You commonly reduce noise by:

  • Cooling the image sensor to reduce thermal noise (mainly used when doing astrophotography)
  • Moving amplifier circuits closer to the actual detectors—the photo sites, in this case—so you're amplifying less induced noise
  • Using cleaner amplifier circuits that add less noise to the signal
  • Improving the ADC circuitry that converts the analog voltage into a series of bits—adding precision, lowering the noise floor, etc.
  • Increasing the consistency of amplifier circuits and ADCs to avoid banding when multiple ADCs are needed to capture a single frame (for speed reasons)
  • Increasing the effective size of the photo sites on the image sensor by increasing the sensor's dimensions, moving chip features that partially occlude the sensor, etc.

There are probably many other techniques that I'm forgetting.

There is noise reduction circuitry. It's called CDS, or correlated double sampling. There is usually a CDS unit per column, which samples dark current before an exposure is made, and that sampling is subtracted from the pixel charge as each row is read.

Now, as far as I am aware, Canon's CDS technology hasn't really changed much in a long time. It may have been tweaked, but I don't suspect any of those tweaks would result in a significant improvement in their hardware noise reduction.

As for the ADC units, the reason ADC units introduce noise is because they are high frequency. Canon uses eight channels in most of their modern cameras, and sixteen  in their 1D X. At approximately 5200 to 5600 columns, that means each ADC unit with 8 channels has to process an average of 675 columns of pixels each, or an average total of around 2.5 million pixels each, in a fraction of a second. Canon has low ADC parallelism, and as a result of that low parallelism, each ADC unit must run at a high frequency, which means the frequency of the clock is closer to the frequency of noise in the circuit itself. Additionally, the clock and power supply for the ADC units is right next to them in the DIGIC processors.

Sony Exmor sensors use column-parallel ADC. They moved the ADC onto the sensor die, and hyperparallelized them. That means each ADC unit in an exmor is only responsible for handling a few thousand pixels, instead of a few million pixels, every fraction of a second. That allows a lower frequency to be used, so the frequency of the clock is lower than the frequency of noise in the circuit itself. (Sony also move the clock and power supply themselves off to a remote corner of the Exmor die, which reduces potential thermal sources and, at least according to Sony's paper on the Exmor design, reduces noise from high frequency components within the ADC units themselves.)

So I wouldn't say that moving the ADC unit closer to the detectors really has anything to do with reducing noise. Increasing the parallelism of the ADC units, allowing each one to operate at a lower frequency, has a lot to do with reducing noise. Because the ADC units are on-die with Exmor, it also means that the signal is converted from analog to digital immediately...rather than after transit across a bus and through who knows how many additional electronics. In Exmor, pixels are read, amplified, converted to digital via the ADC, and digital CDS is applied. From that point on, the DIGITAL signal can be moved around anywhere, error-corrected transfer can be used, and the signal, since it is now bits rather than analog charge, can be kept pure and accurate.

Canon actually has their own patent for an on-sensor-die column-parallel ADC. Canon's is called a "dual scale" ADC, in that their hyperparallel ADC units can actually operate at two frequencies. When necessary, they can operate at a lower frequency, which again reduces the amount of noise introduced. I think Canon moving from an off-die, high frequency, low parallelism ADC system to an on-die, low frequency, high parallelism ADC system is the key to them achieving lower noise. I don't think that moving the ADC's closer to the pixels in and of itself really reduces noise much...maybe a little, as it avoids the need to move the signal across a bus to external units, but overall, I think the lower operating frequency is really what will reduce noise.

Canon also has patents for some other interesting technology. Such as a read-time power disconnect, which decouples pixels being read from the power source, which, at least theoretically as I understand it, could potentially eliminate dark current entirely as a contributor of read noise. That would help shadow noise performance a lot when shooting in higher temperatures...such as outdoors, in the sunlight, for birds, wildlife, landscapes, etc. (I know that my 7D can get pretty hot when I'm out in the sun trying to photograph birds or wildlife...which can take a lot of time to get close, get the right angle, etc.)

dgatwood

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2014, 07:29:37 PM »
There is noise reduction circuitry. It's called CDS, or correlated double sampling. There is usually a CDS unit per column, which samples dark current before an exposure is made, and that sampling is subtracted from the pixel charge as each row is read.

