December 05, 2016, 09:52:01 AM

Author Topic: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]  (Read 47961 times)

davidpeter

  • Guest
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2011, 05:26:44 PM »
Dudes. The price of the AA filter and the chip itself grows exponential with both size and pixel density. Sooner or later, you have to choose. Haven't you recognised that the bigger sensors always had wider pixel pitch?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2011, 05:26:44 PM »

gmrza

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2011, 07:46:28 PM »
If these specifications are true, I can see the D800 selling well.

Uh, perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but the factory where Nikon makes all of its pro-level DSLRs was seriously impacted by the earthquake earlier in the year. If that factory is responsible for the D800 then there could be a significant delay to it and other D? series cameras.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case and Canon knows it and is pouncing early because of it.

Canon has also been hit badly - I'm not sure how badly.  The company I work for also owns a distribution business, which includes Canon.  When I checked yesterday, there was one (1) lens in stock.  There have not been any xD cameras in stock for a while as well.
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

CJRodgers

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2011, 03:10:50 AM »
If the 5d mkiii had noise improvement would it make using f2.8 better for low light as you can use higher ISO?

torger

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #63 on: April 20, 2011, 03:36:40 AM »
If the 5d mkiii had noise improvement would it make using f2.8 better for low light as you can use higher ISO?

Yes, but at some point there's a limit. There are two parts of noise, the camera's own ("read noise") and noise in light itself (photon shot noise). Most people forget about shot noise and assume that noise at high ISO is just contributed from the camera electronics. Actually, the shot noise is often dominating (I have not found out where the line goes, but perhaps some other reader of this forum knows).

The signal-to-noise ratio of the shot noise reduces the more light you gather, that is lower shutter speeds, larger apertures, larger sensor size. That is you always want to gather as much light as possible, to be able to use as low ISO as possible.

One other factor to know about is that not all f2.8 are the same concerning light transmission, and it is not only about vignetting. There can be quite large differences between lenses, some lenses can transmit a half stop less light than others at the same aperture. For example the 24-70 f/2.8 has a transmission corresponding to ~f/3.4 while a large aperture prime lens set at f/2.8 typically has much better transmission (did not find an example measurement unfortunately, but it can easily be observed in testing).

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2011, 03:39:09 AM »
Quote
5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D
Tuggen didn't say that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's. He said that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's per UNIT AREA of sensor.

Of course the 5D2 outputs cleaner images than 7D since it has a 1.6 ^ 2 times bigger sensor, but each square millimeter has the same noise level

Ok, fine, but s/he is still wrong.  There are two main factors that affect noise - sensor size and pixel size.  Some will argue that pixel size alone determines noise, which is also incorrect.  The total light-gathering capability (i.e. size) of the sensor is the primary factor, but smaller pixels do collect fewer photons per pixel, meaning less signal and a lower SNR. With a strong signal (i.e. good light), photon noise dominates and there is effectively no difference in noise from different size pixels.  But as light levels drop and gain is applied, read noise has a greater contribution.  In that scenario, the smaller pixels of the 7D are going to produce more noise per unit area than the larger pixels of the 5DII.

Okay, but this multitude of factors which affect the noise level is just theory. However, if you have physical evidence that the pixel size alters the noise level of photos, I really want to see it. I mean, physical evidence which meets scientific comparison criteria, not photos like those from IR ( http://www.imaging-resource.com ) where even the photos taken with a D3x and a D3s are not taken in the same light (the RAW images have different brightnesses: about 0.5 stops of difference).

Here is a simple way to do it: rent say a 1D4 and a D3s (or a D3x and a D3s, though they are separated by several years of technological advancements), take photos of the same subject, in the same light, with the same shutter speed, same F-number, and with the same output for the brightness of the photos. The only thing which may vary is the ISO (if the cameras do indeed have different ISO sensibilities); if any other parameter varies then that's like comparing apples and oranges. (Of course, this ignores the difference in the transmissivity of the lenses.)

Here is physical evidence that the pixel size does NOT alter (in practice, not in theory) the noise level of photos even at ISO 12800: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911

Of course, one must really understand that sensor size normalization is necessary because we want to scientifically compare noise per UNIT AREA (not per photo since the sensors have different sizes). Since the 2 cameras have a pixel density per UNIT AREA whose ratio is 2.5, one can just see that pixel density doesn't affect noise per UNIT AREA. Consequently, pixel density is irrelevant in the current technological context.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 04:08:16 AM by NotABunny »

CJRodgers

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2011, 04:35:16 AM »
If the 5d mkiii had noise improvement would it make using f2.8 better for low light as you can use higher ISO?

