September 02, 2014, 03:42:35 PM

Author Topic: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?  (Read 12257 times)

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:22:20 AM »
They are different sensors. Similar yes. Same no. Please educate me. They both have read noise, possibly some banding, but they are not the same. 21.1MP vs 22.3MP alone means different =-)
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

canon rumors FORUM

Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:22:20 AM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3372
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2012, 11:25:30 AM »
Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2012, 11:32:18 AM »
Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3372
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2012, 11:35:50 AM »
Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.

Canon will do the minimum amount of R&D into a new camera that's needed for customers to buy it. No more, and some times alot less.

Its funny because nikon did the opposite, Don't change much on the d700 but add a new sensor. Bam, d800.

Cgdillan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • HDSLR Cinematographer/Photograper
    • View Profile
    • Stockham Media
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2012, 11:55:04 AM »
Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.

Canon will do the minimum amount of R&D into a new camera that's needed for customers to buy it. No more, and some times alot less.

Its funny because nikon did the opposite, Don't change much on the d700 but add a new sensor. Bam, d800.

I will agree with all of that. Is there any company nowadays that will produce something great and give their all?

And the D700 to D800 = 5D to 5DmkII?
2x 5D mkiii, 7D, 60D, T2i, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Bower 14mm f/2.8, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 24mm L f/1.4 ii, Sigma 35mm ART f/1.4, 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS, 50mm f/1.8 ii, 85mm L f/1.2 ii, 100mm L Macro f/2.8 IS, 135mm L f2.0 75-300mm f/4-5.6, 70-200mm L f/2.8, Sigma 70-200mm OS f/2.8. StockhamMedia.com

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3372
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2012, 12:06:20 PM »
Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.

Canon will do the minimum amount of R&D into a new camera that's needed for customers to buy it. No more, and some times alot less.

Its funny because nikon did the opposite, Don't change much on the d700 but add a new sensor. Bam, d800.

I will agree with all of that. Is there any company nowadays that will produce something great and give their all?

And the D700 to D800 = 5D to 5DmkII?

I Suppose pentax is trying there best and give it all in there new APS-C bodies but no-one is paying attention. A real shame since they used to be such a big player in the SLR market.

d700 ----> d800 = 5Dc ------> 5D2 - Agreed. Very similar.

Its funny because I just ordered a MK3. I skipped over the mk2 series.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8488
    • View Profile
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 12:08:13 PM »
They are different sensors. Similar yes. Same no. Please educate me. They both have read noise, possibly some banding, but they are not the same. 21.1MP vs 22.3MP alone means different =-)
\
One word:
Trolls!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 12:08:13 PM »

TTMartin

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2012, 01:05:39 PM »
Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.
Tom

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2563
    • View Profile
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2012, 01:28:26 PM »
Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.

Even simpler.  Digic IV vs. Digic V.  Different.  :)
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4141
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2012, 01:44:56 PM »
Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.

DXOMark is more than just a Nikon marketing shill. While I am not sure they are properly taking into account Canon's Bias Offset in their tests of Canon sensors (modern bias offsets in Canon DSLR's range from 1024-2048, which would mean their total DR potentially ranges from -1024/-2048 to MaxSaturation, which would affect DR calculations), DXOMark is indeed correct that Canon sensors have higher read noise levels at low ISO. Canon is still in the realm of 20-35 electrons worth of read noise at ISO 100. Sony Exmor sensors have a read noise lower than 4 electrons at ISO 100. That is a significant difference, and a very meaningful difference that ultimately results in the unsightly patterned forms of electronic noise to creep into photos (sometimes right up into the midtones...a travesty!)

The problem with DXOMark is their final results are ultimately based on their "Print DR" tests and a few other test cases wherein they grant "bonus points" if a camera beats certain thresholds in their per-test scores. The use of bonus points completely invalidates the objectivity of a test, regardless of whether bonus points are awarded the same across brands. Bonus points do not reflect actual hardware capabilities...they reflect the subjectivity of the reviewers who design the tests. The D800 is touted, by DXO, as being capable of 14.4 stops of DR, however those results are based on a non-objective test that assumes a very specific approach to downscaling that ignores the physical limitations of hardware and assumes the ability to dither in a manner that *might* improve DR, or the realities of the tools actual photographers use in the real world to process their photos.