Ah.  I assumed that was being done in software rather than hardware.


Sony Exmor sensors use column-parallel ADC. They moved the ADC onto the sensor die, and hyperparallelized them. That means each ADC unit in an exmor is only responsible for handling a few thousand pixels, instead of a few million pixels, every fraction of a second. That allows a lower frequency to be used, so the frequency of the clock is lower than the frequency of noise in the circuit itself.

I knew they'd moved it onto the die.  I didn't know about the parallelization.  That's an interesting approach.  I'd be curious whether the use of lots of ADCs causes banding problems like it does for the 5DmkIII.

That might improve sampling accuracy, but at first glance, I would think that you could achieve similar benefits with oversampling.  Maybe not.


(Sony also move the clock and power supply themselves off to a remote corner of the Exmor die, which reduces potential thermal sources and, at least according to Sony's paper on the Exmor design, reduces noise from high frequency components within the ADC units themselves.)

Hmm.  I guess that makes sense.  With my audio hat on, when I hear someone talk about moving an ADC clock away from the ADC, my mind screams "Aaaah!  The jitter!  It burns!", but I suppose that jitter doesn't affect this use case very much, because the value isn't changing....


So I wouldn't say that moving the ADC unit closer to the detectors really has anything to do with reducing noise.

Well, the more important thing is for the first gain stage to be as close as possible to the detectors.  Any noise bleeding into the signal at that point is going to be massively amplified, so you would want to have as little distance there as possible.  I'd expect the distance from there to the ADC to matter, albeit not nearly as much.


Increasing the parallelism of the ADC units, allowing each one to operate at a lower frequency, has a lot to do with reducing noise. Because the ADC units are on-die with Exmor, it also means that the signal is converted from analog to digital immediately...rather than after transit across a bus and through who knows how many additional electronics.

And I suspect you can probably use less signal amplification, because you don't have to send the analog signal a long distance across a bus.


Canon also has patents for some other interesting technology. Such as a read-time power disconnect, which decouples pixels being read from the power source, which, at least theoretically as I understand it, could potentially eliminate dark current entirely as a contributor of read noise. That would help shadow noise performance a lot when shooting in higher temperatures...such as outdoors, in the sunlight, for birds, wildlife, landscapes, etc. (I know that my 7D can get pretty hot when I'm out in the sun trying to photograph birds or wildlife...which can take a lot of time to get close, get the right angle, etc.)

Are we talking about ringing on the power supply rails here, or something else?

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2014, 10:01:44 PM »
There is noise reduction circuitry. It's called CDS, or correlated double sampling. There is usually a CDS unit per column, which samples dark current before an exposure is made, and that sampling is subtracted from the pixel charge as each row is read.

Ah.  I assumed that was being done in software rather than hardware.

CDS? CDS has to be done in hardware, since it requires sampling the actual dark current moving through the circuit. The closer the sampling is to the time the dark current is subtracted, the more accurate. This means that for shorter exposures, analog CDS is very accurate.

The first Exmor design, the ones used in still photography sensors, used only digital CDS. The later Exmor designs actually use a dual CDS design, one analog CDS stage and one digital CDS stage. The analog stage takes care of most of the dark current noise, and the digital CDS stage takes care of any residual. As far as I know, the dual-CDS Exmors are only used in video camera sensors at the moment, but I suspect that won't remain that way for long. I actually suspect that the A7s sensor uses a dual CDS approach.

Sony Exmor sensors use column-parallel ADC. They moved the ADC onto the sensor die, and hyperparallelized them. That means each ADC unit in an exmor is only responsible for handling a few thousand pixels, instead of a few million pixels, every fraction of a second. That allows a lower frequency to be used, so the frequency of the clock is lower than the frequency of noise in the circuit itself.

I knew they'd moved it onto the die.  I didn't know about the parallelization.  That's an interesting approach.  I'd be curious whether the use of lots of ADCs causes banding problems like it does for the 5DmkIII.

From what I've read about Sony Exmor, since the ADCs are per-column, that allows the potential to tune each ADC to handle column response differential. The responses of each ADC can be normalized to eliminate vertical column banding.

