December 09, 2016, 03:29:12 AM

Author Topic: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]  (Read 73065 times)

simonxu11

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« Reply #210 on: February 21, 2012, 11:42:44 PM »
All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.
Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

Are you freaking kidding me???  LOL....that is hilarious.....

I'd love a link to that discussion.
If you guys can read Chinese  ;)
My Fiance is Chinese. I need to see this if you have a link. I can get some good translations in later if you have  a link.
Sounds epic.
I have deleted the link!

The guy who did this has apologized to all forum members, so if you got the link please don't post to other forums. Thanks
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 12:18:02 AM by simonxu11 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« Reply #210 on: February 21, 2012, 11:42:44 PM »

jwong

  • Guest
Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« Reply #211 on: February 22, 2012, 12:28:51 AM »

The reason why the entire image from 5D2 looks cleaner is because it has a sensor that is 1.6 * 1.6 (= the crop factor) times larger than that of 7D. This is 2.56 times, meaning that it's log2( 2.56 ) = 1.35 stops cleaner. This is the expected difference.

This happens because images have a physical size, and this size is the size of the sensor. The larger sensor captures more light for the same photo. This can't be seen practically because the images are always scaled to display / paper size (= the same physical size), but with different scales. The images made by a sensor as large as a display don't need to be scaled at all (compared to a small FF sensor) and would therefore show stupefyingly low noise levels (for the entire photo). Unfortunately, the lens needs to be proportional in diameter.

Just curious, but what is the tradeoff between size of the photosites versus low light performance?  If I understand the thesis correctly, a higher density wouldn't hurt in uncropped situations but would help for cropping situations, but how about in extremely low light situations.  How does the noise floor for larger photosites compare to smaller photosites?  Signal strength could be thought to be proportional to area (L^2), but how about noise?  Is it something less than than L^2?  If it is, then there is a trade between resolution and low light performance.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]
« Reply #211 on: February 22, 2012, 12:28:51 AM »