Yes, but at some point there's a limit. There are two parts of noise, the camera's own ("read noise") and noise in light itself (photon shot noise). Most people forget about shot noise and assume that noise at high ISO is just contributed from the camera electronics. Actually, the shot noise is often dominating (I have not found out where the line goes, but perhaps some other reader of this forum knows).

The signal-to-noise ratio of the shot noise reduces the more light you gather, that is lower shutter speeds, larger apertures, larger sensor size. That is you always want to gather as much light as possible, to be able to use as low ISO as possible.

One other factor to know about is that not all f2.8 are the same concerning light transmission, and it is not only about vignetting. There can be quite large differences between lenses, some lenses can transmit a half stop less light than others at the same aperture. For example the 24-70 f/2.8 has a transmission corresponding to ~f/3.4 while a large aperture prime lens set at f/2.8 typically has much better transmission (did not find an example measurement unfortunately, but it can easily be observed in testing).

Yea i would love to know what the theortical best the 24-70L could be. This would be an ideal lens if it could handle low light just a bit better. So do you think no matter how good the noise handling in the camera, this lens could never be fast enough for really low light.

torger

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #66 on: April 20, 2011, 07:43:28 AM »
Yea i would love to know what the theortical best the 24-70L could be. This would be an ideal lens if it could handle low light just a bit better. So do you think no matter how good the noise handling in the camera, this lens could never be fast enough for really low light.

It depends on what quality you want. For me personally, I often find f/2.8 a bit dark for indoor shooting. On the other hand, when going below f/2, the depth of field gets so short that it often becomes a problem (tricky to get focus right). Being able to go down to f/2 and sometimes below I think is often valuable indoors. If I know I'm going to shoot indoors I prefer a prime 35 or 50mm over a f/2.8 zoom - the wider aperture range gives me more flexibility than the zoom. The 50mm f/1.4 is a real good price/performance option, a bit narrow on APS-C though for being indoors.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #66 on: April 20, 2011, 07:43:28 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19993
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #67 on: April 20, 2011, 10:53:57 AM »
Here is physical evidence that the pixel size does NOT alter (in practice, not in theory) the noise level of photos even at ISO 12800: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911

Do you mean the links to the photos on Juza's website?  Those are 'fact'?  In the long list of websites that purport to provide factual information, the last place I'd go is Ken Rockwell's.  But the second to last place I'd go is Juza's.  He does capture great images - but technical information?  No.  His reviews, at least, are filled with technical inaccuracies.

Here is a simple way to do it: rent say a 1D4 and a D3s (or a D3x and a D3s, though they are separated by several years of technological advancements), take photos of the same subject, in the same light, with the same shutter speed, same F-number, and with the same output for the brightness of the photos. The only thing which may vary is the ISO (if the cameras do indeed have different ISO sensibilities); if any other parameter varies then that's like comparing apples and oranges. (Of course, this ignores the difference in the transmissivity of the lenses.)

Your simple way sounds like exactly what Juza did in your link in the other post:

At http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm there are 2 images (JPEGs converted from RAW) of a scene, taken in the SAME light, one with Canon 1D4, one with Nikon D3s, at ISO 12800....At the end, you'll have two images whose quality is indistinguishable.

That's a simple way to make a practical comparison - but if you're looking for 'physical evidence which meets scientific comparison criteria' then comparing a 1D4 and a D3s is a simple way to make a flawed and meaningless comparison. 

First off, those are JPGs converted from RAW.  Converted how?  Different RAW converters handle different files differently.  Even if the same RAW converter was used (e.g. ACR), different amounts of NR are applied to files from different cameras, and NR is applied even if the NR setting is turned off in the software.  A real analysis would involve starting with the RAW files themselves (Juza doesn't make those available, just the JPGs), and analyzing the raw data itself using IRIS, Rawnalyze, or dcraw. 