In the case of both the 7D (to a fairly strong degree) and the 5D III (very slightly), there is noticable vertical banding that correlates with each set of readout channels. In the 7D, you can clearly tell that each vertical band is 8 pixels wide, which corresponds with the 8 readout channels. In the 5D III, the effect is very subtle, so I figure Canon must have figured out a way of tuning or otherwise correcting for the readout differential for each ADC channel.

Anyway, there is potential for vertical banding with parallel ADCs, but it can always be tuned out or otherwise corrected for. With lower frequency per-column ADCs it's easier to fine-tune each ADC.

That might improve sampling accuracy, but at first glance, I would think that you could achieve similar benefits with oversampling.  Maybe not.

It sounds like you understand audio signal processing. While I think some aspects of standard signal processing apply, there are a lot of differences with spatial signal processing. I don't know standard audio signal processing all that well, so I can't say how sampling techniques might apply, but my gut (based on what I do know about spatial signal processing) tells me that there really isn't going to be much in the way of multi- or over-sampling the signal. It generally comes out of the sensor "as is", with the exception of what CDS does.

Now, I do know that Sony, Nikon and a few other manufacturers do some things differently than Canon. It's often called "processing", but in general it's simple things. For example, Canon uses a bias offset in their design to handle the sensor bias signal, where as Sony and Nikon clip the bias signal out entirely (cleaner deep shadow noise, but you lose a good chunk of deep shadow.) For normal photography, clipping seems to be better, however for astrophotography (an arena where Canon cameras are almost synonymous with "modded DSLR") a bias offset is a far better approach as it means with more advanced noise removal techniques, you can recover a hell of a lot more signal from DEEP within the read noise. (Since that signal is clipped in Sony and Nikon sensors, its just gone, discarded, not recoverable.)

(Sony also move the clock and power supply themselves off to a remote corner of the Exmor die, which reduces potential thermal sources and, at least according to Sony's paper on the Exmor design, reduces noise from high frequency components within the ADC units themselves.)

Hmm.  I guess that makes sense.  With my audio hat on, when I hear someone talk about moving an ADC clock away from the ADC, my mind screams "Aaaah!  The jitter!  It burns!", but I suppose that jitter doesn't affect this use case very much, because the value isn't changing....

I don't gather, from the patents and papers, that the Exmor design was easy to achieve. When you look at the sensor layout, you can see in the upper left corner there is a clock, PLL, and a couple other components. Then you have the pixel array, with the photodiode, per-pixel amplifier, and the row/column activate and read wiring. Below that along the bottom you have the CP-ADC units, which contains a ramp ADC, the CDS/Pixel register (CDS readout counts negative, pixel readout counts positive, CDS is effectively "automatic"), and then some more electronics to ship the signal off the die. There are a few other components as well, although it's been long enough that I don't remember all of them.

Anyway, however Sony did it, they seem to think that moving the high frequency components off to an isolated area of the die reduced noise and jitter in the ADC units, which is part of the reason the Exmor readout is so clean. Plus, since each ADC is only responsible for reading out a few thousand pixels they can be clocked slower (whatever the image height is, basically, so in a 6000x4000 pixel sensor, each ADC unit is only responsible for 4000 pixels per read, vs. say Canon's which are responsible for 2.5 million pixels per read).

So I wouldn't say that moving the ADC unit closer to the detectors really has anything to do with reducing noise.

Well, the more important thing is for the first gain stage to be as close as possible to the detectors.  Any noise bleeding into the signal at that point is going to be massively amplified, so you would want to have as little distance there as possible.  I'd expect the distance from there to the ADC to matter, albeit not nearly as much.

The gain is applied by the amplifiers, not the ADC. Maybe you have the two mixed up? While I'll admit I haven't read patents for every possible image sensor design, in the case of CMOS sensors, every pixel always has an amplifier. They are built into the readout logic for each and every "pixel". Now, in some sensor designs use a "shared pixel" design where two or more photodiodes will share some readout logic. Usually, in shared pixel designs, there is one amplifier for every two pixels, connected diagonally. This allows for a larger (longer) amplifier, which I guess improves effectiveness or efficiency (this gets into a realm of CMOS transistor design that is a bit beyond my level of understanding...but I believe it falls into the same category as FinFET and Tri-gate technology...a long thin "fin" of a transistor with multiple source and drain connections allows for cleaner, lower noise, lower head electron transfer).