The D800 is actually capable of around 13.2 stops of DR at a hardware level (based on the "Screen DR" tests, which ARE objective measurements of the hardware itself, although there may still be "bonus points" awarded at certain thresholds.) Regardless of whether DXO is actually taking Canon's Bias Offset into account correctly or not, 2048 levels are not going to improve Canon's DR results from just under 11 stops to 13.2 stops given how bad their read noise is. Canon sensors do indeed have very high (unacceptably high, IMO) read noise relative to Sony Exmor sensors, and that deficit does indeed have a very real affect on Canon's sensors ability to perform at low ISO. So, while I don't really believe DXOMarks tests and final results are appropriately objective (bonus points are an unwarranted aspect of pure subjectivity that don't belong), I also do not believe it is fair to call them raging Nikon brown-nosers. Its simply that their tests are not as objective as they should be, and allow an undue skew to creep into their results that are making some sensors appear better than they really are, and possibly allow other sensors to appear unduly worse than they really are.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

TTMartin

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2012, 03:22:29 PM »
Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.

DXOMark is more than just a Nikon marketing shill. While I am not sure they are properly taking into account Canon's Bias Offset in their tests of Canon sensors (modern bias offsets in Canon DSLR's range from 1024-2048, which would mean their total DR potentially ranges from -1024/-2048 to MaxSaturation, which would affect DR calculations), DXOMark is indeed correct that Canon sensors have higher read noise levels at low ISO. Canon is still in the realm of 20-35 electrons worth of read noise at ISO 100. Sony Exmor sensors have a read noise lower than 4 electrons at ISO 100. That is a significant difference, and a very meaningful difference that ultimately results in the unsightly patterned forms of electronic noise to creep into photos (sometimes right up into the midtones...a travesty!)

The problem with DXOMark is their final results are ultimately based on their "Print DR" tests and a few other test cases wherein they grant "bonus points" if a camera beats certain thresholds in their per-test scores. The use of bonus points completely invalidates the objectivity of a test, regardless of whether bonus points are awarded the same across brands. Bonus points do not reflect actual hardware capabilities...they reflect the subjectivity of the reviewers who design the tests. The D800 is touted, by DXO, as being capable of 14.4 stops of DR, however those results are based on a non-objective test that assumes a very specific approach to downscaling that ignores the physical limitations of hardware and assumes the ability to dither in a manner that *might* improve DR, or the realities of the tools actual photographers use in the real world to process their photos.

The D800 is actually capable of around 13.2 stops of DR at a hardware level (based on the "Screen DR" tests, which ARE objective measurements of the hardware itself, although there may still be "bonus points" awarded at certain thresholds.) Regardless of whether DXO is actually taking Canon's Bias Offset into account correctly or not, 2048 levels are not going to improve Canon's DR results from just under 11 stops to 13.2 stops given how bad their read noise is. Canon sensors do indeed have very high (unacceptably high, IMO) read noise relative to Sony Exmor sensors, and that deficit does indeed have a very real affect on Canon's sensors ability to perform at low ISO. So, while I don't really believe DXOMarks tests and final results are appropriately objective (bonus points are an unwarranted aspect of pure subjectivity that don't belong), I also do not believe it is fair to call them raging Nikon brown-nosers. Its simply that their tests are not as objective as they should be, and allow an undue skew to creep into their results that are making some sensors appear better than they really are, and possibly allow other sensors to appear unduly worse than they really are.

As for your comments on the superior noise capabilities of Sony sensors and the D800. The 5D MkIII has more accurate ISO, better SNR 18% scores (screen), better Tonal Range (screen), and equal Color Sensitivity (screen). All of these are components of Dynamic Range, and the D800s Dynamic Range is a straight line just like all the other measurements. Yet, the 5D Mk IIIs Dynamic Range gently levels at around 11 EV (screen), just like every other Canon camera using the CR2 file format.

It is my contention that it is NOT that Canon has not improved the Dynamic Range performance since they implemented the CR2 file format, but, that DxOMark is unable to decode the portion of the CR2 file that contains that additional Dynamic Range information. It is further my contention that the ‘pattern noise / banding’ that began when Canon dSLRs started using the CR2 file format, is actually where that additional data is stored / encrypted.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 06:41:29 PM by TTMartin »
Tom

TTMartin

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2012, 04:14:47 PM »
Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.