Even that's a flawed comparison - are you aware that RAW images are not really the raw data coming off the sensor following some sort of standard ADC?  There is processing that occurs in-camera prior to the RAW file being written.  On att least some Nikon models (D3, D300), a portion of the low-level signal is truncated during ADC, which obvoiusly occurs prior to the RAW file write.  Astrophotographers using Nikons employ a 'mode 3 workaround' (modes 1 and 2 being Off and On) - mode 3 means powering off the camera during the dark frame exposure that follows the long exposure.  Why?  Because in addition to subtracting the dark frame prior to writing the RAW file, the camera also applies a median blur function to the image - something you might not want, but is baked into the RAW file creation in-camera.  It's pretty likely that Canon also applies some processing of the image data in-camera prior to writing the RAW file.  So comparing Canon vs. Nikon for noise in RAW files is really comparing apples and oranges.

Okay, but this multitude of factors which affect the noise level is just theory. However, if you have physical evidence that the pixel size alters the noise level of photos, I really want to see it. I mean, physical evidence which meets scientific comparison criteria...

If you'd like a reasonably cogent, scientifically-based discussion of image sensor noise, try the link below, in particular section 3c.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #68 on: April 20, 2011, 11:33:34 AM »
First off, those are A real analysis would involve starting with the RAW files themselves (Juza doesn't make those available, just the JPGs), and analyzing the raw data itself using IRIS, Rawnalyze, or dcraw. Even that's a flawed comparison

Yes, those images are not ideal, but they're far better than anything else I've seen (and by the way, his interpretation of the photos is opposite - he's comparing noise at pixel level). It would be really great if you could show a better comparison.

But you're ignoring the practical point. Those images are taken at a very high ISO, where one sensor has 2.5 times the pixel density of the other. So, what does it take for all the factors that you list to cause a visible noise difference? ISO 1 million or a sensor with 100 MP? Does that make any practical difference today?

Even the RAW photos from IR taken with the D3x and the D3s, at ISO 12800, show very little noise differences (and only in the shadows, in favor of the newer one, of course), and one has twice the pixel density of the other. So, what does it take for the noise differences to be more than barely visible?

I'm not sure if we are even debating the same subject?! It makes no difference to me (or to anyone who screams at Canon to put only 10 MP on a FF sensor) if the noise differences can only be quantified with statistical means and aren't visible to the naked eye.


Later edit:
Actually, to make this simpler, I admit that a higher pixel density generates nosier images, but I want the people who want Canon to put only 10 MP on a FF sensor, to see what difference that would make: invisible to the human eye (unless you're looking for it).
« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 11:44:53 AM by NotABunny »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19993
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #69 on: April 20, 2011, 11:53:29 AM »
Does that make any practical difference today?

I think the real thing that obviates this discussion is that 'acceptable' (noise, resolution, etc.) is totally subjective.  Some people are perfectly happy with ISO 800 on a digicam.  Others find ISO 400 on a 5D a little too noisy.  Some people will only print up to 8x10", where the downsampling from an 18 MP image will effectively reduce even comparatively high noise levels, whereas others (me, for example) have 24x36" prints on the walls, and want them sharp and detailed with very low noise.  What looks sharp and clean in a 4x6" print can easily fall apart when the print covers a 36-times larger area.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #70 on: April 20, 2011, 01:58:24 PM »
Does that make any practical difference today?

I think the real thing that obviates this discussion is that 'acceptable' (noise, resolution, etc.) is totally subjective.  Some people are perfectly happy with ISO 800 on a digicam.... whereas others (me, for example) have 24x36" prints on the walls, and want them sharp and detailed with very low noise.

You're right, "acceptable" is subjective.


Blabber:

I am not interested in resolution, either way. (Maybe if I had the possibility to use 30 MP, I would start cropping.) I am the kind of guy who shoots (processes and keeps) thousands of photos taken at ISO 3200 (from events). I am the guy who wants 3 stops less noise in his photos, but I have learned that the main cause of the technically bad look of a photo is not noise, it's light, not its amount, but its physical properties, like its spectral power distribution ((lack of) similarity with D65). Actually, I want to be able to shoot at ISO 12800, so that I can use my 70-200 F4 IS at 1 / 200 s.

If you are someone who thinks that noise is what makes your photo look bad from a technical point of view, you should experiment with your camera in broad daylight at ISO 3200 or higher to see what your camera is capable of. Then repeat with indoor lighting, like incandescent, fluorescent or sodium lights, or with dusk light. You should really ask yourself if its the fault of the sensor's noise or if it's the light itself that's just "wrong".

You can see here and here photos taken in normal room light at ISO 3200 (no flash, but a fluorescent tube, some sunlight and lots of luck for catching the right moment when the tube was in its best phase). Or here is one taken in daylight at the entrance of a hangar (this had lots of light, but still ISO 3200).