Anyway, yes, all pixels do have an amplifier right in the pixel, although not all pixels have their own amplifier. Some amplifiers are shared among pixels, however sharing allows for more efficient use of die space, meaning larger amplifier transistors and larger photodiodes, so higher efficiency overall.

One caveat, Canon cameras have two amplifiers. There is of course the per-pixel amplifiers. These kick in AT read time, so they amplify the signal in the pixel directly before anything else happens to it, so it's before any additional noise is added to the signal. However, to achieve the highest ISO settings (usually the top two or three), Canon also uses an off-die, downstream secondary amplifier. This secondary amp is also a source of noise in Canon sensors. I don't know why they do this, however I found a rather old article somewhere a couple of years ago that indicated that Canon somehow determined that the downstream amplifier was actually less noisy. I don't know enough about the specifics to be able to say one way or myself for sure...but I guess I'm willing to trust that Canon knows what they are doing.

Increasing the parallelism of the ADC units, allowing each one to operate at a lower frequency, has a lot to do with reducing noise. Because the ADC units are on-die with Exmor, it also means that the signal is converted from analog to digital immediately...rather than after transit across a bus and through who knows how many additional electronics.

And I suspect you can probably use less signal amplification, because you don't have to send the analog signal a long distance across a bus.

I'm not sure in this case. I'm sure that sending the signal over the bus introduces noise, however for the most part, amplification occurs in the pixels before any transfer across a bus. The one exception would be the top two ISO settings in Canon cameras (not the expanded settings, the top two native ISO settings), which uses a downstream amp.

Regardless, I think digital readout is the way of the future. Digital signals can be transmitted with error correction, and at very high speeds, without having to be concerned about analog noise interfering with the signal. With transistor sizes on sensors dropping to around 65nm now, that leaves a TON of room on the die for complex logic. I really hope Canon moves to a fully on-die system soon. I know they already tested the some of their patents, like their dual-scale CP-ADC and some other enhancements on the 120mp APS-H sensor, where they were able to achieve 9.5fps "low noise" readouts. God only knows when they might actually employ the technology in the actual sensors that go into actual consumer products, though.

Canon also has patents for some other interesting technology. Such as a read-time power disconnect, which decouples pixels being read from the power source, which, at least theoretically as I understand it, could potentially eliminate dark current entirely as a contributor of read noise. That would help shadow noise performance a lot when shooting in higher temperatures...such as outdoors, in the sunlight, for birds, wildlife, landscapes, etc. (I know that my 7D can get pretty hot when I'm out in the sun trying to photograph birds or wildlife...which can take a lot of time to get close, get the right angle, etc.)

Are we talking about ringing on the power supply rails here, or something else?

No, it was a fairly specific patent about a specific transistor setup around the pixels and some other logic in the sensor to disconnect the active power supply during readout (I think there was still some power from capacitors...can't remember). I'll see if I can find the patent again. It's interesting, but it was long ago enough now that I honestly don't remember the specifics.

At one point in time, I'd found a gold mine of patents for Canon. Stuff going back to the early 2000's. I probably still have the bookmark in my old Opera 12 bookmarks file. I'll see if I can dig it up, and hopefully the site is still around. Canon has a lot of cool patents, but they don't seem to employ them. At least, not in their stills cameras (I think they have used some of these patents in their video sensors....but that's nothing unusual, it seems everyone in the CMOS sensor game these days implements all the coolest stuff in video sensors. :P).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2014, 10:01:44 PM »

dgatwood

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2014, 04:48:43 AM »
Well, the more important thing is for the first gain stage to be as close as possible to the detectors.  Any noise bleeding into the signal at that point is going to be massively amplified, so you would want to have as little distance there as possible.  I'd expect the distance from there [the pixel preamp] to the ADC to matter, albeit not nearly as much.

The gain is applied by the amplifiers, not the ADC. Maybe you have the two mixed up?

Reread my last sentence with the bracketed clarification.  :)  I was conceding your point that the ADC distance isn't the most critical part.  And if the first gain stage is, in fact, on-die, then the distance to the second gain stage is less critical, though still important if you need those top ISO settings, and the distance from the second gain stage to the ADC is even less important.

That said, when you kick in that secondary gain stage, at least in the 6D, that's when noise changes from consistent to banded and ugly, which suggests to me that either the distance between the gain stages is a significant problem or the secondary gain stage is crap.  But I could be wrong.