DXOMark is more than just a Nikon marketing shill. While I am not sure they are properly taking into account Canon's Bias Offset in their tests of Canon sensors (modern bias offsets in Canon DSLR's range from 1024-2048, which would mean their total DR potentially ranges from -1024/-2048 to MaxSaturation, which would affect DR calculations), DXOMark is indeed correct that Canon sensors have higher read noise levels at low ISO. Canon is still in the realm of 20-35 electrons worth of read noise at ISO 100. Sony Exmor sensors have a read noise lower than 4 electrons at ISO 100. That is a significant difference, and a very meaningful difference that ultimately results in the unsightly patterned forms of electronic noise to creep into photos (sometimes right up into the midtones...a travesty!)

The problem with DXOMark is their final results are ultimately based on their "Print DR" tests and a few other test cases wherein they grant "bonus points" if a camera beats certain thresholds in their per-test scores. The use of bonus points completely invalidates the objectivity of a test, regardless of whether bonus points are awarded the same across brands. Bonus points do not reflect actual hardware capabilities...they reflect the subjectivity of the reviewers who design the tests. The D800 is touted, by DXO, as being capable of 14.4 stops of DR, however those results are based on a non-objective test that assumes a very specific approach to downscaling that ignores the physical limitations of hardware and assumes the ability to dither in a manner that *might* improve DR, or the realities of the tools actual photographers use in the real world to process their photos.

The D800 is actually capable of around 13.2 stops of DR at a hardware level (based on the "Screen DR" tests, which ARE objective measurements of the hardware itself, although there may still be "bonus points" awarded at certain thresholds.) Regardless of whether DXO is actually taking Canon's Bias Offset into account correctly or not, 2048 levels are not going to improve Canon's DR results from just under 11 stops to 13.2 stops given how bad their read noise is. Canon sensors do indeed have very high (unacceptably high, IMO) read noise relative to Sony Exmor sensors, and that deficit does indeed have a very real affect on Canon's sensors ability to perform at low ISO. So, while I don't really believe DXOMarks tests and final results are appropriately objective (bonus points are an unwarranted aspect of pure subjectivity that don't belong), I also do not believe it is fair to call them raging Nikon brown-nosers. Its simply that their tests are not as objective as they should be, and allow an undue skew to creep into their results that are making some sensors appear better than they really are, and possibly allow other sensors to appear unduly worse than they really are.

As for your comments on the superior noise capabilities of Sony sensors and the D800. The 5D MkIII has more accurate ISO, better SNR 18% scores (screen), better Tonal Range (screen), and equal Color Sensitivity (screen). All of these are components of Dynamic Range, and the D800s Dynamic Range is a straight line just like all the other measurements. Yet, the 5D Mk IIIs Dynamic Range gently levels at around 11 EV (screen), just like every other Canon camera using the CR2 file format.

It is my contention that it is NOT that Canon has not improved the Dynamic Range performance since they implemented the CR2 file format, but, that DxOMark is unable to decode the portion of the CR2 file that contains that additional Dynamic Range information. It is further my contention that the ‘pattern noise / banding’ that began when Canon dSLRs started using the CR2 file format, is actually where that additional data is stored / encrypted.

Seriously!!! do you honestly believe that almost every single Canon digital camera using the CR2 file format has almost the exact same maximum Dynamic Range (as tested by DxOMark - screen).

Every single Canon camera that DxOMark has tested except the PowerShot G9 and G10 have the same maximum Dynamic Range (screen) of around 11 EV. Canon can produce a 1/1.7” sensor with 11 EV (PowerShot S90 and G11 and above), but, they can’t produce a full frame sensor with more Dynamic Range than that?
That the Canon Digital Rebel (300D) and the Canon 5D Mk III have the same maximum Dynamic Range?
That it’s all related to sensor tech and has nothing to do with the CR2 file format?
So, Canon was able to increase the Dynamic Range of the 1/1.7” sensor used in the G9 and G10, but, they couldn’t increase the Dynamic Range of their APS-C or full frame sensors since 2003?
Give me a break!!