Does anyone believe that a lower resolution (how low? 2 MP?) would make the photos look better from a technical point of view? It would not. The problem with low light and high ISO is not the noise, is that the sensor can no longer give you dynamic and tonal range. It just can't do it because it has no light to "slice"; in other words, the tonal range quanta is an absolute amount of light, not 1/2^12 of whatever light is available. You can have whatever resolution and noise level you want, if you don't have lucky light, dynamic range, and most importantly tonal range, you just can't get a technically good photo.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 02:25:48 PM by NotABunny »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19993
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #71 on: April 20, 2011, 08:38:42 PM »
In the specific situation where you need longest possible reach higher pixel density is an advantage....There are no disadvantages with higher density.

Ahhhh...well, then...I hope you don't use a dSLR when you need reach, because it sounds like the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS is the perfect camera for that.  14 megapixels packed into in a 5.6x crop factor sensor for a very high pixel density, with a 150mm lens (840mm FF-equivalent), and no disadvantages.  Well, gosh...it's just the perfect camera!  I bet pro wildlife shooters are all selling off their 1DIVs and 600mm f/4L lenses, and buying SX30s, right?  The SX30 even has IS, so the Gitzo and gimbal head can be left at home.  Right?!?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 09:01:14 PM by neuroanatomist »
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

kirillica

  • Guest
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #72 on: April 21, 2011, 04:29:48 AM »
Yes, you are as wrong as in your previouslies posts.
In the specific situation where you need longest possible reach higher pixel density is an advantage. This has nothing to do with APS or FF. The problem is that FF bodies currently have lower pixel density than APS bodies forcing many to buy also an APS body (how often haven't I heard people adding a D300 to their D700 because of this reason only). As soon as FF pixel density reach same level as APS this will no longer be needed.
There are no disadvantages with higher density (the myth of lower high ISO nosie performace has since long been killed even though there are still a few with no knowledge that keep shouthing it) but there are advantages. Therefor this should be a requirement.
ahahaha.... simply read that neuroanatomist wrote and use powershot and mobile phones because they have no disadvantages.  ;D ;D LOL, man, you made my day!

btw, good photographers use appropriate lenses and not a crop-factor to increase a focal length. if you need 800mm - use 800mm L lens with a 5d/1d or whatever you can afford, but promoting a powershot with 150mm in this case... kind a silly, isn't it? :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #72 on: April 21, 2011, 04:29:48 AM »

epsiloneri

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #73 on: April 21, 2011, 04:40:12 AM »
... it sounds like the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS is the perfect camera ...

With 1.3 µm pixels, a 150 mm lens would produce a pixel scale of 1.8 arcsec/pix, meaning a well-sampled image would have a resolution of 3.6 arcsec. This corresponds to an aperture of 28 mm, or an "f-ratio" of 150/28 = 5.4. The SX30 lens is 5.6 at 150mm, not too far.

Thus, if there was plenty of light, and the optics were diffraction limited (we wish, 35x zoom!), then indeed the SX30 could have been perfect.

The problem is of course that 28 mm is a very small aperture, collecting very little light. Scaling everything up by a factor of 4, we would have a 600mm lens (still ~5.6) with a ~110mm aperture and the same scale per 5.2 µm pixel (for a 14 Mpix sensor), but would now collect 4^2 = 16 times as much light, and be 4 times further from the diffraction limit.

We could also scale up everything with 4x except for the pixel pitch, resulting in a 224 Mpix sensor. Then the light gathering capability per pixel would be the same as for the SX30, but the pixel scale would be 0.5 arcsec/pix.

Conclusion: As long as you have sufficiently many photons and do not over-sample the resolution of the image, higher pixel densities result in higher resolution images.

epsiloneri

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2011, 04:48:28 AM »
if you need 800mm - use 800mm L lens with a 5d/1d or whatever you can afford, but promoting a powershot with 150mm in this case... kind a silly, isn't it? :)

If the SX30 can do the job for 2% of the cost, why not? The problem is that it cannot, of course, because its optics is not diffraction limited at 150mm, and the light gathering power is abysmal. That said, if you increased the pixel density of 5D/1D then you would get higher resolution images ("longer reach"), so it does make sense to use a 7D in those cases. Which I think was Tuggen's point.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]
« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2011, 04:48:28 AM »