One caveat, Canon cameras have two amplifiers. There is of course the per-pixel amplifiers. These kick in AT read time, so they amplify the signal in the pixel directly before anything else happens to it, so it's before any additional noise is added to the signal. However, to achieve the highest ISO settings (usually the top two or three), Canon also uses an off-die, downstream secondary amplifier. This secondary amp is also a source of noise in Canon sensors.

Yeah, I remember reading about that a while back.  My thought was that if they moved the ADCs on-die, the secondary amplifier stage would obviously move along with it, and I'd expect the gain for those top ISO settings to be a lot cleaner, because they wouldn't be amplifying all the induced noise that tends to bleed in whenever you run analog signal lines a significant distance.


I don't know why they do this, however I found a rather old article somewhere a couple of years ago that indicated that Canon somehow determined that the downstream amplifier was actually less noisy.

Than using a single, high-gain amplifier stage?  Quite probably.  I seem to recall that it's usually easier (or at least cheaper) to get clean gain with a couple of low-gain stages than with a single high-gain stage.

I still would expect they'd be better off dropping that second gain stage, moving to an ADC with greater bit depth (so that those weak signals don't get eaten by the digital noise floor), and then emulating that last gain stage by bit shifting or multiplication.  But that's just a gut feeling.  Maybe there's some subtle reason that this doesn't work... like running headlong into the minimum switching voltage of transistors in the ADC or something.  But then again, if that were the case, I'd expect an amplifier circuit to have the same problems, so....  *shrugs*



Canon also has patents for some other interesting technology. Such as a read-time power disconnect, which decouples pixels being read from the power source, which, at least theoretically as I understand it, could potentially eliminate dark current entirely as a contributor of read noise. That would help shadow noise performance a lot when shooting in higher temperatures...such as outdoors, in the sunlight, for birds, wildlife, landscapes, etc. (I know that my 7D can get pretty hot when I'm out in the sun trying to photograph birds or wildlife...which can take a lot of time to get close, get the right angle, etc.)

Are we talking about ringing on the power supply rails here, or something else?

No, it was a fairly specific patent about a specific transistor setup around the pixels and some other logic in the sensor to disconnect the active power supply during readout (I think there was still some power from capacitors...can't remember). I'll see if I can find the patent again. It's interesting, but it was long ago enough now that I honestly don't remember the specifics.

Well, I know alkaline batteries are quite electrically noisy, and I can only assume Lithium ion batteries are probably just as bad.  So given the power source in question, it does make some sense.  Then again, if it is an advantage during readout, would it not also be an advantage while it is collecting light?  Or is that process entirely passive?

And speaking of dark current, when looking through various photos I've taken over the years, I get the distinct impression that the first photo I take at any given location has more noise than subsequent pictures shot in the same location under the same conditions.  Is this my imagination, or is the dark noise compensation being too aggressive and/or failing to clear out minutes of noise accumulation before computing a reference black frame?

greger

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
  • 7D
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2014, 05:07:08 AM »
I think you will love what the 70D will give you that your Rebel cannot. When I upgraded to the 7D from a 40D my17-85 kit lens gained new life. The movies that you'll be able to take will make up for any lack of lowlight performance you may experience. It will serve you well until you can afford to buy Full Frame and by then new models will be out with even better performance than the 6D and 5D lll have now. Good Luck in your decision.
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

tevscale

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2014, 02:03:00 AM »
Thanks again for all the advice.  I've just ordered a 6D + 24-105 kit; once it arrives and I get some time to get used to it I'll post again.

wsmith96

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 861
  • Advancing Amateur
Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2014, 08:10:17 PM »
Thanks again for all the advice.  I've just ordered a 6D + 24-105 kit; once it arrives and I get some time to get used to it I'll post again.

Congrats on the purchase!
What I do today is important because I am exchanging a day of my life for it.
60D | 80D | 10-22 | Rokinon 14 2.8 | 17-55 | 24-105L | 50 1.4 | 60 Macro | 85 1.8 | 100 2.8L Macro | 70-200 2.8L Mk II | 100-400L Mk II | 430EX II x 3 | ST-E2 | 270EX | 1.4 Extender III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2014, 08:10:17 PM »