Seriously!!!, all these Canon cameras have basically the same maximum DxOMark Dynamic Range 'measurement' (screen 11.1 EV +/- .35 EV).
1000D
10D
1100D
1D Mk II
1D Mk IIN
1D Mk III
1D Mk IV
1D C
1D S
1D S Mk II
1D S Mk III
20D
300D
30D
350D
400D
40D
450D
500D
50D
550D
5D
5D Mk II
5D Mk III
600D
60D
650D
7D
PowerShot G11
PowerShot G12
PowerShot G1 X
PowerShot S90
PowerShot S95
PowerShot S100

Yeah, it has everything to do with Canon's sensor tech and nothing to do with the CR2 file format. NOT!
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 01:01:42 PM by TTMartin »
Tom

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4141
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2012, 06:36:51 PM »
I too used to look for reasons to believe that DxOMark was doing honest, but, flawed testing. The more I delved into their site and their data the more I came to believe they are just Nikon Marketing Shills.

As for your comments on the superior noise capabilities of Sony sensors and the D800. The 5D MkIII has more accurate ISO, better SNR 18% scores (screen), better Tonal Range (screen), and equal Color Sensitivity (screen). All of these are components of Dynamic Range, and the D800s Dynamic Range is a straight line just like all the other measurements. Yet, the 5D Mk IIIs Dynamic Range gently levels at around 11 EV (screen), just like every other Canon camera using the CR2 file format.

It is my contention that it is NOT that Canon has not improved the Dynamic Range performance since they implemented the CR2 file format, but, that DxOMark is unable to decode the portion of the CR2 file that contains that additional Dynamic Range information. It is further my contention that the ‘pattern noise / banding’ that began when Canon dSLRs started using the CR2 file format, is actually where that additional data is stored / encrypted.

First off, I do not believe that banding and FPN is restricted to the CR2 format...look at some CRW's and you'll see similar problems in older sensors, just to a lesser degree (which is not surprising, given that older cameras had much larger pixel pitches and QE that is only marginally worse than what Canon offers today.) FPN and banding is not even relegated to Canon...its a problem inherent in most digital sensor designs except Exmor!

The reason Canon levels off at low ISO is because their read noise jumps! At ISO 800+, Canon read noise is about the same as Nikons...3 to 4 electrons worth or so per pixel. At ISO 100, Nikon's, thanks to its Sony Exmor sensors, is STILL around 3 to 4 electrons...but Canon's spikes. At ISO 400, Canon's read ISO on the 5D III is @10 e-, at ISO 200 it is @18 e-, and at ISO 100 it is @33 e-. Even if you factor in the bias offset properly, with 33 electrons worth of read noise, your bias adjustment is going to be very small or zero (so that extra 2048 levels worth that Canon reserves as a bias offset is REQUIRED to raise the black point above the noise floor...and even then, its obviously not enough as electronic noise, including pattern noise forms, still exhibit at ISO 100, 200, and 400.) The reason Canon sensors develop a "shoulder" at the low ISO end of the DR scale is because of that read noise curve.

I'm not a Nikon fanboy, I don't care much for their ergonomics nor their menu system. I do not own any Nikon gear, my entire kit is Canon. I don't care much for DXO, to a certain degree they definitely do pander to Nikon, which isn't surprising as Nikon is one of their major sources of funding. The DR curves, though, are not fake or some scam perpetrated by DXO (although I do believe their Print DR results and anything based on them IS a scam). There are a variety of other, independent sources that produce roughly the same DR curves for Canon sensors as well. Read noise is not a joke, and it is, most definitely, a DR killer at low ISO. Once you start using higher ISO settings, the physical nature of light kicks in and produces noise on a level far beyond what the electronics themselves can produce, which is why pretty much all cameras, regardless of brand, perform about the same at ISO 800+. Its not that Canon has done anything particularly special there...they don't have to to be competitive at high ISO.

Seriously!!! do you honestly believe that almost every single Canon digital camera using the CR2 file format has almost the exact same maximum Dynamic Range (as tested by DxOMark - screen).

Every single Canon camera that DxOMark has tested except the PowerShot G9 and G10 have the same maximum Dynamic Range (screen) of around 11 EV. Canon can produce a 1/1.7” sensor with 11 EV (PowerShot S90 and G11 and above), but, they can’t produce a full frame sensor with more Dynamic Range than that?
That the Canon Digital Rebel (D300) and the Canon 5D Mk III have the same maximum Dynamic Range?
That it’s all related to sensor tech and has nothing to do with the CR2 file format?
So, Canon was able to increase the Dynamic Range of the 1/1.7” sensor used in the G9 and G10, but, they couldn’t increase the Dynamic Range of their APS-C or full frame sensors since 2003?
Give me a break!!

Seriously!!!, all these Canon cameras have basically the same maximum DxOMark Dynamic Range 'measurement' (screen 10.9 EV +/- .1 EV < that's point one).
1000D
10D
1100D
1D Mk II
1D Mk IIN
1D Mk III
1D Mk IV
...

Yeah, it has everything to do with Canon's sensor tech and nothing to do with the CR2 file format. NOT!

So long as Canon does not address their low ISO read noise problems, every single Canon camera that uses sensors manufactured by Canon will have roughly the same low ISO DR problem as well. The problem scales across sensor sizes as well, as the smaller your pixel well is (barring any additional mitigating factors like a backlit design) the lower your SNR, and therefor even if you have a lower read noise, on a relative scale its about the same for every Canon sensor produced in the last 4-5 years. The 7D has lower read noise than the 5D II or III, however it has about the same DR curve. Its a denser sensor though, with a considerably lower pixel saturation point. The ratio of read noise between the 7D and 5D III is 8.6/33.1, or around 0.26. The ratio of pixel saturation point between the 7D and 5D III is 0.29. The read noise to saturation ratio for the 7D is 20178/8.6 or 2346, and for the 5D III is 67531/33.1, or 2040 (which partly explains why it edges out the 5D III DR at ISO 100). Similar ratios all around. Canon designs their sensors in a certain way, and they have not been particularly innovative over the last four years or so when it comes to their sensor design (perhaps too confident in their own superiority?? Now caught off guard by the innovation of their competitors??) The fact that the relative results between these two cameras are roughly the same despite being generations apart and different models is not surprising!

And, frankly, Canon needs a kick in the ass to get their own engine of innovation back into gear so they can claw themselves into the modern era of digital camera design.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 06:43:12 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2012, 06:36:51 PM »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4489
    • View Profile
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2012, 06:50:35 PM »
Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.

yep but

haterz gonna hate
and they are immune to logic too
APS-H Fanboy

TTMartin

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2012, 07:05:58 PM »

As for your comments on the superior noise capabilities of Sony sensors and the D800. The 5D MkIII has more accurate ISO, better SNR 18% scores (screen), better Tonal Range (screen), and equal Color Sensitivity (screen). All of these are components of Dynamic Range, and the D800s Dynamic Range is a straight line just like all the other measurements. Yet, the 5D Mk IIIs Dynamic Range gently levels at around 11 EV (screen), just like every other Canon camera using the CR2 file format.

It is my contention that it is NOT that Canon has not improved the Dynamic Range performance since they implemented the CR2 file format, but, that DxOMark is unable to decode the portion of the CR2 file that contains that additional Dynamic Range information. It is further my contention that the ‘pattern noise / banding’ that began when Canon dSLRs started using the CR2 file format, is actually where that additional data is stored / encrypted.

First off, I do not believe that banding and FPN is restricted to the CR2 format...look at some CRW's and you'll see similar problems in older sensors, just to a lesser degree (which is not surprising, given that older cameras had much larger pixel pitches and QE that is only marginally worse than what Canon offers today.) FPN and banding is not even relegated to Canon...its a problem inherent in most digital sensor designs except Exmor!

The reason Canon levels off at low ISO is because their read noise jumps! At ISO 800+, Canon read noise is about the same as Nikons...3 to 4 electrons worth or so per pixel. At ISO 100, Nikon's, thanks to its Sony Exmor sensors, is STILL around 3 to 4 electrons...but Canon's spikes. At ISO 400, Canon's read ISO on the 5D III is @10 e-, at ISO 200 it is @18 e-, and at ISO 100 it is @33 e-. Even if you factor in the bias offset properly, with 33 electrons worth of read noise, your bias adjustment is going to be very small or zero (so that extra 2048 levels worth that Canon reserves as a bias offset is REQUIRED to raise the black point above the noise floor...and even then, its obviously not enough as electronic noise, including pattern noise forms, still exhibit at ISO 100, 200, and 400.) The reason Canon sensors develop a "shoulder" at the low ISO end of the DR scale is because of that read noise curve.

I'm not a Nikon fanboy, I don't care much for their ergonomics nor their menu system. I do not own any Nikon gear, my entire kit is Canon. I don't care much for DXO, to a certain degree they definitely do pander to Nikon, which isn't surprising as Nikon is one of their major sources of funding. The DR curves, though, are not fake or some scam perpetrated by DXO (although I do believe their Print DR results and anything based on them IS a scam). There are a variety of other, independent sources that produce roughly the same DR curves for Canon sensors as well. Read noise is not a joke, and it is, most definitely, a DR killer at low ISO. Once you start using higher ISO settings, the physical nature of light kicks in and produces noise on a level far beyond what the electronics themselves can produce, which is why pretty much all cameras, regardless of brand, perform about the same at ISO 800+. Its not that Canon has done anything particularly special there...they don't have to to be competitive at high ISO.

Seriously!!! do you honestly believe that almost every single Canon digital camera using the CR2 file format has almost the exact same maximum Dynamic Range (as tested by DxOMark - screen).

Every single Canon camera that DxOMark has tested except the PowerShot G9 and G10 have the same maximum Dynamic Range (screen) of around 11 EV. Canon can produce a 1/1.7” sensor with 11 EV (PowerShot S90 and G11 and above), but, they can’t produce a full frame sensor with more Dynamic Range than that?
That the Canon Digital Rebel (300D) and the Canon 5D Mk III have the same maximum Dynamic Range?
That it’s all related to sensor tech and has nothing to do with the CR2 file format?
So, Canon was able to increase the Dynamic Range of the 1/1.7” sensor used in the G9 and G10, but, they couldn’t increase the Dynamic Range of their APS-C or full frame sensors since 2003?
Give me a break!!

Seriously!!!, all these Canon cameras have basically the same maximum DxOMark Dynamic Range 'measurement' (screen 10.9 EV +/- .1 EV < that's point one).
1000D
10D
1100D
1D Mk II
1D Mk IIN
1D Mk III
1D Mk IV
...

Yeah, it has everything to do with Canon's sensor tech and nothing to do with the CR2 file format. NOT!

So long as Canon does not address their low ISO read noise problems, every single Canon camera that uses sensors manufactured by Canon will have roughly the same low ISO DR problem as well. The problem scales across sensor sizes as well, as the smaller your pixel well is (barring any additional mitigating factors like a backlit design) the lower your SNR, and therefor even if you have a lower read noise, on a relative scale its about the same for every Canon sensor produced in the last 4-5 years. The 7D has lower read noise than the 5D II or III, however it has about the same DR curve. Its a denser sensor though, with a considerably lower pixel saturation point. The ratio of read noise between the 7D and 5D III is 8.6/33.1, or around 0.26. The ratio of pixel saturation point between the 7D and 5D III is 0.29. The read noise to saturation ratio for the 7D is 20178/8.6 or 2346, and for the 5D III is 67531/33.1, or 2040 (which partly explains why it edges out the 5D III DR at ISO 100). Similar ratios all around. Canon designs their sensors in a certain way, and they have not been particularly innovative over the last four years or so when it comes to their sensor design (perhaps too confident in their own superiority?? Now caught off guard by the innovation of their competitors??) The fact that the relative results between these two cameras are roughly the same despite being generations apart and different models is not surprising!

And, frankly, Canon needs a kick in the ass to get their own engine of innovation back into gear so they can claw themselves into the modern era of digital camera design.

I'm confused how the 'read noise' is different than the SNR 18% DxOMark measurement.

You say that Canon's 'read noise' is higher than the Nikon's yet the DxOMark SNR 18% measurement is better for the Canon 5D Mk III than for the Nikon D800.

ISO 100 - SNR 18% (screen) – 5D Mk III – 39.7dB
ISO 100 - SNR 18% (screen) – D800 – 38.4dB

ISO 200 - SNR 18% (screen) – 5D Mk III – 37.2dB
ISO 200 - SNR 18% (screen) – D800 – 35.8dB

ISO 400 - SNR 18% (screen) – 5D Mk III – 34.6dB
ISO 400 - SNR 18% (screen) – D800 – 33.3dB

So, if the 5D Mk III has a stronger signal to noise ratio than the Nikon how is it that it has more 'read noise'?

Also, how does your 'read noise' theory explain Canon's ability to increase the Dynamic Range of their 1/1.7 sensor, but, not their larger sensor, with larger photosites?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 08:01:54 PM by TTMartin »
Tom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2012, 07:05:58 PM »